Talk:Altmark incident

Minor edit concerning false link
Heinrich Dau linked to the wrong person ( a danish early 18th century man with the same name) not the german commander meant in the article

Minor edit
Changed the name of one of the combatants to Germany. "Nazi Germany" never existed as an official name. --Vosselmans 10:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Gewehr 43 for a previous discussion on this subject.--Sus scrofa 12:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wording
"For the British the Altmark Incident was a major propaganda victory, and they were keen to propogate the dashing heroics of the Royal Navy." - Ah yes, indeed, how heroic; boarding an unarmed supply vessel whose assignment was to rescue their own sailors from death at sea. The wording is strictly POV'ed, and unless someone has a better way of putting things - it's gone. --TVPR 03:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do not forget that the Altmark was actually taking Britsh prisoners to POW camp in Germany at the time. If the only intention was to rescue those men they could have been released to neutral Norway. Furthermore the Altmark was hardly an innocent merchantmen : it was being used to support military operations ( commerce rading ). 145.253.108.22 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * British merchant seamen were civilians, i.e., non-combatants, and should legally have been put ashore at the first neutral port available. Therefore they were not POWs and Altmark had no right to be keeping them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.63 (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why the British prisoners were banging and shouting when the Norwegians inspected the ship. They were being kept illegally and that's why the Germans drowned out the noise of the banging. If the prisoners had been discovered the Germans would have been obliged to release them to the then-neutral Norwegians. This principle was adhered-to by the Graf Spee at Montevideo, where the British merchant seamen from the ships she had sunk that she was holding prisoner were released prior to her scuttling, Uruguay being neutral.


 * Altmark was holding the men prisoner illegally, and Cossack was perfectly entitled to release them if the Norwegians, after three searches, had been unable to 'discover' them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.103 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The same Norwegian Authorities that were frightened of angering Hitler, were the same that ran away from Norway within the same week. The Prime Minister of the day was someone Norwegians never dared to be critical of during the post-war era, then again he was awarded a medal for his "noble deeds during WWII". You'd be thumped if being critical of him. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If the Germans had just done what they were legally supposed to have done, and put the British seamen ashore at the first neutral port then the British seamen would have been interred by that neutral country for the duration of the war, so Germany wouldn't have been losing anything by following the correct procedure - the seamen would not have been able to carry on crewing British ships.


 * BTW, the only circumstance in which Germany would have been legally entitled to detain British civilian seamen would have been if they had been captured within German or British territorial waters - not on the high seas. On the high seas only serving military personnel of the country with-which one is at war may legitimately be taken as prisoners of war - not civilians. Civilians of an enemy combatant taken on the high seas are supposed to be put ashore at the first convenient neutral port that the ship holding them comes to. Legally they're not prisoners, they're survivors who have been, in effect, rescued. The fact that you may have just sunk their ship is immaterial, as civilians, the duty of the 'rescuing' ship is to put them ashore somewhere safe, and as a neutral country will inter them, preventing them sailing again for the enemy country, that is usually what was proscribed.


 * You see, on the high seas, neither country had any legal jurisdiction over the civilian personnel of the other, whether at war, or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: Regarding what the Germans should have done with the English merchant seamen -- what did the English do when they captured German merchant seamen at sea (as they did aplenty in the first six months or more of the war? Release them in the nearest neutral port or keep them for the duration? Perhaps one of you has previously published work you can cite to answer those questions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.47.232 (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Aaltmark
My father was an officer in the Airborne Reconnaissance squadron which arrived in Norway a couple of days after VE day.

His squadron came across the site of the "incident" and liberated the German information sign which is now in the Parachute Regiment museum in Aldershot.

I am 30 years older than TVPR but I suspect that his/her views are based on modern day thoughts rather than placing the actual event in its historic perspective.

Assessment
Needs expansion. Also, I am no expert on the subject, so I unfortunately cannot advise on content per se; but I wonder who put the "needs attention from an expert" tag up there, and what their quibbles were. Whatever they may be, there's a fair chance that there needs to be some more attention paid to the content here. On the other hand, the infobox looks nicely done, and there's a picture. Not a bad start. LordAmeth 00:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think, that Norway should be listed as combattant! Norwegian ships did not fight. Pibwl ←« 23:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at that stage, no. They did later after the invasion of Norway. I have made a minor change, to flesh out the inspection of the ship by the Norwegians. Darkmind1970 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Question on the legal issue
Question : was the Altmark a combatent or merchantmen at the time? She was carrying POW'S and was being used to support military operations and she had a 'naval' flag. 145.253.108.22 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Altmark was not a warship and carried no weapons. Longitude2 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Last major boarding action
Is the statement that the Altmark incident was the last major boarding incident by the royal navy just blatantly false, or am I missing something?

