Speeches of WW2, December 20th to 26th, 1939

Wednesday 20th 1939
Admiral Lord Chatfield in a broadcast:
Whatever she may say Germany needs a short war, and so her hope is to break the British Navy’s grip on her supplies and to endeavour to defeat us rapidly where we are inded most vulnerable, yet where we are strongest – namely on the sea.
Now that the Royal Navy has broken the back of her submarine attack Germany has started to use a new type of mine, not laid according to international law in defined places, but strewed promiscuously over the sea routes to terrify the merchant seamen of the world from approaching our shores. Her latest effort is to machine-gun and bomb our fishing vessels and their crews employed on their ordinary daily work.
There is a third sea weapon she is using the surface warship and the armed raider. To find a needle in a bundle of hay is an easy task compared to finding a single raider free to roam the seven seas – those vast ocean speces in which British trade moves. It would be hard enough if you had perpetual daylight, permanently clear weather and a vast number of warships to hunt each quarry. While we therefore are justly proud of what the Navy has done to bring honour on this country and itself, let us remember that the dispositions of our hunting forces were mainly the difficult and anxious responsibilitiy of the Admiralty from the First Lord downwards.  Naval warfare is full of disappointments, but luck is bound to turn up if it is skilfully worked for…..

Friday 22nd December
Dr Goebbels, Riech Master of Propaganda, in a speech at a political Christmas Party
This is a ‘war Christmas’ celebrated by a determined people. There is hardly anybody in Germany who is not suffering from difficulties and hardships, and there is certainly nobody who does not want to suffer.
Germany’s very existence is at stake. Utterances from London and Paris provide clearer and clearer evidence of this fact. If, during the first week of the war, the Allied politicians tried to persuade the world that they were waging a war against Hilterism without wanting to injure the German people, nobody is trying to conceal today that it is their goal to strike and to split her up, thereby bringing her back to her former political and economic impotence. Either we resign as a great Power or we win this war.
It is of little significance for our national future who in particular among our enemies wanted this war or whether the British and French peoples are waging it joyfully and willingly. The great fact is that we are waging war. It would be wrong to assume that the warmongers in Paris would be more inclined to spare us than those in London. Both of them are just as brutal and cynical in their openly proclaimed war aims. This means that the whole plutocratic world has risen against the German people and its social community and wants to smash and destroy it…..
We celebrate this Christmas with that profound faith which is always the prerequisite of victory. There is among us no lack of that optimism essential to living and fighting. In this hour, we are not moved by grief and mourning, but by pride and confidence. Our people are united as one great family and they are determined to bear the hurden of fighting and working. We promise those at the front to see that the home front does its duty.
Wherever burden and sacrifices can be mitigated, we have done so and shall continue to do so. But wherever they are inevitable we will bear them together in order to make them lighter. Although peace is the real meaning of Christmas we shall talk of peace only after victory.

Sunday 24th December
His Holiness The Pope, in an address to the College of Cardinals:
All nations, great and small, strong and weak, have a right to life, and independence. When this equality of rights have been destroyed or damaged or imperilled the juridical order calls for reparation based on justice.
The nations must be freed from the burden of armament races, and from the danger that material forces may become not the defender, but the tyrannical violator of right….Peace must be founded upon disarmament…
Lessons must be drawn from past experience. This applies also to the creation or reconstitution of international institutions. And since it is difficult, if not impossible, to foresee and safeguard everything at the moment of peace negotiations, the constitution of juridical institutions which may serve to ensure the loyal and faithful application of the agreements and, where the need is recognised, to revise and correct them, is of decisive importance for the honourable acceptance of a peace treaty and for the avoidance of arbitrary and unilateral infringements and interpretations of the terms of the treaties. In particular, attention must be paid to the true needs and just demands of the nations and peoples, and of the ethical minorities….
Rulers of the peoples and the peoples themselves must become imbued with that spirit of moral justice which alone can breathe life into the dead letter of international instruments.

Tuesday, 26th December
Mr G A Gripenberg, Finnish Minister in London, in a broadcast:
Although the English people and the Finns are very much alike in both ideals and culture, many Englishmen know very little about my country. We are a long way away and rather off the beaten track. I should like to tell you, therefore, that we are quite ordinary people, and our cities are quite ordinary cities. We have large modern buildings, universities, theatres, cinemas, and all the wonderful amenities of modern civilised life.
In the years since we gained our complete independence we have built up a State where there is no unemployment, where every man and woman has the right and privilege to take part in the shaping of the destinies of the State, where the youth of all classes can proceed to the highest education and where, thanks to a far-reaching social legislation, the poorer classes are in every respect assisted and supported as far as our economic means will permit.
We have built a State with one hundred and fifty thousand new independent landowners, with new schools, new hospitals, and new welfare organisations, a State where every man, no matter what his origin, can reach the highest office, a state in which every man has the right to think and to speak freely, to worship as he pleases, and to follow whatever vocation or occupation he prefers. You will understand, therefore, why we are now standing and fighting to resist the Russian attempt to destroy us. All things which we, and indeed you, love and cherish are now at stake; our heritage from past generations our freedom, the very lives of our women and children.

Words & Speeches of WW2, 2nd to 8th December 1939

Saturday, December 2nd 1939
Letter addressed to Mr Rudolf Holst, Permanent Finnish Delegate, to Mr Avenol, Secretary-General of the League of Nations:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, with which Finland, since the signature of the treaty of peace at Tartu in 1920, has a maintained neighbourly relations, and signed a pact of non-aggression which should have expired in 1945, unexpectedly attacked on the morning of November 30th, not only frontier positions, but also open Finnish towns, spreading death and destruction among the evil population, more particularly by attacks from the air.
Finland has never engaged in any under-taking directed against her powerful neighbour. She has continuously made very effort to live at peace with her.
Nevertheless, alleging so-called frontier incidents and adducing the alleged refusal of Finland to acquiesce in strengthening the security of Leningrad, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics first denounced the above mentioned pact of non-aggression and then refused the Finnish Government’s proposal to have recourse to the mediation of a neutral Power.
In consequence, acting on the instructions of my Government, I have the honour to bring the foregoing facts to your knowledge, and to request you, in virtue of Articles 11 and 15 of the Covenant, forthwith to summon a meeting of the Council and Assembly, and ask them to take the necessary measures to put an end to the aggression.
I will forward in due course a complete statement of the reasons and circumstances which led my Government to request the intervention of the League of Nations on the dispute which has brought two of its members into conflict with one another.

