ALTMARCK STOPPAGE

Greymouth Evening Star, 21 February 1940, Page 7

ALTMARCK STOPPAGE

U.S.A. AND BALKAN APPROVAL

IMPRESSED BY DARING ACTION

[BY CABLE, —PBESB ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.]

LONDON, February 20. Britain’s action in removing the prisoners from the Altmarck has apparently captured the imagination of observers in many neutral nations. . . A Belgrade message says the incident has delighted the peoples of the Danube countries and of the Balkans. Britons were stopped and congratulated in the streets of Belgrade. A spokesman of the American State Department said the German claim that Britain had violated neutrality in taking the captured steamer Dusseldorf with prisoners on board through the Panama Canal was not tenable, as the canal was an international highway. The American Press continues to deride Berlin in “its miscast role of a pious plaintiff against a breach of international law.” Even the Hearst Press applauds the raid as “brilliantly conceived and daringly executed.” All American comment maintains that the British were certainly morally, and probably legally, right. The New York “Daily Mirror,” a Hearst publication, says: “It is pointless talking about international law. The. drama and daring of the raid have won over American public opin-

ion.” The official view in Berlin is that now England has transferred the war to neutral soil a completely new military situation has arisen, of which Germany will take the fullest advantage.

The Berlin correspondent of .the “Daily Mail” says the Norwegian Minister (Mr A. 'Scheel) handed the German Foreign Office an aidememoire stating that Norway intends to submit the Altmarck incident to the League of Nations. It is reported from Washington that a suggestion by a Norwegian newspaper that Mr Roosevelt may preside over international arbitration in connection with the Altmarck affair is treated cautiously. The Secretary of State (Mr Cordell Hull) refused to comment.

In a broadcast to the United States which was full of inconsistencies, the master, Captain Dau, said he had ordered the crew not to resist because the Altmarck was unarmed. “I was determined to respect Norwegian neutrality at all costs. Not one German shot was fired.”' He added that the English left hurriedly and seemed very nervous. .Some prisoners took the opportunity to express thanks for the treatment received.

SHIP STILL AGROUND

LONDON, February 19. The Altmarck is still hard aground on a beach in the losing fiord, with her swastika flag at half-mast. The propeller and rudder are believed to be damaged, and local people consider that it will be some’timb before she can be floated off. Many, including the Altmarck s. officers and men and German officials, attended the burial of the six men killed in the raid by the Cossack. Herr Hitler and Herr von Ribbentrop sent wreaths. Norwegian marines formed a guard of honour. The captain of the Altmarck tells the false story that H.M.S. Cossack opened fire with machine-guns on his crew. This is untrue, no British shots being fired until one of the officers in the boarding party was wounded. In spite of the paper shortage, several extra pages were allotted by the German newspaper to the Altmarck story. The German Press continues its violent language against Britain. Conferences continue at the Chancellery with the heads of the armed forces.

NO RESTRAINT BY NORWAY.

(Received February 21, 2 p.m.) OSLO, February 20.

The captain of the Altmarck declared that he is now free to sail his ship. Norway has not placed any restraint. Tugs are needed to pull the Altmarck, which is icebound, off the rocks.

ALTMARCK’S DAMAGE

(Recd. Feb. 21, 2.30 p.m.). OSLO, February 20.

The Altmarck’s skipper, in a statement, said the ship’s stern is ashore, the rudder is broken, and one propeller is damaged. The ship was in the Gulf of Mexico at the outbreak of the war, and received orders to place herself at the ■disposal of the Graf Spee to which she acted as supply ship throughout her activities. Desiring to observe the law in neutral waters, the captain said he ordered no'retaliation to the Cossack’s crew’s fire, to which not a shot was returned.

GERMAN CLAIMS EXPOSED.

RUGBY, February 20.

M. Koht’s statement in which he maintained it was no part of international law for a neutral to inspect a belligerent warship, and that he would have let the Altmarck through, even had he known the British pi isoners were on board, has led to further British editorial comment. The “Daily Telegraph” finds several precedents for the view that prisoners of war cannot be conveyed through the territorial waters of a neutral. A case in 1918, similar to the Altmarck, is recalled, when a supply and prison ship used by a German raider ran 1 aground on the Danish coast. Her German crew were interned, and the British prisoners released by Denmark. Again, in 1916, when a German prize crew, brought the Appam, with 429 British victims into harbour in Virginia, United States, the Government ordered their immediate release.

