Danish ships seized

[Ladislav]

Hallo!

Why was danish ship seized by Britain and American? Danmark was okupated by Germany.


Thank Ladislav

[phylo_roadking]

Lasislav, as far as I can see - that's exactly why; the ships and their cargos were no longer owned/registered in a NEUTRAL country, but in a country that was Occupied and part of the Greater German Reich...but UNLIKE the majority of other Occupied nations the Danish government remained in the country and operating as normal. The protectorate government severed all normal diplomatic relations with the Allies and others. To the British they were therefore property and assets belonging to an enemy combatant and they were legally entitled to do so...and to Neutral USA they were vessels belonging to a combatant nation and free to be interned once they broke any provisions and protections regarding staying in Neutral ports etc.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Ladislav,

I have been looking at this subject recently.

All the American republics, not just the USA, took over Danish merchant ships in early 1941 when all were still neutral.

In April 1941 many Danish ship owners sent their vessels to neutral ports for safety. Most of these ports were in the Americas.

The USA took over about 40 Danish vessels lying idle in its ports at the end of March 1941 and reregistered them as Panamanian, although they still carried volunteer Danish crews. This allowed them to trade to the war zone (essentially the UK), which US registered ships could not do under the US's own Neutrality Act. The surviving Danish vessels returned to their owners after the war.

Latin American countries had begun to take over Danish (and other German, Italian, Romanian, Finnish and Vichy French) vessels lying idle in their ports even before the USA. They did this because the European fleets that previously carried most Latin American trade were prevented from doing so by the war and all Latin American economies were suffering as a result. As most of them only had small merchant fleets of their own, they decided to take over all the belligerent (essentially Axis) and neutral (mostly Danish) vessels lying idle in their ports. The British insisted that they had to be manned locally and only engage in inter-American trade. This was agreed. All were returned to their Danish owners after the war.

The American republics had given themselves the right to take over foreign vessels lying idle in their ports at the inter-American Panama Conference in late 1939. They did so under the reversal of an old maritime law called the Right of Angary. Angary allowed belligerents to take up idle neutral vessels for vital war work. Reverse Angary allowed neutrals to take over idle belligerent and other vessels for vital civil work.

It is possible that the British used the Law of Angary to take control of Danish vessels. However, they kept volunteer Danish crews aboard and did not reregister them as British.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Vagabond]

Technically speaking Denmark wasn't occupied. Denmark wasn't treated as an occupied country but rather as a sovereign territory with Germany taking care of its defenses. In reality there was not much difference, apart from Denmark retaining a higher degree of political independence than 'properly' occcupied countries - eg. Denmark kept her parliamentary government and her king. Unlike nearly all other occupied countries, there was no exile government, and technically speaking Denmark was neutral. It would not be difficult for the British to find ample legal reasons for seizing Danish merchant ships under these circumstances.

Some ships were also captured by the French, by the way. I recall reading about one particularly unfortunate ship which was first seized by France, then taken by the Germans following their invasion of the non-occupied zone, and then finally sunk on the Tunisian death route.

The captures were done fairly leniently as far as I can see - most Danish sailors preferred sailing for the British rather than being either interned, or repatriated via Portugal, which was offered to some sailors. One bone of contention for the sailors was that they had to switch from Danish wages (which could be quite handsome, especially with the +350% high-risk payment for sailing in British waters) to British wages, which were rather more modest.

...However, they kept volunteer Danish crews aboard and did not reregister them as British.

Are you sure about this? As far as I know, Danish merchant ships in British service were all re-flagged, unlike the ships of belligerent but occupied European countries.

[phylo_roadking]

As usual, it's lot more..."interesting" than that LOL

Denmark "technically" remained neutral - for the very simple reason that in the two hours between invasion and the Danish Government surrendering...it didn't have time to declare war on Germany! Therefore legally and in the eyes of the Hagu officials, as per the Hague Conventions Denmark hadn't changed it's legal status from Neutral to Combatant! This MAY seem a very minor issue, but in legal terms it means a lot of the legal provisions on combatants under the Conventions weren't activated. Nor had it changed it's international de jure diplomatic recognition as a Neutral around the world.

The German view on the invasion and "occupation" of Denmark was prejudiced by a number of things;

1/ it was only invaded as a stepping-stone to Norway, and wasn't essential to germany or the German war effort in itself;

2/ their only interest in Denmark, that of surplus agricultural products, would likely have been supplied anyway by the Danes – out of economic necessity

3/ They also hoped to score propaganda points on the world stage by making Denmark, in Hitler's words, "a model protectorate;

So while Denmark was invaded - after that she wasn't "occupied" - her political status was that of a "protectorate" - in simple terms (with exceptions) Germany controlled her defence and defences and foreign policies, the Danes were trusted for a time to run their own domestic policies and affairs. The "coalition" government that grew up was more of a "combined" front rather than a coalition, as all national-level parties, including some politicians very opposed to the Nazis before the war, cooperated to present a united front to the Germans - confrontation on a realistic level.