Monday, December 4th 1939
Reply of M Molotov to League of Nations:
In the name of the Soviet Government, I have the honour to reply that the convocation of the Council of M Holst’s initiative is considered as unwarranted by my Government. The Soviet Government is not at war with Finland and does not threaten it, so that the reference to Article XI of the Covenant of the League is incorrect.
The Soviet Union has a pact with the People’s Democratic Republic of Finland which regulates all questions which negotiations with the former Finnish Government failed to achieve.
The People’s Democratic Government appealed to the Soviet Union for military assistance to liquidate the war danger created by the Former Finnish Government. Mr Holst’s application lacks a legal basis for calling the Council , since Mr Holst and his superiors do not represent the Finnish people.
The Soviet Union will not take part if the Council is convoked for December 9th…..

Tuesday, December 5th
Lord Halifax in a speech in the House of Lords:
….The toll or evil flowing from the German example and practice of aggression has grown and we have witnessed what has been universally condemned as an inexcusable act of aggression by one of the largest upon one of the smallest, but most highly civilised nations of Europe – their open towns bombarded, their women and children mutilated and done to death – on the pretext that a nation of under 4,000,000 had hostile designs against 180,000,000. The British people…..have profoundly admired the magnificent resistance of the Finns.
The Russian attack on Finland seems to me to be a direct consequence of German policy. By the agreement which he thought would give him a free hand to attack Poland was not his property to barter – the liberties of the Baltic peoples. The sequence of events has shown how wide is the damage once the floodgates are opened.
I think that events have shown that the judgement and instinct of the British Government in refusing agreement with the Soviet Government on the terms of formulae covering cases of indirect aggression on the Baltic States were right, for it is now claimed that these formulae might well have been the cloak of ulterior designs, and I have little doubt that the people of this country would prefer to face difficulties and embarrassments rather than feel that we had compromised the honour of this country and the Commonwealth on such issues……

Friday, December 8th
Statement issued by Finnish Government on the Russian blockade:
After the aggression against Finland the Soviet Union declared that a state of war did not exist. She has therefore no right now to take blockade measures, which involve not only Finland but other nations.
A blockade in time of peace is permissible only against countries which have violated retain stipulations of the League of Nations – as indeed Russia has done by invading Finland. To be legal, moreover, a blockade must be effective, as was stipulated by the Declaration of Paris of 1856, signed by all civilised countries, including Russia.
As far as is known Russia has no ship at the moment in the Gulf of Bothnia; and no ship can enter, since the Aaland Sea has been closed by mines. Hence, if the blockade concerns of Gulf of Bothnia is obviously without legal as well as without practical significance.
It is unlikely also that Russia will be able to blockade the Gulf of Finland effectively considering the length of its coast and the inadequacy of the Russian Fleet to carry out such an operations. Finland, thanks to her coastal defences, aviation, service vessels and mines can take effective measures to prevent Russia from carrying out the blockade.

Words & Speeches of WW2, December 14th to 20th, 1939

Tuesday, Devember 14th, 1939

Mr G.A. Grippenburg, Finish Minister, at a meeting at the House of Lords:

I stand before you as a representative of a small, democratic, preace-loving country which overnight, without warning and witout any declaration of war, has become the victim of the most ruthless aggression. Finland has striven unceasingly for agreement. We were willing to go very far in roder to avoid what has now happened, but the Russian Government would not have it.

There was no reason for FInland to refuse to discuss any question that the Soviet Government wanted to discuss. To give some conception of what the Russuan demands clearly meant, I will make a comparison. Think what it would mean to Great Britain if some neighbour about a forty time bigger than this country demanded the Channel Islands, the Isle of Wight, the port of Southampton, the port of Liverpool, and part of the county of Kent, and also aksed to be allowed to keep garrisons in some ports and enter into a military alliance which would make it possible for the bigger country to direct the foreign and home policies of the smaller country…

We want so far as to accept two-thirds of the Russian terms, but there was one condition we had to stick to. We could not accept anything which would have jeopardised our right to live as free men and women in the land of our fathers….While discussing this the Russian Government suddenly started the so-called incidents….

Even after the beginning of the war, after hundreds of causalities among the civil population, our Government let it be known to Russia that we were still willing to come to terms on conditions that a life of liberty and independence would be recognised. Molotov said he would not have any negotiations at all, and so we fight. The Finnish Prime Minister has said “We will hold out, but if we perish, then we believe that our fight has been an inspiration to the whole world”. And so I believe it is, for ours is the cause of all nations who love freedom.

Mr Chamberlain in the House of Commons:

It was generally agreed during the deliberations at Geneva in September of last year that each member of the League shoudl decide for itself, in the light of its own position and conscience, on the nature of the sanctions which it would apply under Article XVI of the Covenant against an aggressor State. His Majesty’s Government for their part have always hed the view that no member State ought to remain indifferent to a clear case of aggression of the sort with which we are now faced. At the outset of the attack on Finland, adn before the question had been raised at Geneva, they decided to permit the release and immediate delivery to Finland by the manufacturers concerned of a number of fighter aircraft of which the Finnish Government stood in urgent need, and they intended similarily to release other material which will be of assitance to the Finnish Government….

The opportunity provided by this conflict has been eagerly seized upon by the German propaganda machine, and by many people acting consciously or unconsciously in its service, to deflect attention from teh priary objective of the Allied War effort, which is the defeat of Nazi Germany. We must never lose sight of that objective. We must never forget that it was German aggression which paved the way for the Soviet attack on Poland, and Finland, and that Germany, alone among the nations, is even now abetting by word and deed the Russian aggressor.

We must all give what help and support we can spare to the latest victim of these destrictive forces; but meanwhile it is only by concentrating on our task of resistance to German aggression, and thus attacking the evil at its root, that we can hope to save the nations of Europe from the fate which must otherwise overtake them.

Saturday, December 16th

Count Ciano, Italian Foreign Minister, in a speech to the Chamber of Fascios and Corporations.

….The singular importance of the decison taken by the Governments of Moscow and Berlin to sign a mutual pact of non-aggression was emphasized by the sense of surprose which the communication aroused throughout the world.

For many months France and Britain attempted a policy of close collaboration with Russia which should have led to a much-heralded pact, and which, according to press reports, might even have reached the point of military collaboration. True, the slowness with which the negotiations went on and the existence of certain problems with regard to which a fundamental divergence of view between Russia and western democracies has arisen had unduced scepticism as to the possibility of arriving at a speedy and favourable conclusion.

