The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES." MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1939. FINLAND’S STRUGGLE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20087, 6 November 1939, Page 6

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES." MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1939. FINLAND’S STRUGGLE

According to to-day’s report the discussions between Finland and Russia are being conducted in a more favourable atmosphere. If this is the case, then it is clear that the optimism is not the outcome of any conciliatory attitude on the part of the Soviet. Since Russia now aspires to play an important part in international affairs it is desirable that her actions in regard to Finland, in particular, should be carefully studied and fully understood. Until a few months ago Russia and Finland had been on the best of terms, they were parties to a treaty of mutual respect and assistance, and there was not the slightest suggestion of any cause for dispute between them. There was actually less ground

for the ventilation of grievances than was the case between Germany and Poland, but there has since been a very close parallel between • the methods of Germany and Russia. Russia made certain claims against Finland, even as Germany did against Poland, and when these demands were rejected, Russian troops, again following Germany's example, were mustered in force on the Finnish border. At the same time, the Soviet broadcasting stations suddenly discovered various iniquities on the part of the Finnish Government and a need for "protecting" the Finnish people. And now’, to complete the parellel with the Nazis, Russia accuses Finland of

attempting to provoke war. It is an astounding thing that some

people who were completely outraged at the Nazi methods in regard to Austria. Czechoslovakia, and Poland, are prepared to excuse and condone precisely similar tactics on the part of Russia. It is clear that such an out-

look can only be based on politics and an absolute disregard of principles. If the Nazi aggression was wrong, then the Soviet aggression is doubly wrong, because it has not even the excuse of a minority problem or of an unjust treaty to be rectified. On the face of it, the Russian policy is merely a lust for domination —the action of a bully who seeks to use his strength to subdue his smaller neighbours —but there may be an ulterior motive. Even if there were any possible justification for the Russian “demands” against Finland, the Soviet conduct since is quite inexcusable. Even while the Finnish delegates were on their way to Moscow to discuss the issues, M. Molotov, in breach of his agreement, publicly disclosed the details of the negotiations, and then, after the delegation had arrived, the Soviet press launched a tirade against the Finnish Government, It might be inferred from this conduct that Russia, like Germany in her negotiations with Poland, was chiefly concerned with preventing an agreement and finding an excuse for war. The comment of the official Soviet

newspaper, the Pravda, should be closely examined by those who regard Russia as the saviour of peace and the one hope of civilisation. Russia, according to the Pravda, “will tread her own path, despite everything, smashing every obstacle en route to her goal.” What is that goal and what are the obstacles to it? Finland, a small, inoffensive, progressive nation, it would seem, is one obstacle that is to be smashed. “Finland’s precautions,” says the Pravda, “are taken only by countries preparing for war. Dr. Erkko delivered a direct threat against. Russia.” The

charge is just as absurd as it would be to suggest that New Zealand, by raising a territorial force of 5000 men, was delivering a threat against Japan. All that Dr. Erkko said was that Finland would fight for its independence, and Russia, incidentally, only a few months ago pledged herself to support, diose whose independence was threatened. Now, because Finland adopts the very policy which Russia claims

to support, she is accused of attempting to provoke war with the Soviet. Russian policy would be Gilbertian were it not so infinitely tragic, because it is being made abundantly clear that she proposes to use her new-found strength, not for the preservation of peace and democracy, but for the pursuit of a policy of aggression and domination.

Russian policy since the revolution has vacillated according to circumstances, but it was never more dangerous than at the present time. Originally the Soviet aimed at the spread of communism throughout the world and capitalism was its archenemy. Then, finding that progress was impossible under socialism, it resorted to the worst forms of capitalism itself. Trotsky and his followers, who advocated the original policy were branded as traitors and the archenemy now became the Fascist aggressors against whom the Soviet was prepared to ally herself with the democracies. Now' there has been another change. Russia has become an ally of the Nazis and has adopted the Fascist technique, and, by a strange twist of the political wheel, it is the democracies who are the arch-enemies. Could inconsistency be carried to greater lengths? Where is this policy to end and what is its ultimate objective? Already the Soviet has wrecked the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and now Finland is threatened and because she promises to make a stand against the aggressor she is accused of provoking war—in the same way as Poland and other States provoked

war against Germany, as Abyssinia provoked war against Italy, as China provoked war against Japan, or as Belgium, in 1914, provoked the Great War! The plain fact is that the Soviet, despite her previous protestations, joins the aggressors naked and unashamed. There may still be doubts as to her policy, but there can no longer be any doubt as to her insincerity and lack of principle and no further pretence that she stands for peace and democracy.