However, among the steps both taken to enable the country to live alongside Germany, and those forced on her - was NOW the severing of all normal diplomatic relations with the Allies from the Danish side So in international politics - although still selfgoverning until 1943, Denmark was Neutral But Aligned, very much along the same lines as Vichy EXCEPT for the wrinkle of DENMARK severing diplomatic relations, whole SOME Allies - Australia and Canada - maintained them with Vichy.

[Vagabond]

It's an aside, so I shall strive to make it brief:

...Denmark "technically" remained neutral - for the very simple reason that in the two hours between invasion and the Danish Government surrendering...it didn't have time to declare war on Germany!...

That was a conscious decision rather than a question of time. The Danish prime minister had already declared to his cabinet on April 8 that in the event of German invasion, Denmark would limit itself to protest, but not take any action. The day after, when the German invasion was a reality, the matter was discussed again while German aircraft were buzzing about over Copenhagen. The army c-in-c wanted to offer resistance as a matter of principle, the king wavered, and the cabinet (save for some principal objections) didn't. The politicians had their way as a matter of course.

...2/ their only interest in Denmark, that of surplus agricultural products, would likely have been supplied anyway by the Danes – out of economic necessity

...except that Denmark's largest foreign trade partner until the German occupation was Britain :)

...in simple terms (with exceptions) Germany controlled her defence and defences and foreign policies, the Danes were trusted for a time to run their own domestic policies and affairs.

Actually, even foreign policy remained independent to a certain degree. For example, Denmark co-signed the Anti-komintern Pact in November 1941 as a cabinet decision, not because of German pressure. That lead to ardent resistance from Stalin when the Danish 'underground government' which gradually gained power and legitimacy after August 1943 sought to have Denmark admitted as an Allied nation.

The "coalition" government that grew up was more of a "combined" front rather than a coalition, as all national-level parties, including some politicians very opposed to the Nazis before the war, cooperated to present a united front to the Germans - confrontation on a realistic level.

Well, coalition governments are the norm more than they are the exception in democracies in times of crisis... Coalition governments have also been the norm in peacetime Denmark to this day. But the April 10 government included ministers from all four old parties - social democrats, liberals, social-liberals and conservatives, where normal coalition governments usually just had two parties. When the Danish version of the DNSAP gained parliamentary representation, it wasn't invited into the coalition government.

... So in international politics - although still selfgoverning until 1943, Denmark was Neutral But Aligned, very much along the same lines as Vichy EXCEPT for the wrinkle of DENMARK severing diplomatic relations, whole SOME Allies - Australia and Canada - maintained them with Vichy.

Yes, although it should be added that the Danish minister to Washington pretty much ran his own foreign policy in relation to the US because he simply saw the de facto German occupation of Denmark as a de jure fact, too, giving him free hands to act as he best saw fit in the absence of a free and legitimate government back home.

[phylo_roadking]

Danish prime minister had already declared to his cabinet on April 8 that in the event of German invasion,

...yes, by the time the legendary "golfcourse" conversation that percolated information through to the West via Denmark about Weserubung from Canaris...it was very much the "eleventh hour", however.

...except that Denmark's largest foreign trade partner until the German occupation was Britain :)

True - but the point is that whatever happened, either the U-Boat blockade of Britain or the planned RN Blockade of Germany like WWI would have hindered this quite considerably...and Germany would have taken everything Denmark had to divert anyway.

For example, Denmark co-signed the Anti-komintern Pact in November 1941 as a cabinet decision,

True...from Wiki, it's quick and convenient in this case...

On 20 November 1941, 5 months after the invasion of the USSR, the Danish government received a German "invitation" to join the Anti-Comintern pact. Finland accepted reluctantly on 25 November and stated that it presumed that Denmark would also attend the ceremony (effectively conditioning its own attendance). Erik Scavenius argued that Denmark should sign the pact but the Cabinet ministers refused, stating that this would violate the policy of neutrality. Scavenius reported this decision to Renthe-Fink. Fink replied on 21 November that "Germany would be unable to comprehend" a Danish rejection and demanded this decision be reversed before the end of the day. He assured Scavenius that the pact contained neither "political or other obligations" (i.e., going to war with the USSR). At a cabinet meeting the same day, it was suggested to seek a written confirmation of this promise in an addendum to the protocol. Stauning agreed on these terms, since it would effectively make the signing meaningless. The Danish foreign office drew up a list of four terms that stated that Denmark only committed itself to "police action" in Denmark and that the nation remained neutral. The German foreign ministry agreed to the terms, provided that the protocol was not made public, which was the intent of the Danish foreign ministry.

