FINNISH PEACE HOPES DIMINISHING? Radio reports Monday night say that Sweden is losing optimism about the Russian-Finnish peace talks now taking place in Moscow. Russian demands are said to be stiffening. The story goes that Stalin’s men now want the Finns to turn over all of the Karelian Isthmus, including Viipuri, along with the whole of Lake Ladoga, and the Arctic port of Petsamo. It’s believed the Finns would fight, even if it meant fighting alone, rather than bow to such humiliating terms.
The news was mixed in Monday’s papers. Walter Kerr in the New York Herald Tribune writes that a four-man Finnish delegation, led by Premier Ryti, has been negotiating in Moscow since last Thursday. The Scandinavian press has claimed the talks are on the “eve of success,” and sources in Stockholm told Mr. Kerr the current Russian terms would permit Finland to keep both Viipuri and Petsamo. But a bad sign was noted Sunday night when Moscow Radio’s Finnish-language broadcast delivered a heated attack on Premier Ryti and called upon Finns to revolt against their “capitalistic government.”
Mr. Kerr believes that it’s all up to the Stalin now -- “Tonight war or peace depends no longer on foreign help, but on the Soviet Union. If its terms are considered by the Finns to be reasonable, the war which began on Nov. 30 will end. If they are not acceptable the war goes on.” (The next part of the dispatch was censored by the Finns.) An Associated Press story from Monday makes much of the Moscow Radio’s “violent” propaganda attacks the day before, and seems to take it as a strong indication that the negotiations are failing. The A.P. says it’s significant that “the nightly Moscow broadcast in the Finnish language had been kept off the air for two days when the negotiations were in early stages.”
Is it really less "hopeful" if the talks fail? I don’t know why anybody who isn’t crazy would ever have been “optimistic” about these talks. The choice seems to be a bad war (Finland gets beaten by Russia), a bad peace (Finland capitulates to Russia), or a very bad war (Allies send troops to help Finland, Germany attacks Sweden and Finland, Hitler and Stalin win and divide up Scandinavia). An utterly lousy choice, if you ask me.
BRITAIN FREES ITALIAN COAL SHIPS. Italy has “bowed” to Britain’s coal blockade, according to the headlines in Sunday’s Washington Post. The news that Britain has released thirteen seized Italian coal ships in exchange for a pledge from Mussolini not to import any more German coal is seen as an Allied victory in the newspapers. The British move came on the eve of German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop’s visit to Rome, where he was expected to enlist the Duce’s help in a new peace effort, or perhaps to solicit an Italian declaration of war on the Allies. “There is confidence [in London] that both missions will fail” due to the Anglo-Italian agreement, says a cable report in the New York Times.
ARE THE ODDS IN GERMANY’S FAVOR? Time magazine has an interesting analysis in this week’s issue marking the six-month anniversary of what the editors call “World War II.” Not counting the Polish and Finnish campaigns, casualties have been incredibly light so far -- 1,400 German soldiers, as opposed to about 1,000 Allied troops. But the British blockade is much more porous than the Chamberlain government cares to admit, and the Germans are “boasting of their Russian and Scandinavian and Balkan resources.” Morever, some knowledgeable U.S. observers think Hitler might have the upper hand. Time observes, rather skeptically --
“No one knows how vast are the reserve supplies laid by [German] Economic Dictator Goring before war started. That they are enough to carry Germany at least through 1940, at full-out war speed, may be the reason why such gloomy wiseacres as U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Joseph P. Kennedy were unsettling Washington last month with estimates that Germany has a 55-45 chance of whipping the Allies. Just how bad such a whipping would be, just what would constitute winning World War II, is something no wiseacre had yet attempted to say, in the first six months.”
Time also notes more ominously that ordinary Germans confidently expect a German offensive this month, some pinpointing the date as this coming Friday. The reason given is Hitler’s “mystical faith in March,” allegedly bolstered by the Fuehrer’s five personal astrologers. It is true that Hitler has made a number of significant moves in March -- the re-militarization of the Rhineland in 1936, the seizure of Austria in 1938, and the conquest of Czecho-Slovakia last year.
