DEEP REGRET IN BRITAIN

Southland Times, Issue 23989, 2 December 1939, Page 6

DEEP REGRET IN BRITAIN

FINNISH ATTITUDE CONCILIATORY REFERENCE TO AMERICA’S MEDIATION OFFER (United Press Assn.—Telegraph Copyright) LONDON, November 30. In the House of Commons, in a statement on the Soviet attack on Finland, the Prime Minister, Mr Neville Chamberlain, declared amid cheers that the British 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 the Leader of the Labour Opposition, .Major C. R. Attlee, who asked whether the Government had received from tHe Soviet Government any statement about “what appears to be an indefinable act of unprovoked aggression,” Mr Chamberlain replied: No, sir. None at q 11.” Mr Chamberlain prefaced this declaration with an historical resume of the exchange of views which had been taking place for some time 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 that the attitude of the Finnish Government was from the outset unprovocative, though governed by a determination to do nothing which would impair the country’s sovereign status. 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 of arbitration and offered meanwhile the withdrawal of troops. Mr Chamberlain spoke also of the warm welcome by Britain of the United States’s mediation offer. He referred to the invasion and reports of bombing at Helsinki, Viborg and other centres, with their attendant loss of life. INDEFENSIBLE ACTION After 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, expressirig 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 (Labour), 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 emphasized 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 civilization 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 scheme 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 wan? 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 civilized Germany, taking her place in a free and civilized 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 Prime Minister 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 war time as—first, preservation of the Allied solidarity; and, second, maintenance of relations with neutral countries. In the present conflict Britain and France not only maintained Allied solidarity, but had made Allied unity. Britain also maintained with success relations with neutral States. Her obligations in this respect were greater in this war than in the last because there were more neutral States. 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.