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#Nazi Germany vs. Germany 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

revisionism

love it how in the article it trys to make it seem like Norwegians were all on the side of "allies", but the truth is, in Norway, like in France and several other "allied" nations majority of those that fought, didnt side with the terrorist forces, but joined and fought alongside with the GERMAN ARMED FORCES, not British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.204.152 (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle box?

How can this "Incident" have a battle box when this was in no way a battle? The British spotted an unarmed german supply ship, and captured it with creating a controversy about breaking norways neutrality. A battle box is truly misplaced here.