("neutral" here meaning neutral in relation to the USSR )

However...

not because of German pressure

Not correct.

As Berlin grew tired of waiting, Joachim von Ribbentrop called Copenhagen on 23 November threatening to "cancel the peaceful occupation" unless Denmark complied. On 23 November, the Wehrmacht in Denmark was put on alert and Renthe-Fink met Stauning and Foreign Minister Munch at 10 AM stating that there would be no room for "parliamentary excuses". If the German demands were not met Germany "would no longer be committed by the promises given on 9 April 1940" (the threat of a state of war, a Nazi government, and territorial dismemberment). In a Cabinet meeting at 2 PM that day, Stauning, Scavenius, Munch, Gunnar Larsen and one additional minister advocated accession; seven ministers opposed. In a meeting the same day in the Nine Man committee, three more ministers caved in, most notably Vilhelm Buhl, stating "Cooperation is the last shred of our defence". Prime Minister Stauning's notes from the day stated: The objective is a political positioning. But this was established by the occupation. The danger of saying no--I would not like to see a Terboven* here. Sign with addendum--that modifies the pact.

*Josef Terboven - the German Reichskommissar in Norway that controlled the country ABOVE the level of self-government that the Norwegians were permitted in some things.

Well, coalition governments are the norm more than they are the exception in democracies in times of crisis... Coalition governments have also been the norm in peacetime Denmark to this day. But the April 10 government included ministers from all four old parties - social democrats, liberals, social-liberals and conservatives, where normal coalition governments usually just had two parties. When the Danish version of the DNSAP gained parliamentary representation, it wasn't invited into the coalition government.

"The norm in emergencies" I would debate. ANY coalition is only to achieve a voting majority - or the level required - in any parliament/legislature. The Interwar period however had been the period of the fast rise to political prominence of a wide range of extremeist politcal parties of various flavours and compass points that split the vote in a number of European democracies. Sadly, there's no such thing as a "normal coalition" - that's a contradicition in terms LOL ; coalitions are statistically more common with only two parties...1/ because the largest party in any parliamentary democracy will seek to ally itself with ONLY just enough votes to hold a majority, and 2/ the minimum number of coalition parties meansfewer compromises between various party asperations Denmark's was less a "coalition" in the classic sense as a "consensus government" as it's known - various political parties driven in the same direction by necessity, and coming to the same conclusions as to what's necessary.

although it should be added that the Danish minister to Washington pretty much ran his own foreign policy in relation to the US because he simply saw the de facto German occupation of Denmark as a de jure fact, too, giving him free hands to act as he best saw fit in the absence of a free and legitimate government back home.

This is quite common in circumstances like this. In the diplomatic hiatus in Russian affairs after the 1917 Revolution, for example, the old Russian diplomatic corps ambassadors around the world resided in place for some considerable time, agreeing among themselves NOT to represent the Bolsheviks until the Bolsheviks received some degree of de jure recognition.

[Vagabond]

Brief again, since it's not central to the subject. Perhaps a split-off would be a good idea?

Danish prime minister had already declared to his cabinet on April 8 that in the event of German invasion,

...yes, by the time the legendary "golfcourse" conversation that percolated information through to the West via Denmark about Weserubung from Canaris...it was very much the "eleventh hour", however.

Heh, yes. But Danish defense and, particularly, alliance policy in the 1930s pretty much dictated that diplomatic protests would be the only means available in the event of a German invasion.

...

not because of German pressure

Not true...

Rente-Fink's pressure for Denmark to sign the Anti-comintern Pact sprang directly from his conversations with Danish foreign minister Erik Scavenius. Post-war historians like to paint a picture of Denmark being strong-armed into the Anti-comintern, but in reality Denmark's government was a willing signatory. The August 1941 act which outlawed the Communist party was enacted with a very big majority in Danish parliament; Anti-comintern was just the next logical step.

As it happened, Danish police already had most Danish Communists registered well before the August 1941 law...

Well, coalition governments are the norm more than they are the exception in democracies in times of crisis... Coalition governments have also been the norm in peacetime Denmark to this day. But the April 10 government included ministers from all four old parties - social democrats, liberals, social-liberals and conservatives, where normal coalition governments usually just had two parties. When the Danish version of the DNSAP gained parliamentary representation, it wasn't invited into the coalition government.

"The norm in emergencies" I would debate.

Well, a quick hand-count demonstrates that Britain and undefeated France both had coalition governments. To the extent that the term 'coalition government' can make sense in a US context, Roosevelt also employed Republican Frank Knox who'd ran against him as a vice president candidate in 1936.

ANY coalition is only to achieve a voting majority - or the level required - in any parliament/legislature...

If the object had only been to achieve voting majority, then prime minister Stauning could easily have left one, and probably also two, parties out of his coalition; the question for wartime coalitions is more about broad legitimacy, rather than securing majority for political programs.

