740.00112 European War 1939/1371
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State (Berle)
The Norwegian Minister2 came in today, at his request.
His government had directed him to acquaint us with the fact that the British government had recently declared its intention of taking over control of the territorial waters of Norway, on the ground that Norway was unable to maintain their neutrality. French public opinion and the French press were supporting this move. The Norwegian Minister indicated that his government was very much concerned.
He stated that on March 23 the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Oslo had telegraphed to London protesting against the fact that British destroyers and warships had now entered Norwegian waters and were actively controlling commerce. He left with me a copy of this telegram and likewise of a similar telegram, dated March 25th,3 directing a protest occasioned by the fact that a British warship had fired on a German freighter within the three mile limit and the shell had fallen on Norwegian territory. He intimated that the incidents protested against formed merely a part of the British plan to take over and control Norwegian waters.
In his judgment, the situation stemmed from a British note to Norway, dated January 2, 1940, which closed with an assertion of the right of the British government to take over the patrol [of?] these waters, in view of Norway’s inability to maintain her own neutrality. He did not have a copy of this note, but left with me a confidential memorandum4 summarizing the points which the Norwegian government had made in reply. The assertion was made by the British that [Page 137] German submarines had torpedoed two British vessels and a Greek vessel in Norwegian waters, and that the Norwegian government was unable to prevent this. The Norwegian Minister stated that his government had been unable to find any evidence whatever that the torpedoing had taken place within Norwegian territorial waters or that there had been violation of Norwegian neutrality.
A further incident raising the question was that of the Altmark,5 with which, the Minister stated, this Department was no doubt familiar.
Finally, the statement was being freely made in the press both in Britain and France that Norwegian waters were being used as an avenue by which Swedish ore shipped through Narvik might go to Germany. The fact was, according to the Minister, that only one-fourth of the normal amount of ore shipments to Germany was now going forward; in other words, that there is far less use of the sea lane for these shipments today than there is in peace time.
The Minister concluded by saying that his government had directed him to inquire whether this government would not take note of the desire of the Norwegian government to maintain strict neutrality, and to support the Norwegian protest against British seizure and jurisdiction over her waters. Though the French government had not touched the matter officially, it is plain from the French press and French public opinion that France was associating herself with the policy. Accordingly, it was hoped that we might in some proper way make representations both to France and to Great Britain. The Minister noted that extension of British armed forces into this region might very well lead to an extension of the area of war itself. Norway had endeavored, irrespective of her sympathies, to maintain strict neutrality within the rules of international law as the only way of keeping peace, and wished support in that position.
I stated that we had every sympathy with the desire of Norway to maintain her neutrality, and that we were appreciative of the fact that she had endeavored to do so in connection with the case of the City of Flint.6 I would, I said, take up with the Department the question of whether in the present situation we felt called upon to take any action of the kind suggestion [suggested?]. I pointed out that we had been cautious about involving this government in overseas disputes, as the Minister knew.
I then inquired whether the government of Norway had discussed this matter with the government of Germany. The Minister hesitated [Page 138] and said that he did not know whether any such discussion had been had. I said that it was common knowledge that the German government had urged all neutral nations to assert full neutral rights, and that in the German propaganda press there had at one time appeared suggestions that neutral nations should endeavor to associate themselves for the purpose of opposing British infringement on neutral rights. For that reason, I wondered whether the German government might not have intimated to the Norwegian government that it make the démarche they requested.
The Norwegian Minister said he could not tell, though he was familiar with the German position. Further, he said that they were very much worried about the German insistence on what was called “active neutrality”, which apparently meant that in the event of any invasion of neutral rights, the neutral was supposed to use force and shoot it out. Under this conception, he said, Norway might rapidly find herself at war with either party, or both parties, which of course was precisely what they were trying to avoid.
I said that I would discuss the matter further after we had studied the problem.
- Wilhelm Munthe de Morgenstierne.↩
- Neither printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- The German ship Altmark when in Norwegian waters with some captive British officers and seamen on board, was boarded on February 16, 1940, by the crew of the British destroyer Cossack who released the prisoners and took them back to England.↩
- See Foreign Relations, The Soviet Union, 1933–1939, pp. 984 ff.↩