COMPLETE CONDEMNATION

Evening Star, Issue 23438, 1 December 1939, Page 9

COMPLETE CONDEMNATION

REVULSION AT METHOD AND MANNER OF INVASION STRONG DIPLOMATIC ACTION POSSIBLE NEW YORK, November 30. (Received December 1, at 2 p.m.) America greeted the Russian invasion of Finland with complete condemnation and expressions of revulsion at the method and manner. At least one ranking senator, Mr King, asked the United States to sever diplomatic relations with Russia, declaring that he hoped “ my country will no longer grasp the bloody hand of Stalin.” Officials generally took a grave view of the situation. Following a conference between Mp Cordell Hull and Mr Roosevelt on the matterj it was indicated that the President may summon the legislative leaders of both parties for a discussion on policy and the possible courses of American action, which is indicated as follows:—Application of the neutrality law, recall the American Ambassador in Moscow, or severance of dipomatic relations.

INDEFENSIBLE ACT

SOVIET'S COLD-BLOODED STEP ATTACKED BY LABOUR LEADER (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, November 30. (Received December 1, at 2 p.m.) Following the Prime Minister’s statement on Finland, in which Mr Chamberlain also spoke of the increasing concern with which the British Government had observed developments which included the Soviet renunciation of a non-aggression pact expressing the desire to ensure settlement by peaceful means of disputes such as had arisen with Finland, the subject was taken up by Dr Hugh Dalton, who said: “An act Of aggression has been committed by a great Power against a small democratic country, and in our view such an action is indefensible.” He emphasised the manner in which the Soviet Government had ignored the United States mediation offer. Dr Dalton went on to speak of the importance of the Anglo-French cooperation. It was no exaggeration to say that the survival of civilisation in Europe depended on the close and continuous co-operation of these two countries. Welcoming the closer economic co-operation recently achieved, he expressed the hope that it might be only the first step in a> still wider sheme in which other countries might participate.

Urging early consideration in consultation with the French Government and the dominions, of the character of the Allies’ peace aims, so that, if the war was shorter than was expected, they would not be caught unprepared for the building of a peace which would endure, Dr Dalton endorsed the Prime Minister’s reference in the debate on Tuesday of “no vindictive terms.” They should let the German peoples know that after the war they desired a free and civilised Germany, taking her place in a free and civilised Europe as a good neighbour. That might lead sooner than some expected to liquidation of the Nazi system and its bloody instrument, the Gestapo. He advocated that part of the framework of peace should be the designing of a new Europe, of which the Premier had spoken, and some provision for the abatement of national sovereignty.

The Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Mr R. A. Butler), replying, said that during the last war Lord Grey had defined the aims of British diplomacy in wartime as—first, preservation of the Allied solidarity; and, secondly, maintenance of relations with neutral countries. In the present conflict Britain and France not only maintained Allied solidarity, hut had made Allied unity. Britain also maintained with success relations with neutrals. Our obligations in this respect were greater in this war than in the last because there were more neutrals. The British Government understood their difficulties, and desired to spare them consistent with the primary objective of exercising belligerent rights and winning the war. They understood the hardships neutral countries were suffering, and the interpretation of the new reprisals Order-in-Council would attempt to spare them as much as possible. STATEMENT BY MR CHAMBERLAIN FINLAND’S UNPROVOCATIVE ATTITUDE (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, November 30. (Received December 1, at 10.30 a.m.) In a House of Commons statement on the Soviet attack on Finland Mr Chamberlain declared, amid cheers, that His Majesty’s Government “ deeply regrets this fresh attack upon a small, independent nation, which must result in fresh suffering and loss of life to innocent people.” To Mr Attlee, who aslked whether the Govermcnt had received from the Soviet Government any statement regarding what appears to be an indefin-

able act of unprovoked aggression, Mr Chamberlain replied: “No, sir, none at all.” He prefaced this declaration with an historical resume of the exchange of views which had been taking place for some tjime between the Soviet and Finnish Governments “ on certain questions mainly of a strategic character raised by Russia,” some apprehension having been expressed by the Soviet Government as to the proximity of Leningrad to the Finnish frontier. After stating the claims understood to have been made by Russia, Mr Chamberlain said the attitude of the Finnish Government was from the outset unprovocative, though governed by a determination to do nothing which would impair its country’s sovereign rights. It was known that the Finnish Note delivered to Moscow immediately before the announcement of the rupture of diplomatic relations was of a most conciliatory character, the Finnish Government having proposed to submit the dispute to arbitration and offered in the meanwhile the withdrawal of its troops.

Mr Chamberlain spoke also of the warm welcome by Britain to the United States’s mediation offer. He referred to the invasion and the reports of the bombing of Helsinki, Wiborg, and other centres, with loss of life. Mr Chamberlain added that,- despite the Finnish offer to withdraw all her troops from the Finnish frontier in the Karelian Isthmus, with the exception of ordinary frontier guards and Customs officials, the Soviet had denounced the non-aggression pact, expressly designed to settle disputes peacefully. Britain found it difficult to believe that strategic measures of such scope and importance as had been suggested should be considered necessary in order to protect Russia against a small country like Finland. In announcing that Britain had warmly welcomed the United States offer of mediation, Mr Chamberlain said Britain believed the questions at issue did not justify resort to war, and he deeply regretted this fresh attack against an independent small nation. (Loud cheers.) It was quite obvious that Russia wanted to dominate Finland. • KOI TAKING INITIATIVE FIKNS REMAIN ON DEFENSIVE LONDON, November 30. (Received December 1, at noon.) The British United Press Helsinki correspondent says the Russians are reported to have attempted to land at Hanko, but it is, not known whether they were successful. The Finnish forces are remaining on the defensive, and so far have not attacked, although there are no signs of retreat anywhere. It is “not known whether the Russian attacks are simply designed to cover the seizure of the disputed territories, after which there would be an offer of a negotiated peace, or whether Russia is determined to break Finland’s defences. The citizens of Helsinki calmly returned to work after the second air raid, and the shops reopened. FINLAND UNITED FACING ITS DARKEST HOUR ARMY OF HALF A MILLION LONDON, November 30. (Received December 1, at 2 p.m.) M. Georg Gripenberg, the Finnish Minister in London, said the whole of Finland was absolutely united. “We have our army at war-time strength of 500,000, a small air force, a small navy of two coastal defence ships, and a few torpedo boats and submarines,” he said. “ Our defence is constructed some distance from the frontier, and if there is further fighting it will be in the forests.”