Few people, however, were expecting an epilogue such as the one experiences with the conclusion of the German-Russian Pact. The truth is that Russia was going through a bitter crises due to the pitiless purge of Lenin’s Old Guard conducted in three memorable trials, following which dozens death sentances against leaders of the Revoltion Army field-mrshalls, admirals, and ambassadors had been carried out. The country was now being readmitted into the prestige of international politics by the great democracies, whoc envoys had for five months been filling the the waiting rooms of that inaccessible fortress known as the Kremlin. If the great democracies had only ignored Russia, Germany would have had good reason to want to do likewise.

The question had been breached with the German Government as far back as April and May. At that time we had agreed to proceed to a policy of detente with regard to Russia. Our object was to obtain the neutralisation of Russia adn to keep her from entering the system of encirclement planned by the great democracies-an action therefore of limited scope. in any case it appeared to us impossible to reach any more distant goal in view of the fundamentally hostile attitude which Nazi Germany had always assumed with regard to Russia…..

Once hostilities had begun and the Franco-British decision to assist Poland had been made known, the Fascist Government in it’s communique issued on September 1st, following a meeting of the Cabinet, stated that Italy would not take any initiative of a military character. This decision was previously known to the German Government and to the German Government alone. It defined the Italian attitude with regard to which there existed a full accordance of views with the German Government. The position assumed by Italy on September 1st was a position of non-belligerence, strictly in conformity with the German intention of localising the conflict and strictly ensuing from the pact and collateral undertakings existing between Italy and Germany. These and no other are the reasons for Italy’s statement of a military character…..

It is universally recognised that the realistic attitude of Italy has prevented a generalisation of the conflict, which is in the interest of our country and of all States. I wish to make it clear that no initiative has been taken by the Fascist Government so far, not is it our intention, as things stand, to take any.

I would add that Italy reaffirms her desire to maintain and consolidate order and peace in the Danube and Baltic region. A the same time she does not believe that the formation of any kind of bloc can be of use tot he countries which would take part in it, nor would such a bloc serve the higher purpose of hastening the re-establishment of peace….

Fascist Italy continues to follow with a vigilant spirit the development of event’s, even ready, it is be possible, once again to make her contribution towards world peace, but equally her interests and her traffic on land, at sea and in the air, as well as her prestige and her future as a Great Power.

Wednesday December 20th

Mr. RG Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia, in a broadcast:

…..Some of the ingenious gentlemen who broadcast from Berlin are feverishly engaged from day to day trying to explain to you that a country like Australia is really not involved in this war, that Australia is really not involved in the war, that Australia will simply sell food-stuffs to Great Britain and hope to make some profit, but that otherwise she will take care to risk no soldiers or ships or airmen or seamen in the conflict.

This silly falsehood has done service before. It overlooks the record of Australia in the last war; it overlooks the contribution of Australia made in blood as well as in treasure towards the winning of that war. It ignores the fighting Australian spirit. It seeks to reduce a race of free and vigorous and courageous men and women to the level of mere bargainers.

I say this to you without mental reservation and without ambiguity. If Australia were to do what the German propaganda says she proposes to do, she would be no more than a benevolent neutral. But because, in truth, she is not only furnishing Great Britain with material supplies, but is in course of providing for active service thousands of sailors, I am able to say we are not benevolent neutrals. We are belligerent partners. WE are in this war to win. We did not enter is lightly and we will not depart from it except as victors. Germany need encourage herself with no false hopes. She will discover to her cost that the winning of this war and the success of our noble cause are just as much the business of Australians as of Englishmen, of New Zealanders as of Scotsmen, of Canadians as of Irishmen. Scattered though we may be over the seven seas of the world, living in different countries, governing our own affairs, conducting our own international discussions, and handling our own trade, we are still one people. What touches one, touches all; what is vital to one is the supreme business of all.

Words & Speeches of WW2, 11th to 14th December, 1939

Monday December 11th, 1939
Extracts from White Book issued by Finnish Government, outlining the Soviet’s demands:
To make possible the blocking of the Gulf of Finland by artillery from both coasts to prevent enemy warships or transports entering the Gulf of Finland.
To make it possible to prevent any enemy gaining access to those islands in the Gulf of Finland situated west and north-west of the entrance to Leningrad.
To move the Finnish frontier along the Karelian Isthmus, now 20 miles from Leningrad – that is, within the range of big guns – to positions farther north and north-west.
To adjust the frontier in the north in the Petsamio region, where the frontier was badly and artificially drawn.
The following questions of common interest should be settled by mutual arrangement.
First: Leasing to the Soviet Union for 30 years the port of Hangoe and the territory adjoining situated within a radius of five to six nautical miles to the south and east, and three to the north and west, for the purpose of establishing a naval base with coastal artillery capable , in conjunction with the naval base at Paldiski (Estonia), of blocking access to the Gulf of Finland.
For the protection of the naval base the Finnish Government should permit the Soviet Union to maintain in the port of Hangoe the following: One infantry regiment, two anti-aircraft, batteries, three Air Force regiments, one battalion of armoured cars – the total not to exceed 5,000 men.
Finland in exchange for other territories, should grant the following: The islands of Suursaari, Sriskara, Lavanskari, Tytarskari and Koivisto, par of th Karelian Isthmus to a total fo about 1,066 square miles.

Tuesday, December 12th
Herr Von Ribbentrop in the preface to German White Book ‘Documents for the Period Proceeding the War’:
Since enemy propaganda is busy misleading the world about the cause of the war, it is important to prove beyond all doubt, with the help of official documents that Britain alone caused the war, and desired it in order to destroy Germany.
This collection of 482 documents deals with all the most important of the events from which the war with Poland, and then with Britain and France, developed. The documents show the systematic struggle conducted by the Poles, ever since the Great War, against Danzig and to destroy everything German in Poland. They prove the unlimited and gracious patience of the Fuehrer, and his statesmanlike endeavours to put German-Polish relations on a permanent basis that would do justice to the interests of both sides. They prove, on the other side, the short-sightedness and lack of understanding of the Polish rulers, who destroyed the possibility of reaching a final settlement that was offered again and again by Germany.
Above all, once can see from them how, immediately after Munich, Britain’s will to war became more and more obvious and how the British Government finally used the blindness of the Polish Government – Which Britain hand deliberately brought about – to unleash against Germany a war that had been planned long ago.
It would be necessary to give the history of the whole post-war period fully to unmask the hypocritical policy of British, whereby she opposed any attempt by Germany to free herself from the chains of Versailles, and stopped any possibility of a revision of those dictates at the conference table.
But it is sufficient to look a the short period since the autumn of 1930, on the basis of the documents in this White Book, to recognise that Britain had determined beforehand to meet the progress of the Führer with force – the Führer, whose statesmanship had removed the worse crimes of Versailles without bloodshed, and who would have succeeded in the same way in finding a peaceful solution of the German Polish question if Britain had not misused Poland as a tool in her desire for war.
This historic fact is confirmed by Britain’s insulting challenge to Germany in answer to the final magnanimous offer of peace which the Führer made in his Reichstag speech on October 6th……

