The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1939. FINLAND'S STAND

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20123, 18 December 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1939. FINLAND'S STAND

Admiration for the remarkable and heroic stand made Dy Finland against the Russian invasion is coupled with anxiety as to how long this uneven contest can last and with speculation as to the possibility of material assistance being given to the victim of aggression. Finland’s courage and pertinacity' in the face of such overwhelming odds has been a triumph with few parallels in history and she has scored a great moral victory by willingly facing such heavy sacrifices in defence of the principles for which she stands. This much she has achieved alone and unaided and her action has received the endorsement and moral support of the forty nations who were represented at the meeting of the League of Nations. What, then, is to be the next step? As M. Kallio pointed out in his broadcast appeal for help yesterday, Finland is appreciative of the economic help and sympathy of other nations, but these things will not enable Finland to save herself from aggression. Unfortunately, the fact lias to be faced that there are immense practical difficulties in the way of giving Finland the large-scale material assistance she so sorely needs —were it not so the* Soviet probably would have hesitated to attack—but this position makes it all the more necessary that such help as can be given should be made available as speedily as possible, and, equally important, that there should be a clear

understanding of Finland’s case.

The League discussion arid decision have had the effect of clarifying the attitude of smaller States towards aggression and should ensure that future developments of this sort in other spheres will meet with combined opposition. There is a particular lesson here for the countries of south-eastern Europe who owe much to Finland for her example and who are now assured of tangible support in the event of an attempt being maddgto Victimise them. Indeed, it is not too tnuch to hope that a new era has opened in international relations, and if this be the case it will be another debt which the world owes to Finland. In addition, the League investigation has served to expose still further the perfidy of Russia, but it is significant

and important that the case of Finland has not been allowed to obscure what still remains the chief issue confronting the world. The nations which assembled at Geneva not only condemned Russia and supported Finland but also censured the Nazi policy of aggression which made the Russian invasion of Finland possible. The German attempt to use the League to divert attention from her own crimes by fostering an anti-Soviet crusade proved to be a dismal failure and today both aggressor nations stand condemned in the eyes of the world.

There has never been a more clearcut case of unprovoked aggression nor a more flagrant case of disregard of treaties than the invasion of Finland. The position was effectively summarised in the address which the Finnish Foreign Minister broadcast to Moscow, and which the Soviet has chosen to ignore. Russia, M. Tanner recalled, broke off the negotiations which were proceeding between the two countries, refused the offer of mediation by the United States, rejected the overtures by Sweden, and flatly spurned the League of Nations. Instead, she preferred the doctrine of force. What hope can there be of peace when there are Governments, regardless of their politics, which thus reject every peaceable means of settling disputes? The position of Russia, indeed, is aggravated by the pacific assurances which she gave previously but which she disregarded at what seemed to be the first opportunity for her own aggrandisement. Two years ago, the Soviet delegate to the League demanded League support of the integrity and independence of all existing States and the inviolability of their frontiers, and even while the Finnish delegates were in Moscow a few weeks ago they saw placards asserting that the Soviet did not covet a single inch of foreign territory. Today, the same Soviet is throwing its hordes against a small State to rob it of its independence and to enforce claims to a transfer of its territory. In the meantime the Finns’ stubborn resistance to the invader continues, and whatever the outcome of the conflict the real victor will be Finland, because no nation which flagrantly abandons its avowed ideals and principles can hope to score a real success. Even from a military point of view the Russian gains so far have been hollow victories. Despite their overwhelming numbers and their preponderance of equipment, their maximum claims, which have no independent substantiation, are an advance on one front of 80 miles in 17 days. Time and again numerically inferior Finnish forces have repulsed the invaders, and Russia, with its customary disregard for human life, has sacrificed a hundred of its own men for every enemy loss. Even the Soviet press which started off by regarding the invasion as a “glorious walk-over” for its own troops is now compelled to modify its claims and to recognise the true worth of the enemy. The fact is that the Russians have shown once again their inferiority against a resolute foe while the Finns have again covered themselved with honour and glory. They have richly earned the support of other civilised nations and if only means can be devised for giving them support the invaders may yet be routed. Whatever the final outcome, however, the real honours of this campaign have already been won by Finland.