Northern Europe
War on Finland.—In most nations of the world, and particularly in those of the Western Hemisphere, the Soviet attack on Finland at the close of November was almost unanimously condemned as an outstanding case of unprovoked aggression at the expense of a minor state. After the break-off of negotiations in Moscow on November 13, affairs next took a grave turn on the 26th when the Soviet government declared Finnish artillery fire on the frontier had killed 7 Russians and wounded others, in consequence of which it was demanded that Finland withdraw her forces to a distance of 25 kilometers from the border. Finland’s reply next day stated that investigation showed the only firing at the time in question to have come from the Soviet side; a joint investigation was proposed, and it was suggested that joint withdrawal of forces be a subject for negotiation. Moscow on the 28th pronounced the reply unsatisfactory, declared the concentration of Finland’s troops on the border a menace to Leningrad and a violation of the nonaggression pact between the two countries, and forthwith denounced the pact.
On the 30th, without further warning, Soviet air forces made bombing attacks on Helsinki and other towns of Finland, causing death or injury to hundreds and extensive destruction of property. Troops crossed the frontier and occupied Finland’s arctic port of Petsamo and islands off the south coast. Despite a vote of confidence, the Cajander government in Helsinki resigned and was succeeded by a new ministry under Risto Ryti, governor of the Bank of Finland, with V. A. Tanner, one of the two former envoys to Moscow, as Foreign Minister. Through the Swedish Embassy the new government offered to negotiate with Russia on the basis of the original Soviet demands, but the offer was refused on the ground that the Helsinki government no longer represented the Finnish people. Instead the Soviets recognized a rump pro-Soviet ministry set up near the frontier at the time of the invasion, which proclaimed itself a “Finnish Peoples’ government.” This group accepted Soviet protection and signed a pact granting some 1,500 square miles of the Karelian Peninsula, other territory in the Arctic, and lease of Han-gok Peninsula for a Soviet base.
On land the Soviet advance was held up, despite the immense disparity of forces, by a well-organized and stubborn defense. The blockade of Finland’s southern coast, declared on November 7, suggested possible involvement of Russia in the wider European conflict, and raised questions as to whether the Soviet government had not blundered into a bigger conflict than anticipated in its hitherto adroit moves. In communist quarters, on the other hand, the war was justified as a legitimate protective measure to strengthen the land and sea defenses of Leningrad and the industrial areas of Russia against an attack by the capitalistic powers, and the suddenness of the war was described as a clever step upsetting British schemes to postpone a crisis till next spring, when the northern neutrals and even the United States might be enlisted in Finland’s support.
Reaction Abroad.—The attack on Finland was not followed by severance of American diplomatic relations with Russia though this course was advocated by prominent political leaders, nor was the Neutrality Act immediately put in effect. The first American move was a request to both sides to refrain from aerial bombing of civilian populations, and upon its disregard by Russia, a statement from President Roosevelt placing a “moral embargo” on export of American aircraft or parts to nations thus guilty. Through the Export-Import Bank the United States granted Finland $10,000,000 credit, and it was announced that her December debt payment of $243,693 would be held until Congress should decide whether it might be made available for her emergency use.
A meeting of the League of Nations Council and Assembly was called for December 9 to consider an appeal from Finland and also a suggestion, backed by several South American countries, that the Soviet Republic be expelled from the League for aggression. Thus it appeared that the moribund League might still serve at least as a means for expression of neutral feeling. The United States indicated willingness to join with other American nations in condemnation of Russia’s action. Italy permitted pro-Finnish demonstrations and dispatched munitions and warplanes to Helsinki, showing readiness to support a conflict that might keep the Soviets out of the Balkans. Sweden and Norway rushed troops to their frontiers and speeded up rearmament, though evidently reluctant to give Finland direct military support. Divided feeling on the war issue was seen in Sweden’s plans for a new coalition ministry, from which Foreign Minister Sandler was to be excluded for his pro-British learnings and undue encouragement of Finland’s refusal of Russian demands.
Franco-British Moves
German Exports Blocked.—On November 28, justifying their action as a reprisal for the illegalities of German mine and submarine warfare, the British and French governments issued orders for seizure of all exports from Germany and her occupied territories, whether shipped from German or neutral ports. The British order, effective December 4, was summarized in the press as follows:
- All goods found at sea in neutral ships that are of German ownership or of German origin or laden in German port—unless they had already become neutral property before today—are liable to seizure.