This would exclude many other subsequent boarding actions - take for instance the Somali boarding the german ship München, from which the Enigma cypher code-books were taken. That took place in May 1941 - well after the Altmark incident. Warthog32 (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this the last boarding action of WWII? Ottawakismet (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

passive voice obscures the point
"The Norwegians were angered that their neutrality had been infringed" by whom? 68.183.223.35 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which Norwegians? My guess is that it was private individuals, and not the Government. The Government were OK by all things done by the Germans, including the invasion that came in April. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is perfectly clear that Norwegian neutrality had been infringed by the British: "However, international law was only broken by the British military action within the waters of a neutral country, as the transfer of prisoners of war through neutral waters was not banned." Longitude2 (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ship's cat
My father was in the Royal Navy during WW2 and visited Gibraltar in 1941, where he met a large grey cat that had belonged to the Altmark. One of HMS Cossack's sailors had stuffed it up his jumper during the course of the boarding action and it spent the rest of its days as a guest of the Royal Navy.

A trivial detail, but one which somehow made the whole amazing episode come to life for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.134.69 (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the Guardian. The article is called "that sinking feline". Like the pun. The Guardian gives me an impression that they wrote of the Incident, only at one time in their long history. It was a part of Gunnar Sønsteby's obituary. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

British Admiralty orders and alternatives put to Norway
I've inserted a new section which outlines the orders given to Cpt Vian after the Norwegian refusal of his first attempt to board the Altmark including the offer of a joint escort to Bergen for further inspection and the Norwegian response. I think this is important to show that the British attempted to provide an alternative to Norway prior to armed intervention. The current text brushes over this part of the affair and makes it look as if the British made no attempt to resolve the standoff with Norway. The details of these orders and subsequent events are set out in a number of reliable sources. Seth ze (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Norwegian made 3 inspections, but none of them detected what everyone else knew, the Altmark was carrying POWs. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Norwegian Parliament stated that there were no POWs onboard. The British Parliament did something which some Norwegians call "Gapskratting". I believe that means to have a good laugh. How can anyone laugh at some boring debate that was happening in Norway? --82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Other story
FEBRUARY 1940

1 On Feb. 17, Norwegian Legation in London had been instructed to protest to the British Government about the violation of Nor- way's sovereignty by British naval forces against Altmark. The text of the Nor- wegian note of Feb. 17, together with a British record of the conversation wMch took place when the Norwegian Minister, B. A. Colban, presented it to Halifax, are printed in Correspondence Between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Norwegian Government Respecting the German Steamer "Alt mark" 1. February 15, evening: A message was received from Bergen (telegram from the captain of Altmark) that the ship was lying north of Bergen, having been stopped by a patrol vessel and kept from proceeding on the ground that the declared area cannot be passed at night. Thereupon, the following steps were taken:

a) The matter was cleared with Admiral Diesen (Commanding Admiral). The steamer received authorization to pass through the declared area at night.

b) A coded telephone message was sent to the OKM that the steamer would pass Bergen on a southerly course around 11 p. m

2. February 16, forenoon: Clarification was sought by a coded tele- phone call to Haugesund whether the steamer actually had passed through the Bergen zone during the night. Haugesund notified the OKM in code via the Foreign Ministry that the steamer had passed.

3. February 16, 6 p. m.: A telephone call was received from the Naval Attache section, OKM, giving the approximate position of the steamer as well as instructions to make appropriate arrangements for her safety. Action taken :

A telephone call was made to the Commanding Admiral, requesting that arrangements be made to escort the steamer through the coastal district or Kristiansand (which also comprises the district of Eigeroy). Emphasis was placed on the importance of the vessel which flies the official Reich ensign. A promise was received that due attention would be given to this information. 4:. February 16, late afternoon: Another telephone call was made to the Commanding Admiral requesting information. The reply was : "We have heard nothing specific. Protection is assured. I can- not tell you anything more."

5. February 16, 9:5O p. m.: Prompted by the special bulletin of the Deutschland transmitter, I telephoned the Admiralty once more. I was now referred to the Secretary General, who in turn referred me to Admiral Diesen. Information: There has been an incident The steamer is safe. There is no more reason for concern. The steamer is covered by Norwegian patrol vessels. I was not given her exact position although I asked for it. I then telephoned to OEM and reported directly to Admiral Schniewind.

Despite Admiral Diesen's assurance that he would keep me in- formed of any news he should receive, I had no further call, so that it was reasonable to assume that the steamer was safe. Despite the advanced hour of the night, the Minister intervened once more per- sonally and talked with the Secretary General of the Foreign Minis- try* He, too, received reassuring information.

6. February 17, m the mornvng: I telephoned the Admiralty re- questing information concerning possible additional news. Em- barrassed silence. Admiral Diesen alone could give me the infor- mation. Diesen was in the Foreign Ministry. He did not come to the telephone. I asked that he receive me at once.

