NORWAY REPRIMANDED BY MR CHAMBERLAIN

Southland Times, Issue 24057, 22 February 1940, Page 7

NORWAY REPRIMANDED BY MR CHAMBERLAIN

Neutral’s Attitude Difficult To Understand (British Official Wireless) (Received February 21, 7.30 p.m.) RUGBY, February 20. The Prime Minister (Mr Neville Chamberlain), in the House of Commons, revealed that 299 officers and men had been rescued from the Altmarck. They had been closely confined for periods of up to more than three months. He felt bound to say that the account given of the incident by the Norwegian Foreign Secretary (Monsieur H. Koht) made the action, or rather inaction, of Norway even more difficult to understand than he had previously supposed. “We had imagined that the Norwegian authorities conducted some examination of the Altmarck,” he said, ‘ 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.” Britain, Mr Chamberlain .continued, had received no official communication apart from the original protest handed to the Foreign Secretary (Viscount Halifax) on Saturday; but all would probably have read the Press reports of M. Koht’s statement.

NO PROPER INVESTIGATION

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 seem “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 circumstances. “According to the views expressed by M. Koht,” he added, “Norway sees no objection to the use of Norwegian territorial waters for hundreds of miles by a German warship for the purposes of escaping capture on the high seas.” FULL REPORTS AWAITED 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 the House would join with the Government in the satisfaction it felt at the release of the officers and crews after their long ordeal and that members would 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 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 a statement by 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 authorities displayed complete indifference regarding the use to which the German fleet

might put Norwegian territorial waters, Mr Chamberlain continued that even if such indifference were due to German pressure it would nevertheless be inconsistent with the active and impartial exercise of duty of a neutral towards ourselves as belligerents. Norway’s doctrine would legalize German warships’ abuse of neutral waters and create a position which Britain could under no circumstances accept. MEMBERS CHEER SPEECH Loud cheers punctuated the speech. Mr A. V. Alexander (Labour) said that the Opposition was pleased with Mr Chamberlain’s statement and desired to associate itself with the satisfaction at the naval rescue of 300 men from durance vile. In the H juse of Lords Lord Stanhope issued a statement similar to Mr Chamberlain’s. The official German news agency stated that Mr Chamberlain’s reprimand to Norway ; roves that Britain is openly demanding military aid from neutrals. Captain Dau, of the Altmarck, declared that he was now free to sail his ship, says an Oslo message. Norway has not placed any restraint on the Altmarck. Tugs are needed to pull the Altmarck, which is ice-bound, off the rocks. Commenting on Mi’ Chamberlain’s speech the Norwegian Foreign Minister (Monsieur H. Koht) said Norway had revised her neutrality views in conformity to the British conception expressed last year. The Altmarck was a State-owned vessel and could not be regarded as a commercial ship or warship. It was privileged to refuse inspection. M. Koht added that British experts in international law maintained that a ship’s right of passage in neutral waters was not affected if there were prisoners aboard. The State was bound to step in only when prisoners were put ashore.

ACTION BY ALLIED NAVIES

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 to prevent the use of Norwegian waters for belligerent purposes. The French spokesman added: “A halt must be put to Germany’s acts of war in Norwegian waters, which German merchantmen are using to avoid the British and French contraband control.”

He declined to indicate the nature of the Allies’ plans. Meanwhile the newspaper Stavanger Aftonbladet attacks the Norwegian Government for allowing German ships to pass through Norwegian waters. “War-time experience,” it states, “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 foreign submarines which are sinking our ships and killing our people.” 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 that of the Altmarck is recalled. When a supply and prison ship used by a German raider ran aground on the Danish coast her German crew were interned and British prisoners released by Denmark. Again in 1916, when a German prize crew brought the Appam with 429 British victims into harbour in Virginia, the

United States Government ordered their immediate release. The Daily Telegraph quotes the words of Mr J. W. Gerard, the American Ambassador to Germany in 1914, who said: “The Germans had no more right to take prisoners through Norwegian waters than to take them by train from New York to San Francisco.” LOSS OF PRESTIGE 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 lav,' than over her 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.” “If this is true,” asks The Manchester Guardian, “why did not a German escort set out from Wilhelmshaven to bring the Altmarck in? The real reason for the Nazi anger lies in Germany’s old hope of terrorizing neutrals, whom she seeks to destroy by forcing them to trade only with her.” Danish seafarers’ organizations have sent an open letter to the British and German Governments, says a Copenhagen message. The letter to Britain protests against the Government forcing neutral seamen transporting necessities to Denmark to go into control harbours and war zones. It suggests that Britain should not compel neutral ships sailing between neutral countries to enter danger zones. The letter to Germany protests against sinkings without warning.