- Goods seized on the high seas are to be dealt with by a prize court under the law and practice of prize courts and they, or their proceeds, if they are sold, will be detained in custody of the court until the end of the war, when they will be dealt with at the court’s discretion.
- If it is shown that the goods detained became neutral before today, the prize court will have the power to order that the proceeds of the goods sold should be paid or the goods released at any time.
- If goods are aboard a vessel that cleared from her last neutral port of departure before December 11, the goods, if owned by a neutral, may be released.
The chief effect of cutting off German exports from overseas markets would be to deprive the Nazi government of almost its sole means of securing credits for war purchases abroad. Further, it could be combined with an expansion of Allied trade, particularly in South America and the Mediterranean, thus as in the days of Pitt making business to profit by war. Even before the orders went into effect there was promise of British trade increases with Italy and Spain.
Neutral opposition was expected, but the British had experience in dealing with this over 300 years. Opposition came quickly in the form of protests from Italy, Japan, Holland, Belgium, and the Scandinavian states. But to German demands that the protests be backed by violent countermeasures, Dutch officials pointed out that there were neutral grievances against both sides in the war, and that such grievances did not obligate neutral entry into the war against vastly superior power. Italy’s protests were perhaps mitigated by possibilities of profit, and Japan’s by concessions that might permit shipment of German machinery purchased by Japan before the date of the order. An American note of early December questioned the legality of the measures on various grounds and requested that their application “shall not cause interference with the legitimate trade of American nationals, reserving meanwhile all its rights and the rights of its nationals whenever and to the extent that they may be infringed.” American interest, however, was limited by the fact that our trade with Germany has shrunk to minor proportions, imports from the Reich in September, 1939, amounting to only $1,815,000, compared with $5,801,000 in September of the year before. u On another related matter, the issue of navicerts” by British consuls in this country to insure quick passage of cargoes destined for neutral nations within the war zone, the American State Department made no objection, but insisted that ships sailing from American ports should not refuse to accept goods of neutral destination not thus certified.
Allies Pool Economy.—A notable move toward more efficient war effort was seen in the decision of the Supreme Allied War Council, meeting in London on November 17, to co-ordinate control of British and French resources and economic measures under a Supreme Allied Economic Council. At the head of this body was placed the French banker and former League of Nations official Jean Monnet. As planned, the new control will mean: (1) a joint import program to avoid competitive buying abroad; (2) a pooling of the French and British merchant marines under British control in London; (3) a pooling of resources, so that surplus production in each country may be freely exchanged and possible shortages shared alike by the two nations.
As further evidence of French solidarity in the war effort, the Chamber at the close of November, in its first session after the outbreak of hostilities, voted 318 to 175 to extend the decree powers of the Daladier government for the duration of the war. As a concession to the opposition, the Premier promised that when Parliament was in session all decrees would be submitted for approval within a month’s time. Of the former 72 communist members of the Chamber, 5 quitted the party, 2 entered the Army, 39 were arrested, and others remained in hiding to escape indictment as traitors.
Central and Eastern Europe
Anti-Hitler Moves.—In the European press persistent rumors linked the attempted bombing of Chancellor Hitler in the Munich Burgerbrau Keller (November 9) with schemes of Right Wing elements within and outside Germany, and in particular with Otto Strasser as leader of an anti-Hitler group of German refugees and emigres. According to a report in the Paris Intransigeant, the assassination, had it been accomplished, would have been followed by possible negotiations with Goring as Hitler’s successor, with a view to peace and ultimately to a new anti-Soviet front in Europe. On the day following the attack two British intelligence officers, Best and Stevens, were seized by Germans in the Dutch border town of Venloo and taken forcibly into Germany. Though attempted communication between British agents and revolutionary elements in Germany was freely admitted, no convincing evidence was produced connecting Best, Stevens, or others with the Munich Affair or with the accused assassin. The latter, one George Elser, was declared by Nazi authorities to have had support from abroad, and to have planned his attempt since the fall of 1938.
Repression of Czechs.—As a result of Czech demonstrations on and after October 28, the anniversary of the founding of the Czech Republic in 1918, German authorities sharpened their measures of repression. Some 2,000 arrests were made on the night of November 16, and next day 9 Czech students were executed, the University of Prague was closed for 3 years, and martial law was applied to the Czech population in Prague and 4 other districts of the protectorate. Nazi Elite Guards to an estimated number of 10,000 were concentrated in the Czech capital.