February 17, 9 a. m.: Lieutenant von Krosigk (OKM) telephoned. A cipher telegram was transmitted reading: News from steamer lacking.

The telegrams of the captain arrived at the Legation giving an ac- count of the attack. The Minister in person energetically took the matter in hand. Then followed the Minister's reports to the Foreign Ministry with the request that they be forwarded to OKM.

February 17, 10:30 a. m.: With the concurrence of the Minister, I called upon the Admiralty where Admiral Diesen at last received me. He was very dejected and upon my request gave the following account:

His statement of the evening of February 15 that the steamer had received authorization to pass the Bergen declared area during the night was correct. He had done even more and had the ship es- corted by a Norwegian patrol vessel. This patrol vessel had con- stantly been with Altmark, and was relieved south of Bergen by the Norwegian torpedo boat Skarv (an old vessel of 90 tons displacement), which continued to escort Altmark. He deplored that Altmark had used her radio near Bergen, which was forbidden, and he, Diesen, presumed that the British established her location through the radio signal. (Altmark did actually use the radio to send a telegram to

the Legation requesting its intervention to secure the transit permit. When it was indicated to him that the sending of radio signals was forbidden, the captain of Altmark apologized to the Admiral in Ber- gen.) At about 5 p. m. a British cruiser and 5 destroyers hove into sight east of Eigeroy. One of the destroyers tried to stop Altmark. The British cruiser sent out a boat. Altmark however paid no at- tention and continued on her course. The Norwegian patrol vessel protested very sharply to the British destroyer against this inter- ference within Norwegian territorial waters. Altmark then turned into Jossing Fjord. At that time a second Norwegian torpedo boat joined Skarv (following my telephone call to Admiral Diesen con- cerning protection of Altmark) . Altmark thus was guarded by two Norwegian naval vessels. Nevertheless, two British destroyers also headed into the fjord while the cruiser and, two destroyers remained outside. Skarv placed herself between Altmark and the British and protested once more in the sharpest terms, whereupon the British left. That was the situation at the time when he talked with me on the telephone the night before and he had therefore been justified in stating that all danger was past.

Later in the evening, at about 8 p. m., one destroyer suddenly re- appeared, approached Altmark and turned searchlights on her. One of the Norwegian torpedo boats again protested. The British re- plied that they had to take several hundred British prisoners off the ship and boarded Altmark without paying any attention to the pro- test. Shooting was then heard and after a relatively short time the destroyers steamed out again at full speed. When I asked why the Norwegian torpedo boats had not resisted by force of arms this monstrous violation of international law, Admiral Diesen replied in these words : "What is a little torpedo boat with two automatic weap- ons on board (two 47 mm.) to do against a cruiser? A single salvo would wipe her out. Besides, the ice was so heavy that our small Norwegian boats were in no position to pursue the powerful British destroyers." (Comment by Naval Attache: According to the captain of Altmark the ice was not that heavy.)

When I said that I, as an officer of the German Navy, found it nevertheless impossible to understand and approve the weak at- titude of the commander of the Norwegian torpedo boat, he replied only by shrugging his shoulders.

Admiral Diesen continued : The last message he received this morn- ing stated that all of the British ships had steamed out of sight. The coastal patrol posts no longer had contact with the British ships. The wounded had been placed under medical care. He would extend every facility for getting in touch with the captain of Altmark. He spoke bitterly, but in very cautious and reserved terms, about the action

of the British. He also added that the crew of Altmark had returned the fire. I denied this immediately, stating that Altmark was no naval vessel and had no weapons. Reply : "But she does ; she has anti- aircraft guns." To this I replied: "That is entirely unknown to me* what has your Navy observed ?" Reply : "It has been reported to me that the ship has antiaircraft guns, but that they are kept below deck." To this I countered : "Which is proof that they cannot be fired."

While I was still with the Admiral, a Norwegian message arrived that Altmark was preparing to blow herself up. Admiral Diesen called to my attention that there were important Norwegian industrial plants nearby which might be damaged as a result. I replied that I could not imagine that the captain was planning to blow her up.

I then had a talk with several other officers of the Admiralty, in- cluding Commander Gottwald, who said in the presence of two of his fellow officers: "That's just like the British as I know them." I stressed in this talk once more my utter failure to comprehend the attitude of the commanders of the two Norwegian torpedo boats, who could have furnished proof, despite the odds against them, that they could not only talk about neutrality but also die a hero's death for neutrality. The reply was : "They were young officers who nat- urally did not have the courage to open fire on the British without orders."

I further wish to report that the Naval Press Chief, Captain Steen, with whom I have so far maintained very good and even friendly relations, has unfortunately been taken seriously ill and that his successor did not have the courage to give me the information which Captain Steen would surely have given me.