Wednesday December 13th
Lord Halifax, Foreign Secretary, in the House of Lords:
….We are blamed…for not having made sufficient effort to conciliate Germany. I am not aware that Germany has exhausted herself in efforts to conciliate us, and I entirely decline to see this country put into the dock in international affairs and held in any way to blame comparably with Germany for the tragedy into which the world has moved…..
I am quite certain Hitler is very anxious for peace on his own terms. I cannot be sure that he is anxious for peace on terms that would make for the peace of Europe in later generations.
Nobody can feel more strongly than I do the horror and tragedy of war. Nobody can feel more strongly than any one of your Lordships about how criminally wrong it would be to miss any opportunity for peace.
But do not you come back to the fundamental question: Were you or were you not right to make a stand for the cause which led you into this war three months ago? I could understand the pacifist saying you were wrong, but if you were right, would it not be wrong to stop until you had done your utmost to secure the cause for which you went to war?…..

Mr Paul Reynauld, French finance Minister, in the Chamber of Deputies:
This is the language of sacrifice….I consider victory to be certain if Frenchmen will show themselves worthy of the great hours of their history. The war potential of the Allies is immense because the freedom of the sea, though disturbed, is still maintained.
After six years of the Nazi regime the German people are undergoing a nervous strain comparable with that which they underwent at the beginning of 1918 after three and a half years of war. Nazi leaders know that a military check would set in motion factors leading to the collapse of the regime drawing its sustenance from prestige and terrorism.
We must prepare ourselves against the dangers of prolonged military inaction. Hitler who is a revolutionary agitator, has watched German democracy fall to pieces. He has always since 1933 places his hope in the weakness of democracy, and he is still playing this card, believing that internal dissension will come as time passes…..
It is possible that this war, which began in a sort of apathy, many finish in a general conflagration. Perhaps in the darkest days our idea of liberty and of property will exist only in our hearts, but it will be there ready to blossom fourth after the days of trial.
That day is upon us, but we shall win. We shall conquer the enemy if first of all we conquer ourselves.

Resolution of League of Nations on Russian Invasion of Finland:
The Assembly of the League, having determined that by the aggression which she has committed against Finland the Soviet Union has violated all its agreements and special political accord with Finland, as well as the Pact of Paris (the Kellogg-Briand pact) and Article 12 of the Covenant of the League: and inasmuch as it has proceeded to a denunciation without legal right of the treaty of non-aggression concluded with Finland in 1932 which should have remained in force until the end of 1945.
Solemnly condemns the action of  the Soviet union against the Finnish State, addresses the present appeal to each member of the League so that it might furnish such material and humanitarian aid to Finland which is it able to do, and might sustain from any act which might abstain from any act which might diminish Finland’s power of defending herself, authorises the Secretary General to give all the aid of the League’s technical services to the assistance of Finland…..
Considering that the Soviet Union, in spite of the invitation extended to it, and which it rejected before the Council and the Assembly could make an inquiry into the conflict with Finland.
That by virtue of the fact that is has violated its most essential obligations towards the League and its guarantees for the peace and security of nations, and has acted in this affair as if the conditions outlined in Article 15 of the Covenant did not apply to itself.
That is has vainly tried to justify its rejection by pretending to be in relations with a Government which does not exist, either legally of in fact, and has ignored the Government of the Finnish people which represents Finland’s free institutions.
That the Soviet Union is not only guilty of violation of its obligations under the Covenant, but by this very fact is place beyond the jurisdiction of the Covenant.

Tuesday, December 14th
Resolution expelling Russia from League of Nations:
The Council having taken cognizance of the resolution adopted by the Assembly on December 14, 1939, regarding the appeal of the Finnish Government, (1) associates itself with the condemnation by the Assembly of the action of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic against the Finnish State, and (2) for the reasons set forth in the resolution of the Assembly, in virtue of Article 16, paragraph 4, of the Covenant, finds that, by it’s act, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has placed itself outside the League of Nations. It follows that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is no longer a member of the League.

Words & Speeches of November 1939, WW2

Tuesday, November 28th, 1939
Reply to Finnish Government to Russian demand for withdrawal of troops from frontier near Leningrad:
It is established that the discharge of cannon shots mentioned in your communication did not take place on the Finnish side. Investigations showed instead that on November 26th between 3.43pm and 4.50pm firing occurred on the Russian side of the frontier in the vicinity of Mailia, the place mentioned by you…..
Therefore it is our duty to deny, protest and establish the fact that from the Finnish side no hostile action towards the Soviet union has taken place. It should be pointed out that on the Finnish side of the frontier only frontier guards are stationed, and there is no artillery whose range would reach the other side of the frontier.
Consequently, although there is no concrete reason to remove our troops from the frontier line in the manner you suggested, the Government is nevertheless ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union on the proposal with the intention that troops be removed from both sides to a fixed distance from the frontier.
The Finnish Government has noted with satisfaction your intimation that the Soviet Government does not intend to exaggerate the importance of the frontier incident which they, according to your communications, believed at the time has taken place.
In order that no obscurity whatever may remain any circumstances, the Finnish Government suggests that the Karelian Isthmus Frontier Commission be instructed jointly to investigate in the manner regulated by the treaty of October 24, 1938, concerning frontier demarcation.

