Altmarck Inspection Free Says Koht

Northern Advocate, 22 February 1940, Page 5

Altmarck Inspection Free Says Koht

OSLO, February 20. Commenting on Mr Chamberlain’s speech, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Professor Koht, said Norway revised her neutrality views in conformity with the British conception expressed last year. The Altmarck, a State-owned vessel, could not be regarded as a commercial ship or a warship, and was privileged to refuse inspection. Professor Koht added that British experts on international law had maintained that a ship’s right of passage through neutral waters was not affected if prisoners were aboard and the State was bound to step in only when prisoners were put ashore. British Comment. Professor Koht’s statement in which he maintained that 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 British prisoners were on board, has led to further British editorial comment. The “Daily Telegraph” finds sever-; al precedents for the view that prisoners of war cannot be conveyed through the territorial waters of a neutral. A case in 1918 similar to that of the Altmarck is recalled, when a supply and prison ship the IgotzMendi, used by the German raider Wolf, ran aground on the Danish coast. Her German crew were interned and the British prisoners were released by Denmark. Again, in 1916, when a German prize crew brought the Appan, with 429 British prisoners, into Newport, Virginia, the United States Government ordered their immediate release. The “Daily Telegraph" quotes the words of Mr James W. Gerard, who was American Ambassador to Germany in 1914, and who says: “The Germans had no more right to take the prisoners through Norwegian waters than they would Fave had to take them by plane from New York to San Francisco.” Loss of “Face.” The “Manchester Guardian” said Germany’s continuing fury over the loss of the Altmarck’s prisoners suggests that Germany is less concerned about a point of law than over her loss of “face.” This loss of prestige, “right under neutral’s’ eyes, comes at a time when Germany has loudly claimed to have the North Sea under her control.” If this is true, asks the “Guardian,” why did not an escort set out from Wilhelmshaven to bring the Altmarck in? The real reason for the Nazi anger lies in Germany’s hope of terrorising neutrals whom she seeks to destroy by forcing them to trade only with her. The “Guardian” considers this reason to be borne out by the Nazi rul- j ing that Germany has the right to i sink neutral ships calling at British J ports.