Pressure on Rumania.—With territories claimed by neighboring states and trade sought by both groups of belligerents, Rumania in recent months has felt the full force of threats and pressure from the major powers. The fall of the Rumanian cabinet in late November was attributed to resistance of German demands for a monopoly of her wheat and oil, and at the same time there were reports of a Franco-British offer for 60 per cent of her exports. The new Premier, George Tatarescu, former Premier in 1934-37, was rated as a strong supporter of King Carol and a friend of France; his cabinet included only two members with pro-German leanings. Rumania’s labors for a Balkan peace bloc received a setback when on November 21 Foreign Minister Count Csaky of Hungary declared that recognition of Hungary’s territorial claims must precede Balkan unity—a statement which was taken to indicate Italian backing. And Rumania’s constant fear of Soviet aggression was heightened in early December by a press attack in an issue of the Communist Internationale, though this was later repudiated by the Soviet government. In general Rumania’s safety and Balkan peace rested precariously on the balance of Italy and Russia, and on the preoccupations of Russia and Germany elsewhere.
United States and Latin America
Welles Heads Inter-American Committee.—The Inter-American Financial and Economic Advisory Committee, authorized at the October meeting of American Foreign Ministers in Panama, held its first meeting in Washington in November. Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles was made chairman, and in an address stressed the aims of the committee to encourage inter-American trade and investment, facilitate transport, and provide assistance in the development of Latin- American natural resources. The committee, whose membership was composed chiefly of diplomatic representatives in Washington, was to be divided into subcommittees, one of which would deal with 27 projects of a commercial and financial nature referred to the committee by the Panama Conference, and another with plans for cushioning the effects of the European War upon the Western Hemisphere.
Latin-American Elections.—Latin American elections in November suggested a slight trend away from the radical parties. The Cuban Assembly election of November 15, described as one of the fairest in Cuban history, resulted in a setback for the Batista dictatorship, since the conservative opposition secured 41 seats to 35 for the supporters of Colonel Batista. The result, however, was due chiefly to discontent arising from Cuba’s economic difficulties. While there was some dispute as to the powers of the new assembly, government officials declared its sole function was to draw up a new constitution.
In Peru an earlier election, held on October 22 to select a new President, resulted on the final count in a victory for Manuel Prado, candidate of 12 Rightest parties, who received a majority of 3 to 1 over the candidate of the Popular Front. On December 6 President Prado began his 6-year term.
Far East
Chinese Supply Lines Cut.—Capture of the South China river port of Nanning, accomplished by Japanese forces in late November, served effectively to cut the Kwangsi-Indo China road over which 70 per cent of imports from the French territory reached Nationalist China. Control of the city also blocked the Yu River and the new Kweilin-Indo China Railway, which was to have been open for traffic early in 1940. Chinese minimized the effect on the ground that other routes would be available to westward and that sufficient munitions could still be drawn from home sources and brought in over the long truck road from British Burma. Perhaps as serious as the break in munitions traffic through the loss of Nanning was the interference with the export of tung off, which was being taken out through Nanning in American trucks under American direction, and practically the entire export of which was to be used for maintaining credits in the United States.
Franco-British Forces Withdrawn. —In November both Britain and France announced the reduction of their garrisons in North China, leaving only sufficient troops for ordinary police service. Since the combined forces of the two nations in the area amounted to less than 2,000, almost entirely at Tientsin, the withdrawal could have little military significance and hence was very generally regarded as a concession to Japan. The American State Department denied that a request for protection of French and British interests had been made or considered, and added that British forces would still be as strong as the two companies of American Marines at Tientsin. It was stated that American policy regarding our rights and interests in China was in no way altered, and on November 20 Under Secretary Welles took pains to reassert the right of Americans to trade within the foreign concessions at Tientsin without Japanese interference. To maintain such rights the American government appeared ready to exert the strongest pressure short of force. Senator Key Pittman, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, stated his purpose in the coming session of Congress to introduce a resolution empowering the President, after the expiration of the Japanese-American trade treaty on January 26, to impose an embargo on any or all exports to Japan. Trade restrictions would bear heavily on Japan in view of her dependence on this country not only for war supplies but as a market for exports. Japan’s 1940 budget approved in December is the highest in her history—10,360,000,000 yen, or roughly $2,400,000,000, of which 64 per cent is for military expenditures.