Wednesday, November 29th
M Molotov in a broadcast to the Soviet People:
The hostile policy of present Finnish Government compels us to take immediate steps to safeguard the external security of our state. You all know that the Soviet Government had patently negotiated on certain proposals which, in view of the present international tension, the Soviet considered to be the minimum guarantee for the safety of our country, and in particular Leningrad. During these negations the Finnish Government adopted an irreconcilable attitude towards our country. Instead of attempting to find a friendly basis for an understanding, the present leaders, acting in the interests foreign imperialists and warmongers, who are the enemies of the Soviet Union, elected to take a different course.
It is well-known where this had led, there has been abominable provocation by the Finnish military on the Finnish-Soviet frontier during the past few days. our soldiers were even shelled by artillery near Leningrad, and heavy casualties were caused among the Red Troops. our effort to prevent a repetition of such provocation by practical proposals put to Finland have met with no response and even evoked a hostile attitude in Finish leading circles.
As you all know from yesterday’s Soviet Note, the Finns have replied by rejecting our Proposals and by denying established facts. They have even jeered at our victims. Their reply shows their undisguised desire to continue their threat to Leningrad. All this has made it quite clear that the present Finnish Government, who are entangled in anti-soviet commitments and foreign imperialists, do not wish to maintain normal relations with the Soviet Union. They show no desire to comply with the provisions of the Non-Aggression Pact, and want to keep our glorious Leningrad under military threat.
From such a militarist Government we can expect nothing but  French impertinent provocation. The Soviet Government were therefore compelled yesterday to declare that they do not consider themselves any longer bound by the Non-Agggression Pact.
In view of fresh attacks by Finnish troops on the frontier our Government found themselves compelled to take new decisions. We can no longer tolerate the present situation, for which the Finnish Government have decided that they can no longer maintain normal relations with Finland and have considered it necessary to recall their diplomatic representatives. Furthermore, the High Command of the Red Army has ordered the Army and Navy to be in readiness for any eventuality in order to prevent possible fresh provocation by the Finnish Military.
These measures have not been taken, as has been alleged abroad, with a view to violating Finnish independence or annexing Finnish territory. This is a perfidious calumny. We have no such intentions…..
It has also been alleged that our measures are directed against Finnish independence, and that they constitute an interference with Finnish domestic and Foreign policy. This is also a malicious calumny. We regard Finland as an independent and sovereign state, whatever her regime may be.
We consider that the Finnish people are entitled to decide themselves all matters of foreign and domestic policy in the way they deem necessary. The people of the Soviet Union have done what was necessary for the independence of Finland. The people of our country are prepared to assist the Finnish people in securing a free and independent development……the only aim of our nation is to safeguard the security of the Soviet Union and in particular of Leningrad, with its population of 3,500,000.
In view of the present international situation, which is extremely tense as a result of the war, we could make the solution of the vital and urgent questions conditional upon the bad faith of the present Finnish leaders. This matter must be solved by the Soviet Union in friendly co-operation with the Finnish people. Only the successful solution of the problem of the safety of Leningrad can lead to a new era of friendship between the Soviet Union and Finland.

Thursday, November 30th
Mr Chamberlain in the House of Commons:
The House will be aware that for some time past there has been an exchange of views between the Soviet Government and the Finnish Government on certain questions mainly of a strategic character, raised by the former. Some apprehension has been expressed by the Soviet Government at the proximity of Leningrad to the Finnish frontier, which is, in fact, only some 20 miles distant, and a proposal was made by them for the relinquishment of that part of the frontier in exchange for territorial compensation farther north.
Further claims were also made to the acquisition of certain Finnish islands in the Gulf of Finland and of a Finnish post at the entrance of the gulf in order, it was taken, to assure the position of the Soviet union in the Gulf of Finland…..
The attitude of the Finnish Government was from the outset unprovocative, through governed by the determination to do nothing which would impair their country’s sovereign status. It is known that the Finnish note delivered in Moscow immediately before the announcement of the rupture of diplomatic relations was of a most conciliatory character.
The Finnish Government proposed to submit the dispute to arbitrations and offered meanwhile to withdraw all troops from the Finnish frontier in the Karelian Isthmus with the exception of the ordinary frontier guards and Customs forces. Nevertheless, the Soviet Government on Tuesday night denounced the Soviet-Finland non-aggression pact, which has been expressly designed to ensure the settlement of disputes such as this by peaceful means.
His Majesty’s Government have observed this development with increasing concern and have found to difficult to believe that strategic measures of such scope and importance as were suggested should have been considered necessary to protect the Soviet Government against a country as small as Finland.
Late last night M Molotov broadcast a statement, in the course of which he is officially reported as having denied the suggestion, which he attributed to the foreign Press, that a Soviet attempt on Finland was intended. Yet only a few hours after this broadcast it is understood that Soviet forces have invaded Finnish territory on several sections of the frontier and have dropped bombs in the vicinity of Helsinki. It is later reported that Helsinki, Viborg and other centres have been bombed, in some cases with loss of life.
His Majesty’s Government warmly welcomed the offer of mediation made by the United States Secretary of State, because in their opinion the questions at issue between Finland and the Soviet were not of a nature to justify warlike measures. They deeply regret this attack on a small independent nation, which must result in fresh suffering and loss of life to innocent people.

Friday, December 1st
President Roosevelt in a statement at a Press Conference:
The news of the Soviet naval and military bombings within Finnish territory comes as a profound shock to the Government and people of the United States.
Despite efforts made to solve the dispute by peaceful methods to which no reasonable objection could be offered, one Power has chosen to resort to force of arms. It is tragic to see the policy of force spreading and to realise that wanton disregard for the law is still on the march.
All peace-loving people, those nations that are still hoping the world on the basis of law and order, will unanimously condemn this new resort to military force as the arbiter of international difference.
To the great misfortune of the world the present trend towards force makes insecure the independent existence of the small nations of every continent and jeopardizes the rights of mankind to self-government.
The people and Government of Finland have a long, honourable, and wholly peaceful record which has won for them the respect and warm regard of the people and Government of the United States.

Words & Speeches during WW2, November 1939

Monday November 27 1939
Mr Herbert Morrison, MP Leader of the London County Council, in a broadcast:
Stage by stage Hitler built up his power. Piece by piece he swallowed up his neighbours. Each time, like the drunkard, he swore it would be the last. Each time he set about preparing the next daylight robbery. In Poland he used force instead of merely threatening it: but having seized what he wanted he made the old promise that now he would turn over a new leaf and settle down.
Today we stand, with France, prepared for what may come; today, owing to Poland’s terrible martyrdom, the Allies have had time to make ready. Germany has missed the aggressor’s best chance – a flying start.
But supposed we made peace now? How do we know that, when his strength was renewed and our preparations were dissipated, Hitler would not launch his Blitzkrieg out of a clear sky, and crush us before we could start?
Some seem to hope that Russia has Hitler pinned down and will not allow him to start a new war in the west. But has Russia ever said so? And what other guarantee of safety and freedom for Europe have we besides the word of Adolf Hitler?