All that could be done for the protection of Altmark by the Lega- tion and by myself since the ship's appearance off Bergen was, I believe, done. The S. S. Altmark was actually given the strongest protection ever accorded a German ship by Norway.

7. February 17 \ 11 a. m.: The Minister ordered that all measures be taken to assure the refloating of the ship and the protection of the crew. The Consul in Stavanger was instructed to go immediately to the location where the incident occurred. Furthermore, Captain Kempf, who is an expert in navigational matters, is being sent up by car to be at the disposal of the captain of Altmark. An improvised telephone post has been established near the location, so that the captain can be reached at all times.

The captain reported that all secret materials had been held in readiness in sacks with sufficient weight for throwing overboard and were dropped in 60 to 80 meters of water before the ship was boarded by the British destroyer. He thought it would be impossible to retrieve them. Captain Kempf will look into this once more himself.

Altmark has for the time being declined any assistance by salvage tugs. The diver will go down on February 18 to survey the damage to the stern which has run aground on rock. The captain will then decide what to do. He has reported that so far the losses are six dead; three very seriously wounded, one of whom is expected to die ; three seriously wounded who will probably recover ; and one missing, who was prob- ably drowned. The British fired indiscriminately into the unarmed crew. The captain of Altmark is very critical of the action of the Norwegian torpedo boats. He did not want to be more specific on the telephone.

For the rest I refer to the Minister's extensive telephone reports to the Foreign Ministry, and to my brief interim report telephoned directly to Admiral Fricke. 2

tions or guidance of Altmark captain in dealing with the foreign press. He was to emphasize that she carried only small arms and offered no resistance ; that she was an ordinary oil transport with a civilian crew, as- signed at the outbreak of war as a supply ship for Admiral Graf Spee ; that the small naval party aboard did not change Altmark's status as an unarmed vessel ; and that living conditions were the same for Germans and prisoners. He should avoid mentioning her call at a Mexican port and the particulars of her coopera- tion with Graf Spee.
 * On Feb. 18, the Director of the Press Department sent telegraphic instruc-

On Mar. 22 accompanied by a German tug and a Norwegian destroyer, had entered Swedish waters at 7:00 a. m.,

Jo0doe (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I think article need to represent facts - how '''The S. S. Altmark was actually given the strongest protection ever accorded a German ship by Norway. Mar. 22 1940 accompanied by a German tug under protection of the Norwegian destroyer, had entered Swedish waters at 7:00 a. m''' ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why was Altmark inspected by Norwegian ships?
Altmark was boarded and inspected by three different Norwegian ships in one day. Was it normal procedure to inspect all ships? Maybe all German ships?

Another thing is, did the Norwegian ships not keep in radio contact, and relay information on their actions? I would have expected the first boarding party to report to some base that they were now boarding Altmark, and then the second and third boarding parties would not have known.

Velle (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was normal for the ships of a country at war to be inspected by officials of the neutral country in-whose territorial waters they were then-in. The British did the same to neutrals and it was intended to detect contrabrand being transported to belligerents, in the British case, to Germany. If a contrabrand cargo was found, inside the inspecting country's territorial waters, then it was legally liable to be confiscated by the inspecting power. As the Altmark was in Norwegian territorial waters it was legally bound to allow the Norwegian inspections. If the prisoners had been discovered the Germans would have been legally obliged to release then into the custody of the Norwegians.


 * The Norwegians should have detected the British prisoners, as, as I pointed out in an earlier paragraph, they were legally non-combatants* and so should have been released at the first neutral port, a Norwegian one for-example. Unfortunately for the Norwegians, this would almost certainly have brought about a diplomatic incident with Germany, something that they would almost certainly have wished to avoid, so I suspect that they deliberately didn't search the ship too hard. Again, unfortunately for the Norwegians, the British weren't in any mood to be buggered-about, hence the incident with Cossack.


 * * The British Merchant Navy, despite its name, was almost entirely composed of civilians and this only changed with the introduction of Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships (DEMS) when many civilian vessels were equipped with a gun and a small party of Royal Artillery personnel included in the ship's complement to man it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.81.18 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New image
Note the recently uploaded image:



--Maxrossomachin (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Casualties
The number of casualties in the article text does not match the table in the side bar. 205.175.225.23 (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

External link removed
I have removed a link to a non-neutral POV and possibly conspiracist website: http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html

It has next-to-no information about the Altmark incident itself and is not useful here. SuW (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Altmark Incident - 77th anniversary
Please check the proposal for expanding this subject in my Sandbox. Since my English is not the best some grammatical errors might occure. Thanks for helping. --Andreas (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What happened to Altmark?
The article doesn't say what happened to the ship after the boarding! Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * then read the Atlmark main article... 2003:A:1409:BB00:8964:2DBE:CA82:D4E4 (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)