A HOPEFUL SPRING? The same Time article concludes on a not-so-rational, but nonetheless hopeful note -- “As always happens in dark moments in history, an omen was found last week to shed light amid the gloom. In the French Province of Lorraine there is a ‘miraculous’ spring which started flowing exactly three months before the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. It flowed again on August 10, 1918. Last week the Paris press was permitted to say that on Feb. 19, 1940, that spring began to flow once more.”
Could it be, then, that May 1940 will bring peace to France?
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Sunday, March 10, 1940
RUSSIA -- “END THE WAR ON OUR TERMS.” The papers this week-end are full of reports (and rumors) on Soviet Russia’s sudden interest in making peace with Finland. There's no consensus on whether or not it’s good news. One thing’s sure right now -- the Finnish government announced Thursday night that Soviet peace terms were on the way, supposedly harsher than the ones Stalin tried to force upon the Finns last autumn. These terms would be Finland’s cession of the Karelian Isthmus, along with multiple concessions for Russian bases elsewhere in Finland. A later report from Helsinki said that peace negotiations have begun. An Associated Press dispatch from Stockholm Saturday says the Swedes believe the talks are in the “final stage.”
Nobody doubts that the next few days are critical. Walter Kerr writes from Helsinki in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune that “the future of this little country depends on events of the coming week.” Mr. Kerr suggests that while the Finns are not interested in signing a peace that would reduce their nation to a Soviet vassal state, they do not like the bitter choice of fighting a lone, hopeless struggled against the overwhelming numbers of the Red Army. The upshot -- “Here in Helsinki it is said that the war will certainly go on if the next few days bring guaranties of real and immediate assistance. It may go on anyway, against odds which at times are crushing.”
WILL BRITAIN AND FRANCE FIGHT RUSSIA? Meanwhile, James B. Reston reports in Saturday’s New York Times that the Allies are trying to buck up Finnish resolve by promising great stores of military help, including troops. (Mr. Reston’s story doesn’t mention, though, Britain’s past vows of lavish military aid, and the subsequent lack of follow-through). Specifically, “the Finns were told that while they must decide for themselves how to answer the Soviet peace proposals, they might get ‘substantial’ military aid from the Allies if they will ask for it. This offer is interpreted in some quarters as an indication of Allied willingness to send an expeditionary force to support the Mannerheim Line, but this is not confirmed in British official quarters.”
The legal justification for Allied troops to join the fight would be December’s League of Nations resolution calling upon member states to halt the Russian aggression. The French and British desire to help Finland fight is prompted by the fact that any “peace” would very likely reduce Finland to the post-Munich status of Czecho-Slovakia, and merely postpone a full Soviet conquest. The resulting Russo-German domination of Scandinavia would be a major Allied defeat.
While the Finns have requested aid of all kinds, they have specifically not yet asked for direct military intervention. They fear this will provoke Nazi invasion before an effective Allied force could arrive, says the Times -- “while the British and French are trying to land 40,000 or 50,000 men -- in itself a staggering task -- Germany would occupy Southern Sweden, cut off Finland’s supplies and finally cooperate with the Russians in conquering the Finns.”
This leaves Finland in a supreme dilemma -- accept humiliating Russian peace terms, fight on and be crushed by Russia, or accept Allied intervention and thus invite German attack. It is tempting to root for Allied intervention and get this war once and for all established as a struggle of the democracies versus the dictatorships. But that would be asking too much of the Finns, who have given so much for their freedom already. And it would mean the deaths of countless Swedes and Norwegians as well.