The Nazi regime is, as it always has been, a poisonous growth, a wholly evil thing. A leopard of this kind cannot change its spots. It must dominate, or die. And what would happen it if did dominate, and if the threat of military defeat – which was drawing very near to us this summer – became a realised fact? A victorious Nazi Germany insists upon setting it up in its conquered territories governments of its own kind……
It we are fighting only to end the Nazi threat to our future, if we have no aim but to get back to pre-Nazi Europe, we are chasing a will-o’-the-wisp and we shall fall into the mire. The roots of war lie deep in our present ways of living, and we have the chance now to dig some of them out.
If we really mean to build a clean, ordered secure world after this war, we must be ready to sacrifice as individuals, as classes, as a nation. While we must be ready to surrender a measure of national sovereignty, we must maintain the cultural freedom of nations and a proper measure of independence in their political life. We must cling to an ideal of government, whatever its actual form, as something which exists to serve peoples, not to dominate them…

Tuesday, November 28th
Mr Chamberlain in the House of Commons:
There is one observation I should like to make on the subject of peace aims which I do not think has been made before. This idea of building a better world does not require a war to bring it into men’s minds. Every statesman who has any right to such a name has been hoping and trying to improve the general condition of the world whenever he has any opportunity of doing so, but the condition in which Europe has been kept for such a long period by the policy of Germany has made it absolutely impossible to make any progress in this task of improving world conditions on the scale which we should have like to see…..
When I spoke on this subject on Sunday I said that the conditions in which peace aims could be achieved could not as present be foreseen. I did not say that they were remote. I do not know. I said that they could not be foreseen, and I say now that none of us knows how long this war will last, none of us knows in what directions it will develop, none of us knows when it is ended who will be standing bu our side and who will be against us, and I say that in those circumstances it would be absolutely futile – indeed it would be worse than futile, it would be mischievous – if we were to attempt to lay down today the conditions in which the new world is to be created…..
First of all, we must put an end to this menace under which Europe has lain for so many years. If we can really do that, confidence will be established throughout Europe, and whilst I am not excluding the necessity for dealing with other parts of the world as well I feel that Europe could be settles the rest of the world would not prove so difficult a problem. If we can establish that confidence, then many thing which have seemed difficult, or impossible in the past might prove to be, if not easy, at any rate attainable.
We shall need all our courage, all our tenacity, all our patriotism to achieve our war aim, for let us not make the mistake of underrating the strength of our enemy. When we have achieved that aim, then indeed we may find that we may require an even greater vision, an even greater will to win the peace that it has taken to win the war. I do not doubt that when that time comes there will be those who will have that vision and that will.

Tuesday November 28th
Sir Samuel Hoare, Lord Privy Seal, in a speech to the Chelsea Conservative Association:
We were prepared for a sudden, a swift and staggering climax. In its place there have been three months of watching and waiting. People are saying that we are suffering from boredom. I believe myself that this feeling is altogether superficial. If we look impartially upon the story of the last three months we shall come to the conclusion that so far from nothing having happened things have happened that will leave for all time their mark upon the course of events in the world.
In the early days of September the German Government believed that the Russian agreement meant a preponderance, or at least a balance, of force in the world. Yet throughout these three months the German Army has been pinned to its muddy trenches on the Western Front. Hitler has been foiled of his knock-out blow, although it was the very essence of his strategy. Instead, there have been endless discussions at his headquarters. There have been rumours of wrangling with this advisers; and Czechoslovakia; there have been murmurs of discontent in Germany itself. I do not exaggerate the importance of these reports. I do not suggest that morale is likely to break in Germany. But what I do say is whilst Hitler was determined to finish his quick war in a few months, these twelve weeks have left him weaker and not stronger, and they have enabled the French and ourselves greatly to strengthen our military position in the world. The knock-out blow can never be delivered.

Only in one direction has Hitler attempted to act. Violating all treaties and agreements, contrary to every dictate of humanity, he launched his U-boat campaign and has followed it with the ruthless use of his much vaunted secret weapon, the mine that is dropped from the air. These inhuman attacks have led to the sinking of many ships and the loss of many lives.
We are beating the submarine, and so it will be with the new mine. We shall suffer losses and we shall bear them with resolution. They will lead to even greater sacrifice, and this new effort will show that Hitler’s secret weapon will end by doing him more injury that iw will ever inflict upon us.
If we hold firm, we are sure of victory, and look where I will I will see every evidence to show that we shall hold firm……
If I describe our economic policy in a single sentence I would say that is to interfere as little as the circumstances of war allow and to obtain a much co-operation as we can between the Government on the one hand and industrialists and labour on the other.
It is co-operation that we need everywhere if we are to have a 100% war effort. So as I am concerned as a member of the Cabinet, I can sat that we welcome the help of any citizen, to be a member of the Opposition, result of help is make our effort more fully effective. For in all these things we are determined to win the war; that is our first and over-ruling war aim.

Words & Speeches during WW2, November 1939

Words That History Will Remember

Tuesday November 13th, 1939
M. Paul Reynauld, French Minister of Finance, in a broadcast:
Returning two years ago from a visit to Germany. I said to my fellow countrymen: “Hurry up and arm. You have already entered the bloodless period of the war”. And now we are at war. And again I say, our enemy is formidable. He is making frantic preparation. Time will be on our side it we use it. We must make freely an effort superior to that imposed by force on the German people. our enemy is convinced that democratic peoples will not submit to such great sacrifices as they themselves. In that they are mistaken. After a few hours spend in this country I am impressed by the unanimous determination of the British people to conquer and to obtain at last the peace which will be really peace. the people of the country are as individualistic as our own, and still they have outrageously accepted the discipline which is necessary in time of war. Industry has adapted itself to the necessity of arming the nation. To increase production the workers have agreed tot he relaxation of the rules of the Trade Unions. The sacrifice the taxation demanded is without precedent. All these things bear witness to the determination of the British people.

