World War: Rescue in a Fjord

  • Share

(3 of 3)

In this Altmark affair, international law was fractured. First, Great Britain argued that Norway violated international law when the Altmark was allowed to pro ceed through neutral waters with concealed prisoners of war. Moreover, said Britain, the Norwegian authorities obviously shut their eyes to the Altmark'?, true character. The British Admiralty, in ordering a raid in neutral waters, certainly was breaking international law right & left, regardless of its excuses. While Berlin snarled horrendous but vague threats of reprisal at both Britain and Norway, the London Times heartily observed that the Battle of Punta del Este would have lacked a fitting sequel if, "after the lion [Spee] had been destroyed, the jackal [Altmark'] had escaped with the prey." Come now what might, Britons felt that nothing could be worse than a parade of 326 British captives through the streets of Hamburg.

Norway was good and mad. Early this week Norwegian Foreign Minister Halvdan Koht, in a special statement before the Storting, let Great Britain have a piece of the Norseman's mind: "Lord Halifax was of the belief that the Altmark had been in Bergen although the ship had not been in any Norwegian harbor. ..." Further snapped Foreign Minister Koht: ". . . The British Government is of "the opinion that it can neglect ordinary international law. . . . The [Norwegian] Government cannot believe that the British Government, when having thought the case over, will not acknowledge that it is in open conflict with the principles of which it has itself so many times proclaimed." The Foreign Minister's clincher: "There is no international rule at all forbidding a war power to transport prisoners through a neutral area, in so far as navigation itself is not illegal."*

— Besides the homing Altmark and Baldur, the British and French last week intercepted and captured two out of six Nazi ships trying to slip home from Vigo, Spain. Germany's first and big Altmark revenge was torpedoing the destroyer Daring with loss of 157 men.

— L. Oppenheim's well-known International Law, A Treatise, agrees. Although shipments of war prisoners through neutral territory (but not neutral waters) is forbidden, "prisoners of war on board [belligerent warships] do not become free by coming into the neutral port, so long as they are not brought on shore."

Time.com on Digg

POWERED BY digg

Quotes of the Day »

MAJOR LAURA SUTTINGER, before deploying from Fort Hood, Texas, to Afghanistan on Dec. 4, saying that her unit would fulfill its commitment to ship out despite losing three soldiers in the Nov. 5 shooting rampage carried about by accused gunman and fellow officer Nidal Hasan
For use in rail of Articles page or Section Fronts pages. Duplicate and change name as necesssary to distinguish.