IMPLICATION OF PEACE TERMS

Evening Star, Issue 23526, 15 March 1940, Page 5

IMPLICATION OF PEACE TERMS

BRITISH PRESS COMMENT (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, March 14. (Received March 15, at 9.45 a.m.) “ The Finns have lost the battle but they have won imperishable fame.” “ The valour which astonished the world and enriched history was a small coin'in the Russian market, buying little and that little unsecure.” These phrases from ‘ The Times ’ and the 1 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 “ the nation which had braved the onslaught of a giant Power and was still unshaken, heard the decision of its Government and Parliament that it must accept terms of peace 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.” As the peace terms are studied opinion generally reaches the same verdict as the ‘ Daily Telegraph,’ which says that they are “ 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 realised, cannot yet be assessed, and the factors which make it something a good deal less than .the unqualified victory of aggression are not overlooked.

The ‘ Guardian ’ says: “By their blood the Finns retained 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 all pretence of a war of “ liberation ” and the puppet Government of Kuusinen set up to lend it verisimilitude.

Militarily and strategically, it is unanimously ’ agreed, 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 that the Helsinki Government will need all its strength to resist the advance of Bolshevism. ■ r* / DIFFICULTIES UNDERSTOOD ATTITUDE OF NORWAY AND SWEDEN (British Official Wireless.) .\ RUGBY,. March 14. (Received March 15, at. 9.55 a.m.) In some parts of the British Press there is unrestrained, bitter condemnation of the attitude ,of Norway and Sweden and Norway are fully undersible organs content themselves with stating the facts. ‘ The Times ’ says the difficulties of Sweden and Norway are fully understood here. Their geographical position is unenviable. If Britain and France had 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 the 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. Although the 'granting of 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 obvious -i defence to be made against any criticism that may be levelled at the policy of France and Britain* On the same theme, the ‘ Manchester 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, which are fighting for freedom and order in Europe, cannot break without disaster to their cause.” THE PEACE TERMS NO WARRANT FOR NAZI JUBILATION (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, March 14. (Received March 15, at 12.) The approval with, which the onerous peace imposed on Finland by the Soviet has been greeted in Nazi circles occasions no surprise in London. The close similarity of technique to that adopted by the Nazi regime in its aggressions upon other democracies is, in fact, a feature of the peace which causes chief anxiety among .Finland’s friends and admirers; but the jubilation with which Berlin is heralding the settlement as a defeat for the Allies is not so easy to understand. The offer of Allied assistance which was given in an effort to avert the cruel miscarriage of a historic and heroic resistance was in the view of many authorities on strategy an audacious measure, and its implementation was no more likely to have been an asset to the Allies than a liability in the prosecution of the war against Germany. This school finds its thought echoed in neutral comment. For example, the New York ‘ Daily News ’ writes of the Finnish peace: “Is it a blow to the Allies? We think not. If Finland had called on France and Britain the Allied fighting front would have become greatly extended and the strategic advantage would have lain with Germany.” The New York ‘Times’ comments: “ It cannot be comfortable for Germany to see Russia extending her naval and military control of the eastern Baltic.” Similar observations are made by a Dutch newspaper.