A RUSSIAN PEACE OFFER TO FINLAND? A possibly dramatic development coming via radio bulletins this morning -- Russia has reportedly submitted to the Finns, through the Swedish government, terms for ending the Soviet war against Finland. The terms are said to be roughly the same as Stalin’s demands before Russia launched her invasion, and include Russian annexation of the Karelian Isthmus. This is significant because, although Finland rejected those terms prior to the war, the Finnish government reversed course and accepted the Soviet demands shortly after the start of hostilities. At that time, Stalin’s government haughtily rebuffed the Finns and announced they would only deal with the Red Finnish puppet government installed by the Red Army in a border village. Now, if these reports are true, Finland’s bitter resistance has convinced the Russians that the legitimate Finnish government is worth talking to after all.
Startlingly, it’s now suggested that an armistice might come within days, and that the Finnish Army might reject the agreement and go on fighting if Finnish ministers agree to too many concessions. Russia might have new reason to seek a prompt agreement. Latest dispatches from the Karelian battlefield indicate the Red drive on Viipuri has stalled, with Soviet troops driven back from a foothold they had previously gained on the west side of the Bay of Viipuri.
A BRITISH-ITALIAN COAL CRISIS. Mussolini’s men are up in arms today over the unexpected British seizure of a dozen Italian ships which left Rotterdam earlier in the week with cargoes of German coal. (A late radio bulletin says the number of seizures is now fourteen ships). According to Frank R. Kelley in Wednesday’s New York Herald Tribune, the Italians are warning the seizures “might lead to grave developments,” but there are conflicting reports on whether Italy might retaliate by ending her 1938 economic agreement with Britain. James B. Reston’s story in Wednesday’s New York Times indicates the Italians were apparently testing a British warning that Italian ships leaving Rotterdam with German coal after March 1 would be taken. Britain maintains that “the entire British blockade of Germany will break down if the British, who insist it is their legal right to intercept German exports, allow the shipments of German coal to continue.”
The British move is the latest twist in the complicated economic relationship Italy has with the Allies. Both Britain and France have been buying war supplies from Italy, partially to keep those supplies out of German hands and to keep Italy from becoming to dependent on the Reich economically. The Italians import all of their coal, and until recently Britain was willing to let Germany supply much of their Axis partner’s coal needs, since Nazi coal fuels the factories that manufacture war goods to sell to the Allies. But in recent weeks, British ministers have tried to negotiate a barter agreement with Rome in which the Allies would take provide Italy’s coal needs, in return for manufactures. The talks broke down, and the British are trying to force the issue.
ITALY’S NATURAL ALLIANCE WITH HITLER. Barnet Nover writes in his Washington Post column Wednesday that the coal dispute is only incidentally an argument over coal. More to the point, he says, it has to do with Italy’s desire and need for a Nazi victory --
“What Mussolini wants is the undisputed control of the Mediterranean which is now dominated not by Italy but by Great Britain with the assistance of France. If the Allies are victorious, Italy’s position in the Mediterranean will be even more secondary than it is today, for an Allied victory will mean the destruction of German sea power. If Germany is victorious, however, it would mean the end of the British fleet, the end of British control of the entrances to the Mediterranean, the end, most likely, of the British and French empires. In the ensuing scramble Fascist Italy, as Germany’s friend and ally, would stand to gain something and might gain much. She has, on the other hand, little to gain from an Allied victory. It is thus to Mussolini’s presumed interest to help Germany in every way, particularly in every safe way.”
DOES THE COAL SEIZURE HELP THE ALLIES? Mr. Nover's column also mentions the possibility that “Italian capitulation to Allied pressure in a form dangerous to German interests would result in a tightening of German ties with Russia and a possible German-Russian thrust in the direction of the Balkans” -- a situation Italy emphatically does not want. The columnist approves of the British seizure, the goals of which appear to be to (1) force Italy to buy British or neutral coal instead of German coal, and (2) further tighten the blockade on Germany. But it seems more likely Mussolini will respond to British pressure by denouncing Italy’s economic arrangements with the Allies and strengthening ties with both Germany and Russia. Is that really what Chamberlain wants? Regardless of where Italy’s strategic interests lie, it can be argued that Britain is doing nothing by this action but to unnecessarily goad the Duce.
WELLES TOURS THE “FIGHTING” FRONT. Continuing on his mission to gather facts for President Roosevelt, Under Secretary of State Welles visited the Western Front, Monday. Walter Trohan reports in Tuesday’s Chicago Tribune that the Secretary didn’t see anything that much resembled fighting, but he did see a lot of underwear --
“French and German soldiers were hanging out their washing on the Maginot and Siegfried lines today....Men laughed, women sang, and children played in range of the death dealing guns and even in sight of the enemy. German soldiers moved about freely on their appointed tasks in full view of the French positions. The French were more cautious and kept themselves under cover, altho their drawers, shorts, and frocks could be seen dangling on clothes lines not many yards distant from the German washing.”
No comments:
Post a Comment