The Otago Daily Times Wednesday, February 9, 1944. FINLAND'S DANGER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25455, 9 February 1944, Page 2

The Otago Daily Times Wednesday, February 9, 1944. FINLAND'S DANGER

It is very difficult to believe that any section of responsible opinion in Finland to-day adheres to the view that there is even a remote prospect of a German victory against Russia and the western Allies. Correspondents who have said that such opinion does exist, in sufficient strength, what is more, to influence Government policy, are, however, not likely to have been misinformed. In mid-January the London correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor wrote that in spite of Soviet successes the official viewpoint in Finland, after having been for some time under Leftist influence, was veering steadily towards closer co-operation with the Germans. “ Finland’s present policy,” he said, “ appears to be based on the theory that the longer the war lasts the less danger there is for Finland, because the Soviet will be exhausted.” -Then, at the end of January, on the eve of the opening of a new session of the Finnish Parliament, The Times commented that the present rulers of Finland, misguided in their original conception of the Russian, campaign, were now equally miscalculating the prospects of the war. “ Trustworthy observers report,” the newspaper added, “that leading members of the Government in Helsinki still base their policy on the likelihood of a German victory. . . . Finland needs bold leadership, for the sands are running out. 'The Finns do not lack responsible men who, given the opportunity, might now seek the best terms rather than court greater severity by further delaying an approach to Moscow.” In view of the fact that this estimate of the dangers with which the country is now confronted accords, and has long accorded, with the expressed beliefs of important political elements in Finland, the possibility of an early Cabinet crisis cannot be dismissed. So far as the Finnish alliance with Germany is concerned, President Ryti has invariably been very guarded in his public utterances. After his re-election in February of last year, for instance, he spoke of the right of small nations to an independent existence, and stressed Finland’s long-standing and deeprooted connection with Scandinavia, but refrained from mentioning Finland’s relations with Germany except to refer to the “ comradeship in arms” between the two countries, dictated by what he described as Russia’s renewed attacks on Finland. Scarcely less realistic seems to be the President’s present appraisal of Finland’s position as “ serious,” or his description of the general situation as demanding “Vigilance, courage, calmness and determination.” Finland, in President Ryti’s view, has so far been able to cope with everything.' Germany doubtless thought herself in similar case before the full might of the Russian military machine was encountered. Sympathy with Finland in the appalling predicament in which she now finds herself plainly should not be allowed to obscure judgment on the question of the inevitable outcome for the Finnish people if the policy of making war as a German ally is continued. Russian bombers have already given the people of Helsinki and South Finland a foretaste of what is to come; and bombardment from the sea will almost certainly be added to the terror of aerial attack as the Gulf 6f Finland again becomes navigable for the Soviet Baltic Fleet. It is not likely that recent Russian warnings against Finland’s continued participation in the war will be disregarded during the. current session of Parliament. It is significant, moreover, in view of the strength and importance of the Social Democrat Party in the country and its prominent representation in the Cabinet, that when the party supported M. Ryti for the presidency a year ago it adopted at the same time a resolution that Finland should be “ free to decide to quit the war when a suitable opportunity occurs and the country’s liberty and independence are secured.” This was followed by . a pronouncement from the Agrarian Party to the effect that the main task of the new Government should be to end the war. The press gave general support to this attitude, the realism of which present events are surely emphasising far more than was the case early in 1943. Last month the Moscow newspaper Pravda, in what was obviously an officially inspired article, declared that, while Russia had no designs on Finland’s independence, it must be recognised that frontier adjustment must correspond with what Russia regarded as “ the minimum for strategic safety.”. The Government in Helsinki might well regard the qualification as having an ominous purport. But the time when Russian magnanimity might have been better tested is long past, and what the future holds for Finland may now well depend on her readiness to anticipate the defeat that is inescapable. '