Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1940. ACTION AND SOME PROTESTS.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 20 February 1940, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1940. ACTION AND SOME PROTESTS.

VOISY objections by Germany to t.lie action, of tbe Dvitish Navy, through the agency of HALS. Cossack in re easing British prisoners held illegally in Norwegian territoia 1 " a * e *. , merelv provide another example of the eltronteij 11 r . hand in hand with foul fighting in the Nazi conduct of 1 1< war. On the evidence transmitted from London it is the steamer Altmarek, which the Cossack so ga a • hauled, is a German warship subject to internment m Nottwj.

Irrespective of the character of the ship, the British prisoners were entitled to their freedom as soon as ie lulered Norwegian territorial waters. The Cossack on forecd the law of nations against those who weie biealung • < and the manner in which the duty was perlormed will not mil} be acclaimed throughout the Empire, but will be applauded m every part of the world in which standards of justice are respected.

From some details already reported of the abominable treatment, of British seamen aboard the Altmarek and from the fact that, a majority of them, when they’ were landed at had to be taken to hospital, it is clear that the captain ot the Altmarek, and Germany have incurred criminal guilt m that, particular. In all the circumstances, the rabid outcry oi the Nazi controlled Press will be rated very easily at- its true worth. The threat of “reprisals” has little enough force or meaning, coming from those who are already sounding Hie depths ot infamy in cold-blQOded piracy and murder and in other ways.

So far as Norway is concerned, her protest against the British action no doubt will get fair and .just consideration on any merits it can be shown to possess. There appears ahead), however, to be overwhelming evidence that Norway is herself in a. high degree culpable in allowing the Altmarck to make a wholly illegal use of her territorial waters. Any real search of the German ship at Bergen must have disclosed both that she was armed ami subject to internment, and that she had on board some four hundred British prisoners illegally detained. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the facts that the. Norwegians failed to discover that the. Altmarck was armed and had British prisoners on board. The only explanation that will hold water is that the Norwegian authorities abstained deliberately from making any real '.search of the German ship. The onus rest? on Norway of demonstrating, if she can, that she was and is prepared to honour her neutral obligations. The evidence in sight suggests that she ignored those obligations, because she. was intimidated by Germany or tor some other reason, and so assisted Germany to make illegal war on Britain. Ample grounds thus appear for the strong protest-the British Government has made to Norway and for its demand that the Altmarck should be interned. Some allowance must be made for the difficulties of a small neutral country which finds itself placed to an extent at; Germany’s mercy, but it is by this time abundantly clear that humble subservience will not win for Norway or other small neutral States any consideration from the Nazis. At present Germany is taking leave to sink neutral ships and to murder neutral seamen at her will. Having found that passive submission, as might have been expected, leads to an extension and multiplication of these criminal outrages, Norway and other neutral States have been driven at least to consider the possibility of taking retaliatory action by means of a trade boycott or in other 'ways. Whatever the outcome, Norway has no obviously just ground for complaint in the release of British prisoners from the Altmarck. It is rather incumbent on her to show, if she can, that in allowing an armed belligerent ship carrying prisoners to traverse her territorial waters she was not conniving at the violation of her own neutrality.