FINNISH WAR.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 69, 21 March 1940, Page 7

FINNISH WAR.

DEBATE IN COMMONS. Result Of Conflict Deplored By Labour Leader. OPPOSITION OPINION. (Received 10 a.m.) RUGBY, March 20. The Leader of the Labour Opposition, Mr. C. K. Attlee, speaking after Mi\ Chamberlain in the House of Commons debate on the war, said that all would deplore that a magnificent fight put up by a free people against aggression resulted in loss of territory to them. Although they had different adversaries the cause Finland was fighting for was the same as that of the Allies.

Norway ami Sweden were very close to the front line and he did not like hearing harsh judgments against them. Mr. Attlee said that the amount of British help to Finland \va« conditioned 'by the extent to which it was possible to act in concert with Norway and Sweden, any infringement of whose rights he considered unthinkable.

"We had to be sure that any kind of aid we gave Finland would not bring down on that country other dangers," he said. The House was not in a position to say whether the Government could have sent more supplies with safety, but he wished to be assured that there had been no unnecessary delay in dispatch. Other countries might be threatened and he wanted them to realise that the Allies would be able and willing to give effective aid.

Mr. Attlec urged the building up of the diplomatic, military and economic field, saying that the Finnish lesson showed that to defeat aggression it was necessary to stand together.

Sir Archibald Sinclair speaking for the Opposition Liberals, said that he regarded the Russian-Finnish peace treaty as a great defeat to the cause common to Finland and the Allies. Loss Of Prestige. Britain had lost prestige throughout the world as the result of the Finnish war. He doubted whether the present Cabinet was capable of vigorous and decisive action. Mr. Hore-Belisha, drawing a distinction between the desire to criticise and the intention to analyse, devoted himself to the question as to whether Allied strategy and diplomacy were on the surest way to achieve their aims. He reminded the House that in the last war Germany endured a blockade for four and a quarter years, while she was compelled to expend her resources on several fronts. Comparing the German situation of then and now, he pointed out the advantages the Nazis had which mitigated' the effects of the blockade, and suggested that if the war remained passive Germany would be able to continue a long time and survive, while if she was compelled to conduct intensive operations she was dependent on continuous supplies of iron ore and steel. These, he suggested, would have been jeopardised if the Finnish war had con- ' tinned, and he thought that events i showed a delay on the part of the Gov- ! eminent in milking up its mind to offer ' substantial aid to Finland. i Although there was a good case for the argument that effective intervention was too strategically hazardous to undertake, Mr. Hore-Belisha said, the Allied decision to send an expeditionary force must be taken as an answer to that objection.