Talk:Altmark incident

message: 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)
replies: text: See Talk:Gewehr 43#Nazi Germany vs. Germany for a previous discussion on this subject.--Sus scrofa 12:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Assessment

message: 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)
thread_title: Question on the legal issue

message: 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)
thread_title: Last major boarding action

message: "The Norwegians were angered that their neutrality had been infringed" by whom?
68.183.223.35 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  passive voice obscures the point 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ship's cat 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  British Admiralty orders and alternatives put to Norway 

message: 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 
*On Feb. 18, the Director of the Press Department sent telegraphic instruc- 
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 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)
thread_title: Other story

message: Note the recently uploaded image:
--Maxrossomachin (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: 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)
thread_title: External link removed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Altmark Incident - 77th anniversary 

message: The article doesn't say what happened to the ship after the boarding! Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: then read the Atlmark main article... 2003:A:1409:BB00:8964:2DBE:CA82:D4E4 (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to Altmark?