UNDYING FAME

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 147, 16 March 1940, Page 11

UNDYING FAME

Press Praises Valour Of Finns TERMS EXAMINED Full Implications Not Yet Assessable (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, March 14. “The Firms have lost the battle but they have won imperishable fame.” “The valour which astonished the world and enriched history was small coin in the Russian market, buying little, and that little unsecure.” These phrases from “The Times” and the “Manchester Guardian” respectively are expressive of the British public’s understanding and sympathy with the sense of frustration and what the “Daily Telegraph” calls “the bitterness of heart” with which “a nation which had braved the onslaught of a giant Power and still stood unshaken hearej the decision of its Government and Parliament that it must accept terms of peace which were brutally unjust.” With, the sympathy for the Finns goes a feeling of anger that, as the “Yorkshire Post" says, “aggression has triumphed again, though at heavy cost to Russia in lives and prestige.” Pretence of Liberation. As the peace terms are studied, opinion generally reaches the same verdict as the “Daily Telegraph,” which says that they ore “a more insolent mutilation of Finland than that proposed by the Soviet in November.” At the same time, the full political implication of the settlement, it is realized, cannot yet be assessed, and factors which make it something- a good deal less than an unqualified victory of aggression are not overlooked. The “Guardian” says: “By their blood the Finns have retained the forms of freedom and are governed by loyal men of their own choosing and their unbroken armies are left to them.” Almost every commentator also calls attention to the fact that the Soviet has been compelled to throw over before the eyes of the world the pretence of a war of “liberation” and the Puppet Government of M. Kuusinen, which was set up to lend it verisimilitude. Militarily and strategically, it is unanimously agreed that the terms leave Finland at the Soviet’s mercy, but there is not the same unanimity on whether Russia intends to exploit her position of dominance. “The Times,” however, considers tliat the Helsinki Government will need all its strength to resist the advance of Bolshevism. Neiglihours’ Problem. In some parts of the British Press there is unrestrained and bitter condemnation of the attitude of Norway and Sweden, but generally the more responsible organs content themselves with stating facts. “The Times” says: “The difficulties of Sweden and Norway are fully understood here. Their geographical position is unenviable. If Britain and France had once engaged in open warfare with Russia, then Germany would very likely have stepped into that arena—she certainly threatened it—and these small countries would probably have become a battleground of giants. “M. Daladier stated plainly that unless Norway and Sweden gave their consent to the passage of Allied troops he was not prepared to attempt to get his expeditionary force to Finland. Though granting that such passage would have been in strict accordance with the League Covenant, Sweden and Norway were unwilling to grant it, and in these circumstances there is an obvious defence to be made agaiust any criticism that may be levelled at the policy of France and Britain.” On the same theme, the “Guardian" says: “Finland knew that if she appealed no answer would come unless Norway and -Sweden raised their gates. There are laws and neutral rights which countries like France and Britain, fighting for freedom and order in Europe, cannot, break without disaster to their cause.”