Now you will ask, what about the French people? Imagine a country in which one in every eight inhabitants is in the army; a country in which women have replaced men in the factories and the fields. Nearly all the horses and the lorries have been commandeered. Very often there remains in a village only one horse, which is used by all in turn. The women whose husbands have left for the front guide the plough….
Everyone has bravely faced the disaster. Our magnificent working-class is working sixty hours a week and more, and they are not only working overtime, but they are giving up 40% of their overtime pay. In addition to this, those under forty-nine who, by their age, are eligible for the army, are paying another 15% of their salaries. Beside this, food restrictions have already started. Not only have the French people accepted these sacrifices with courage, but in spite of all this difficulty the financial recovery has not been interrupted. The rich continue to bring their money back into their country, for there are today greater gold and foreign exchange reserves than at the beginning of the war. The poor are making their money available to the country by increasing their savings in the banks. Everyone in France is confident in his country…..

Tuesday, November 21st
Mr Chamberlain in the House of Commons:
The House will be aware that during the last three days upwards of ten ships, six of which were neutral, were sunk, with a serious loss of life, by German mines.
The Hague Convention, to which Germany is a party and which she announced her intention of observing as recently as September 17th last, provides that when anchored mines are used every possible precaution must be taken for the security of peaceful navigation. this is the very essence of the convention, as the mines cannot discriminate between warship and merchant ship or between belligerent and neutral. the convention particularly required that the danger zone must be notified, as soon as military exigencies pursuit, once the mines cease to be under the observation of those who laid them. None of these provisions has been observed by the German Government in laying mines which caused the losses I have mentioned, and this fresh outrage is only the culmination of as series of violations of the agreements to which German has et her hand.
I need only recall the sinking of the Athenia with the loss of 112 lives and subsequently the destruction of British Allied and neutral vessels by mine, torpedo or gunfire. These attacks have been made often without warning and to an interesting extent with complete disregard of the rules laid down in the Submarine Protocol to which Germany subscribed or of the most elementary dictates of humanity.
His Majesty’s Government are not prepared to allow these methods of conducting warfare to continue without retaliation. I may remind the House that in the last war, as a measure of justified reprisal for submarine attacks on merchant ships, exports of German origin or ownership were made subjects to seizure on the High Seas.
The many violations of international law and the ruthless brutality of German methods have decided us to follow a similar now, and Order in Council will shortly be issued giving effect to this decision.

Wednesday November 22nd
Sir John Simon, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a broadcast:
Paying for the war is the business of every one of us. This is the most expensive war ever fought. It is already costing this country at least £6,000,000 a day…..We must all save every penny we are possibly can, in order that we may have it to lend. Everyone who spends unnecessarily on himself is making it more difficult to carry on the war. If a man saves all he can and lends it to the Government he is not only making a useful provision for himself, but is himself helping to fight the war and hastening the day of victory….
There is another reason why everybody should limit their spending and instead save all they can. The Government is bound to spend vast sums on supplies for carrying on the war, and there cannot be at the same time the same plentiful supplies for the people to spend their money on as in peacetime. Productive power, which would in peacetime be diverted to war production. In wartime our imports from abroad have to be cut down. There is inevitably a reduction in the supplied o some thing sto which we have become accustomed. There is, therefore, a special need for restraint in outlay, for if supplies are restricted and at the same time the public, instead of saving, tries to buy as much as or more than in peacetime, all this helps to raise prices unnecessarily.
You have been reading in your newspapers today of this lest abomination of German savagery – the magnetic mine secretly deposited in the channels of the sea in order to blow up without warning neutral and British shipping alike; and to destroy innocent lives – women, children and unmarried men – in breach of rules of war which Germany only two months ago had expressly promised to obey. Not even the inventiveness of Herr Goebbels can suggest that these sinkings have been contrived by the perverse ingenuity of Mr Churchill to order to throw the blame on Germany! By this ruthless brutality the enemy hopes to sap the strength of our island fortress and to cut off our supplies. Meanwhile, the brave crews of our mine sweepers are risking danger for their country’s sake, our incomparable Navy is on the watch, the Air Force keeps ceaseless vigil, the Mercantile Marine continues its perpetual services, devoted to meeting the new danger. We are confident that their efforts, will be successful. Everyone can do his utmost to strengthen and support the country by saving all he can and putting his savings at the service of Britain.

Words & Speeches During WW2, November 1939

Thursday, November 9th, 1939

Mr Chamberlain in a speech read at the Mansion House luncheon:
“I should like to make a few observations upon this strangest of wars which, in the form in which it has hitherto been waged, must seem to many who remember the 1914-1918 conflict to be no war at all, but rather a sort of siege.
We do not know how long this phase will last or whether at any moment it may not be changed into violent conflict. But we can see at any rate that the position of the Allied has, as the works have gone by, rather strengthened that deteriorated.

The treaty we and our French allies have concluded with Turkey will be a powerful instrument for the peace of South-Eastern Europe. On the other hand the pact between German and the Soviet union has gained, indeed, great advantages for the Soviet, but has brought only humiliation and loss for Germany.
The repeal of Neutrality Act in the SA is a mementoes event, for while it affords America the means of maintaining her neutrality it re-opens for the Allies the doors of the greatest storehouse of supplies in the world.
We may be thankful that our successes in hunting down the submarines, and in numerous conflicts in the air, have as yet been unclouded by the terrible causality lists that were only too familiar to use in the last great wear. And we may be proud of the fact that British Expeditionary Force has been transported to France without the loss of the a single man or a single piece of equipment.
One thing that stand out before everything in these first weeks of war is the essential and fundamental unity of our people…..

Friday, November 10th
Sir Neville Henderson, in a speech at the Press Club, London
…….My mission ended in a tragic failure, and I think probably it could not have ended in any other way. The ambitions and appetites of a dictator grow as the need for dictatorship diminishes and as the fear of a dictator and of his small extremist minority – the fear of losing their power – becomes more pressing. In the end of megalomania of one man defeated the Prime Minister and defeated me also. You can leave the verdict to history.
I have a very vast respect for the power and influence of the British Press, a very deep appreciation of the absolute necessity for its complete freedom, but also a certain apprehension as to the users to which it may put it’s great power. In spite of all the bitterness of failure I still assert that the Nazi case at its beginning has a certain measure of justification and that the two-sweeping condemnation in England of everything to do with it was not fair. Some people say that there is no distinction between Nazism and Germans. That I submit is standpoint of despair. This was will have been fought in vain if at the end of it we have not helped to teach the German people themselves that distinction. Hitler himself was the mere creation of a general feeling – felt by every German – against the injustice of Versailles.