MORE PEACE RUMORS. The International News Service reports Saturday that Finland has asked Germany to intervene in the peace negotiations, in the hope that Nazi intervention with Moscow would prompt the Russians to submit more “reasonable” peace terms. Sigrid Schultz writes in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune that Hitler has sent Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop on a hasty trip to Rome, to persuade Mussolini to mediate the Finnish war. Barnet Nover of the Washington Post says that Stockholm and Copenhagen are full of peace rumors, due in part to the fact that “appeasers are most numerous and most clamorous in the capitals of neutral lands.”
Donald Day reports from Helsinki in Friday’s Chicago Tribune an interesting item indicating that the timing of the peace proposals might have been a Russian blunder -- “These demands were intended to be handed to the Finns when Viipuri was captured, but because the Red army encountered new and more difficult Finnish defenses which kept them outside of Viipuri and because its flanking attacks across Viipuri bay failed, the peace proposals have become known at an inopportune moment.” Mr. Day adds that the Finns have grown deeply cynical about British offers of help. If Chamberlain had really wanted to persuade Stalin to halt the attack on Finland, some in Helsinki believe, the British could have threatened to bomb Russia’s Baku oilfields, depriving the Soviets of the means to commit further aggression.
WHAT THE EDITORS SAY. A lot of commentary in Saturday’s editorial pages on the Finnish situation --
New York Times -- “The nature of Russia’s peace terms may provide the first test in many months of the workings of the Hitler-Stalin partnership. If the terms are so severe that Finland cannot possibly accept them without suicide, it may show that Stalin has been able to override Germany’s wish for peace in the north. If the terms are moderate enough to be accepted by the Finns, they will suggest, at least, that Hitler has the whip-hand....Finland wants only a reasonable chance of continuing that independent, democratic way of life for which she has given such prodigies of sacrifice and courage. It is for the Finns, and the Finns alone, to decide.”
Washington Post -- “The Russian military incompetence which Finland has revealed of course greatly improves Germany’s diplomatic position. When Hitler and Stalin made their bargain last August there were some who thought Moscow would prove to be the dominant partner. That naive idea is now wholly exploded. If anything is clear today it is that a single German army corps could wipe the earth with Russia wherever and whenever such action might seem advisable.”
New York Herald Tribune -- “The Finnish war has become the heart of a complex of forces reaching from the Baku oil fields in one direction to Norway’s territorial waters in the other. How the forces will resolve themselves we may soon know. But in the mean while the Finnish people are still putting up their heroic fight. The lines, and their spirit, are still intact. If a peace which will save their country is possible, the free world will rejoice profoundly; but if it is not, their struggle will still go on.”
Chicago Tribune -- “Finland’s alternative seems to be either a bad peace which leaves it still a nation, or a worse peace which gives it the Red terror and dictatorship.”
Nobody doubts that the next few days are critical. Walter Kerr writes from Helsinki in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune that “the future of this little country depends on events of the coming week.” Mr. Kerr suggests that while the Finns are not interested in signing a peace that would reduce their nation to a Soviet vassal state, they do not like the bitter choice of fighting a lone, hopeless struggled against the overwhelming numbers of the Red Army. The upshot -- “Here in Helsinki it is said that the war will certainly go on if the next few days bring guaranties of real and immediate assistance. It may go on anyway, against odds which at times are crushing.”
WILL BRITAIN AND FRANCE FIGHT RUSSIA? Meanwhile, James B. Reston reports in Saturday’s New York Times that the Allies are trying to buck up Finnish resolve by promising great stores of military help, including troops. (Mr. Reston’s story doesn’t mention, though, Britain’s past vows of lavish military aid, and the subsequent lack of follow-through). Specifically, “the Finns were told that while they must decide for themselves how to answer the Soviet peace proposals, they might get ‘substantial’ military aid from the Allies if they will ask for it. This offer is interpreted in some quarters as an indication of Allied willingness to send an expeditionary force to support the Mannerheim Line, but this is not confirmed in British official quarters.”