The “Telegraph” cites the words of Mr. J. Gerard, American Ambassador to Germany in 1914, who says: “The Germans had no more right to take prisoners through Norwegian waters than to take them by train from New York j to San Francisco.” The “Manchester Guardian” says: Germany’s continuing fury over the loss of the Altmarck’s prisoners, suggests that Germany is less concerned about the point of law than over the loss of “face.” This loss of prestige “right under the neutrals’ eyes, comes at a time when Germany loudly claimed to have the North Sea under control,” which, if true (asks the “Guardian”) why did not an escort set out

fr.om Wilhelmshaven and bring the Altmarck in? The. real reason for the Nazi anger lies Ln Germany’s old hope of terrorising the neutrals, whom she seeks to destroy by forcing them to trade only with her. The “Guardian” considers this reason is borne out by the Nazi ruling that Germany has the right to sink neutrals calling at British ports.

MR CHAMBERLAIN’S STATEMENT

NORWAY’S ATTITUDE CRITICISED

(Received February 21, 11.40 a.m.) . RUGBY, February 20.

Mr. Chamberlain, in the Commons, revealed that 299 officers and men were rescued from the Altmarck. They had been closely confined for periods of up to more than three months.

He felt bound to say that M. Koht’s account made the action, or rather inaction of Norway even more difficult to understand than he previously supposed. “We had imagined that the Norwegian authorities had conducted some examination of the Altmarck, and our complaint was that this examination had. been so perfunctory that it did not reveal the presence of British prisoners on board. It now appears, however, that the Norwegian authorities conducted no examination of the ship at all. I find it difficult in the circumstances to resist the conclusion that the Norwegian authorities, displayed complete indifference as to the use which might be made of their territorial waters by the German fleet." Mr. Chamberlain’s statement was cheered on all sides of the House. Britain, Mr. Chamberlain continued, had received no official communication, apart from the original protest handed to Lord Halifax on Saturday, but all would probably read the Press accounts, showing M. Koht’s statement.

After briefly reviewing the incident leading to the rescue of the British prisoners, as described in M. Koht’s statement, Mr. Chamberlain said it would be seen “that on not one occasion, but on three or four, the Norwegian authorities failed to carry out a proper investigation of the case. It was not until after their refusals that His Majesty’s ships took action against the Altmarck, and it is plain that, if they had not done so, the ship would have been allowed to complete her voyage to Germany, without let or hindrance, and without any inquiry into the According to the views expressed by M. Koht. Norway sees no objection to the use of Norwegian territorial waters for hundreds of miles by a German warship, for the purpose of escaping capture on the high seas.” Mr. Chamberlain added that the Government was at present awaiting full reports from the naval officers concerned in the Altmarck incident, but he was sure that the House would join with the Government in the satisfaction they feel at the release of the officers and crews, after their long ordeal. and that members will desire

TO CONGRATULATE THE NAVY

most heartily upon this notable addition to its annals.

Referring to Norway’s attitude, he continued that even the fact that the Norwegian authorities discovered that the Altmarck had used her wireless in Norwegian territorial waters, thus violating the Norwegian regulations, did not lead the Norwegian authorities to take action beyond making a complaint, and accepting an apology based on the statement of the Altmarck’s captain. He was not accepting an apology based on the statement of the Altmarck’s captain, that he was not acquainted with the Norwegian prohibition.

Claiming that he found it difficult, in the circumstances, to resist the conclusion that the Norwegian authqrities displayed complete indifference regarding the use to which the German fleet might be put in Norwegian territorial waters, Mr. Chamberlain continued that, even if such indifference were due to German pressure, it would nevertheless be inconsistent with the active impartial exercise of the duty of a neutral towards ourselves as belligerents. Norway’s doctrine would legalise German warships’ abuse of neutral waters, and would create a position which Britain could under no circumstances accept.

Loud cheers punctuated the speech.

Mr. Alexander said that the Opposition were pleased with Mr. Chamberlain’s statement, and desired to associate themselves with the satisfaction at the. Navy’s rescue of 300 men from durance vile. In the Lords, Lord Stanhope issued a statement similar to that of Mr. Chamberlain.

GERMAN ESTIMATE.

(Received February 21, 2 p.m.)

BERLIN, February 20.

The Official News Agency stated that Mr. Chamberlain’s reprimand to Norway has proven that Britain is openly demanding military aid from neutrals.

ALLIES’ FURTHER ACTION. (Recd. February 21, 1 p.m.) LONDON, February 20. Discussion on the Altmarck affair centres on Mr Chamberlain’s statement, and the French Government spokesman’s flat declaration that the British and French navies will take all measures tb prevent the use of Norwegian waters for belligerent purposes. He added that a halt must be put to Germany’s acts of war in Norwegian waters, which German merchantmen are using in order to avoid the British and French contraband control. He declined to indicate the nature of the Allies’ plans. Meanwhile, the “Stavanger Aftonbladet” attacks the Norwegian Government for, allowing German ships to pass through Norwegian waters. “War-time 'experience should have taught our leaders that the , Norwegian regulations governing the passage of belligerent vessels are ripe for revision.” The newspaper adds: It,is grotesque that the Norwegian navy should protect the foreign submarines sinking our ships and killing our people.