The pre-April 10 Danish government had only Socialdemocrats and Social liberals; they had parliamentary majority too - 'normal' here meaning 'how many parties typically formed part of a Danish coalition government before 1940 and after 1945'

[phylo_roadking]

But Danish defense and, particularly, alliance policy in the 1930s

Well - admittedly not choosing to spend very much actual MONEY didn't help - or rather have it to spend - in a basica agricultural economy is one thing...but given that even, say, Norway did manage to put up a relatively good fight by its own forces once the percentage that DID get into the field did so. I could stand to be correct on this - but IIRC even MONACO lost more men per head of the population during the invasion by the Italians than the Danes suffered with their 16 casualties...

The August 1941 act which outlawed the Communist party was enacted with a very big majority in Danish parliament

...which brings us back to the issue of "consensus" government again; they may have renacted it with a large across-the-party-barriers majority...but because they wanted to, because they recognised they HAD to?

France was one of the European democracies suffering from parts of the electorate being split off towards small extemeist parties. Britain was a different case...the interwar years had seen the speedy rise of the Labour party and the gradual decline of the Liberal Party. Britain - thankfully without the "burden" of a Proportional Represtentation electoral system of any sort - was in a very uncommon position - the temporary flux of THREE parties in parliament in a basically two-party system, as one grew to replace one of the original Big Two in the popular affection. A different circumstance to the multi-party legislatures common in Europe at the time.

the question for wartime coalitions is more about broad legitimacy, rather than securing majority for political programs

France's coalition government was just a continuation of the coaltions of the 1930s; Chamberlain's "National Government" in Britain was JUST the continuation of "crisis consensus" government that had been in place in the UK starting in 1931 under Ramsay MacDonald, then Stanley Baldwin - with the aim of balancing the Depression-riven Budget. So in effect the sort of coalition YOU mean is what Britain had had for nine years already AND in peacetime.

Churchill's was a "true" NON-consensus coalition - in effect coming about BECAUSE Chamberlain's resignation as a result of the legendary "Norway Debate" collapsed the nine-year "consensus" National Government. Churchill USED the same name, that of "national Government" - but it was a VERY different beast; the Norway Debate had chewed up opinion in Parliament SO badly AND divided up parties within themselves so badly over the conduct of the war that it WAS a pure attempt to get a voting majority behind HIS lead So in effect Britain STARTED the war with the sort of coalition you mean BUT it had grown up in peacetime...whereas Churchill's was the sort of purist "voting" coalition that DOESN'T normally come about in a wartime emergency!!!

[Vagabond]

...

The August 1941 act which outlawed the Communist party was enacted with a very big majority in Danish parliament

...which brings us back to the issue of "consensus" government again; they may have renacted it with a large across-the-party-barriers majority...but because they wanted to, because they recognised they HAD to? ...

That's always the question in collaborationist governments. How do you achieve more political freedom of action - by passively acqiuescing to your occupier's demands, or by proactively conceding to demands which have not yet been spelled out? Denmark clearly slid from the former to the latter during the summer of 1941 (at the same pace as Erik Scavenius regained prominence in relations to the Germans); a similar development may be observed in eg. Vichy, who apparently handed over more Jews than the Germans asked for, thereby hoping to retain a certain level of political freedom.

It's dishonourable of course, but politicians, in occupied countries as everywhere else, have to deal with realities first and principles second. In any event, the Communists weren't popular in the general Danish public - the 1939/1940 Winter War and the Communist press' very aggressive campaigning against British and French 'warmongers' both before and after April 9 1940 ensured that few people had any sympathy for them.

Among the Communists rounded up in 1941 were the three members of Danish parliament - notably the Communists didn't form part of the broad coalition government, just as the Danish Nazi party was left out in the cold

[phylo_roadking]

Among the Communists rounded up in 1941 were the three members of Danish parliament - notably the Communists didn't form part of the broad coalition government, just as the Danish Nazi party was left out in the cold

That's a "typical" of a consensus government - usually it forms around a core of the Centrist parties, as their politics are usally more closely aligned than they like to think, and as mentioned before it reduces the number of extremes of opinion you have to gather under one umbrella. But depending on the actual local rules of government formation, a "numbers" coalition can form around ANY party that can swing a working voting majority...for example, late January 1933 in Germany...

[Vagabond]

...

...However, they kept volunteer Danish crews aboard and did not reregister them as British.

Are you sure about this? As far as I know, Danish merchant ships in British service were all re-flagged, unlike the ships of belligerent but occupied European countries.

I have to correct myself on this point, or at least clarify. Danish ships with volunteer Danish crews were allowed to sail under Danish flag again in December 1943. This was part of Danish exile politicians' ongoing efforts to have Denmark admitted as an Allied country.