The legal justification for Allied troops to join the fight would be December’s League of Nations resolution calling upon member states to halt the Russian aggression. The French and British desire to help Finland fight is prompted by the fact that any “peace” would very likely reduce Finland to the post-Munich status of Czecho-Slovakia, and merely postpone a full Soviet conquest. The resulting Russo-German domination of Scandinavia would be a major Allied defeat.
While the Finns have requested aid of all kinds, they have specifically not yet asked for direct military intervention. They fear this will provoke Nazi invasion before an effective Allied force could arrive, says the Times -- “while the British and French are trying to land 40,000 or 50,000 men -- in itself a staggering task -- Germany would occupy Southern Sweden, cut off Finland’s supplies and finally cooperate with the Russians in conquering the Finns.”
This leaves Finland in a supreme dilemma -- accept humiliating Russian peace terms, fight on and be crushed by Russia, or accept Allied intervention and thus invite German attack. It is tempting to root for Allied intervention and get this war once and for all established as a struggle of the democracies versus the dictatorships. But that would be asking too much of the Finns, who have given so much for their freedom already. And it would mean the deaths of countless Swedes and Norwegians as well.
MORE PEACE RUMORS. The International News Service reports Saturday that Finland has asked Germany to intervene in the peace negotiations, in the hope that Nazi intervention with Moscow would prompt the Russians to submit more “reasonable” peace terms. Sigrid Schultz writes in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune that Hitler has sent Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop on a hasty trip to Rome, to persuade Mussolini to mediate the Finnish war. Barnet Nover of the Washington Post says that Stockholm and Copenhagen are full of peace rumors, due in part to the fact that “appeasers are most numerous and most clamorous in the capitals of neutral lands.”
Donald Day reports from Helsinki in Friday’s Chicago Tribune an interesting item indicating that the timing of the peace proposals might have been a Russian blunder -- “These demands were intended to be handed to the Finns when Viipuri was captured, but because the Red army encountered new and more difficult Finnish defenses which kept them outside of Viipuri and because its flanking attacks across Viipuri bay failed, the peace proposals have become known at an inopportune moment.” Mr. Day adds that the Finns have grown deeply cynical about British offers of help. If Chamberlain had really wanted to persuade Stalin to halt the attack on Finland, some in Helsinki believe, the British could have threatened to bomb Russia’s Baku oilfields, depriving the Soviets of the means to commit further aggression.
WHAT THE EDITORS SAY. A lot of commentary in Saturday’s editorial pages on the Finnish situation --
New York Times -- “The nature of Russia’s peace terms may provide the first test in many months of the workings of the Hitler-Stalin partnership. If the terms are so severe that Finland cannot possibly accept them without suicide, it may show that Stalin has been able to override Germany’s wish for peace in the north. If the terms are moderate enough to be accepted by the Finns, they will suggest, at least, that Hitler has the whip-hand....Finland wants only a reasonable chance of continuing that independent, democratic way of life for which she has given such prodigies of sacrifice and courage. It is for the Finns, and the Finns alone, to decide.”
Washington Post -- “The Russian military incompetence which Finland has revealed of course greatly improves Germany’s diplomatic position. When Hitler and Stalin made their bargain last August there were some who thought Moscow would prove to be the dominant partner. That naive idea is now wholly exploded. If anything is clear today it is that a single German army corps could wipe the earth with Russia wherever and whenever such action might seem advisable.”
New York Herald Tribune -- “The Finnish war has become the heart of a complex of forces reaching from the Baku oil fields in one direction to Norway’s territorial waters in the other. How the forces will resolve themselves we may soon know. But in the mean while the Finnish people are still putting up their heroic fight. The lines, and their spirit, are still intact. If a peace which will save their country is possible, the free world will rejoice profoundly; but if it is not, their struggle will still go on.”
Chicago Tribune -- “Finland’s alternative seems to be either a bad peace which leaves it still a nation, or a worse peace which gives it the Red terror and dictatorship.”
Monday, March 7, 2016
Thursday, March 7, 1940
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)