NORWAY'S POLICY DEFINED

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22905, 29 December 1939, Page 7

NORWAY'S POLICY DEFINED

STATEMENT

NON-INTERVENTION

AFFIRMED

OBSERVERS

VIII;'

FOREIGN MINISTER’S

(Received December 28, 9.40 p.m.)

OSLO, December 28,

The Norwegian Foreign Minister (Dr. Koht), in a broadcast, defended Norway’s policy of non-intervention in the Soviet-Finnish conflict, emphasising that Norway was unable to pursue any other course because her whole defence system was based on neutrality and any adventures might be fatal to her.

ACHIEVEMENTS BY FINLAND

PRAISE BY BRITISH

RUGBY, December 27,

The plucky and determined resistance which the Finns are making to the invasion by the numerically superior forces of the Soviet and the success which appears to have attended their counter-attack against such odds have evoked enthusiastic admiration among the British public.

Commenting on the laconic but significant claim in the Finnish official communique regarding operations in the Lieksa sector that “the operations have moved to the other side of the frontier,” the “Evening Standard” states: “Finland has taught the invader that behind forest and ice stand the guardians of freedom ready to defend their independence.” Military correspondents in the newspapers pay tribute to the skilful tactics of the Finnish Command. Courage and difficulties of the ground, it is said, cannot alone explain the Finnish resistance. The tactics during the last 10 dayswith their carefully timed retreats on the Petsamo and Salla fronts, followed * and redeemed by sudden counter-attacks on the Soviet'flanks —are considered by experts as bearing the unmistakable, imprint in conception and execution of Field-Mar-shal Mannerheim, who once again is proving himself an outstanding general.

It is observed that the Finnish forces, are acting as a coherent whole, and are operating to a set plan. The Russians have not taken them by surprise at any point. Each Russian thrust has been anticipated and countered along the whole 700mile front.

While military critics here emphasise the importance of the successes achieved bv Finnish arms in adverse circumstances and against almost overwhelming odds, it is not overlooked that the chief problem which the Finnish Government has to solve, if the Finnish generals are to maintain the resistance, is one of supply, and, as several commentators rem&rk, it is a problem not in the power of the Finnish Government to solve unaided.