It was at least a reasonable view – it was one I held when I went out there – that Nazism could only be destroyed from within, and that the legitimate German grievances has to be eliminated before the German people themselves could eliminate the hateful features of Nazism. I still believe that is the correct standpoint. Had Hitler stopped at Munich, co-operation even with Hitler might still have been possible. German for Germany was a perfectly comprehensible view, and a not unworthy conception.
There is only one way in my humble opinion to look upon the war, and that is as a crusade – a crusade based on the ideals of the British Commonwealth of nations undertaken in order to vindicate the highest principles of humanity, to ensure that brute force shall not the prime and ultimate arbiter in international affairs, and to see that aggression does not pay and that aggression will not pay in the future.
What I would like to say this afternoon is that, in my opinion the responsibly of the press in this hateful war is every bit as great as this power, and may perhaps be even still greater when the blessed hour of peace comes. Germany may be incorrigible, but she certainly be incorrigible if the British Press does pay its responsible part in helping the British people – and after all, it is the British people which ultimately directs British policy – both to see that this war is fought and won and to see that the ensuing peace in the interests of future generations is negotiated and won in accordance with the highest principles of morality and fair play. I am not sure that the second will not be the more difficult victory of the two, and I am quite sure that we will not negotiate it if the British Press does not largely contribute. We are crusaders, and we have got to prove that we are worthy of victory.
We have got to make adjustments. We must end the war in such a way that the only grievances which the German have are against their own rulers, against their leader, and against the system which has again brought them to defeat. The problem thereafter will be to see whether Germany can ever be brought to the same standard of civilisation as we are fighting for today. If the peace has been a just one we can safely leave that to the coming generation…..
There has been a lot of talk about war aims. It seems to me that one of our war aim should be that at the end of this war there should be no hatred left on either side. The British Press in my opinion can render a supreme service to the coming generation, to civilisation, and to the world if it can think for the British people in terms which are purely moral and fair-minded, to the exclusion of fear, hatred, and prejudice.

Sunday, November 12
Reply to King George to the peace appeal of Queen Wilhelmina and King Leopold:
…….My Government deeply appreciate the spirit of your Majesties’ offer and they would always be willing to examine a reasonable and assured basis for an equitable peace.
It is, as it has always been, my desire that the war should not last one day longer than is absolutely necessary, and I can therefore at once reply to that part of your Majesties’ appeal in which you state your willingness to facilitate the ascertaining of the elements of an agreement to tbe reached.
The essential conditions upon which we are determined that an honourable peace must be secured have already been plainly stated.
The documents which have been published since the beginning of the war clearly explain its origin and establish the responsibility for its outbreak. My peoples took up arms only after every effort had been made to save peace.
The immediate occasion leading to our decision to enter the war was Germany’s aggression against Poland, but this aggression was only a fresh instance of German policy towards her neighbours.
the larger purposes for which my peoples are now fighting are to secure that Europe may be redeemed in the words of my Prime Minister in the United Kingdom, “from perpetually recurring fear of German aggression so as to enable the peoples of Europe to preserve their independence and their liberties,” and to prevent for the future, resort to force instead of to pacific means in settlement of international dispute…..
Should your Majesties be able to communicate to me any proposals from Germany of such a character as to afford real prospect of achieving the purpose I have described above, I can say at once that my Governments would give them their most earnest consideration.

Monday, November 13th
Jonkheer de Geer, Prime Minister of Holland, in a broadcast:
We mobilized in September this year, not because we distrusted our neighbours, but because it was our duty to be prepared for any emergency. It was our duty towards those who want to respect our neutrality and who has less confidence in the pledges of their enemies that we had. Our mobilisation means protection for all; but if it is to remain a protection it has to keep pace with changing conditions. We must never allow the impression to be created abroad that our mobilisation is only symbolic; others as well as ourselves should be convinced that it is effective. Therefore its intensity has to be changed in accordance with the tension near our frontier.
This is the meaning of the measures recently taken. I hope that these words may restore the peace of mid of those who have been showing signs of nervousness. We should thank God for the blessings he has vouchsafed us until now and we should consider it our duty to promote peace and thus to serve others. Every neutral nation is a light in the darkness which has fallen upon Europe; our neutrality is therefore a matter of high importance, and of it’s maintenance we have not the right to despair to dominate our spirit. We do our duty leaving the decision to God. However high the waves may come we know that our Father is at the helm and our spirits are quiet and cheerful.

War Diary 4th to 10th January 1940

Thursday, 4th January

• Russian air force active in region bordering railway line to Swedish frontier.
• Finns isolated a Soviet battalion, part of a force sent to make contact with Russian troops at Soujaervi, north of Lake Ladoga.
• Finnish war planes dropped 3,000,000 pamphlets over Leningrad on January 3rd and carried out bombing raids on Soviet island bases at Oesel and Dagoe.
• RAF made successful reconnaissance flights over north-west Germany and patrols over seaplane bases in Heligoland Bight.
• Goering assumed supreme control of German war industries and all Government departments concerned with economic side of war.
• Paris reported that in Lower Vosges enemy detachment of 100 was surprised and machine gunned by French patrol.
• British trawler ‘Daneden’ feared lost with crew of nine.
• Reported that British liner ‘Tuscan Star’ had been bomed and machine gunned by German aeroplanes shortly after leaving England. Raider driven off by ship’s anti-aircraft guns.

Friday, 5th January

• Russians reported to be digging themselves in opposite middle of Mannerhein Line.
• Soviet warship ‘Kiroff’ damaged by Finnish coastal batteries, towed into port for repairs.
• Mr Hore-Belisha, Minister of War, resigned from the Government, and Mr Oliver Stanley was appointed in his placce.
• Sir John Reith became Minister of Information in place of Lord MacMillan.
• Paris reported intense artillery activity along 125 miles of the Western Front.
• Announced that part of the first Indian contingent to join the B.E.F. had reached the British forward zone.
• Swedish steamer ‘Fearis’ shelled and sunk by Soviet submarine in Gulf of Bothnia

Saturday, 6th January

• Helsinki reported that fighting was continuing near Suomussalmi and that on the Karelian Isthmus artillery fire had intensified.
• Battle on five ‘Fronts’ in progress in Salla sector.
• Finns said to have made contact with new Russian division near frontier north of Kiantijearvi
• Russians lost eight planes in raid on Utti, 60 miles north east of Helsinki.
• British trawler ‘Eta’ sunk by mine in North sea.
• British liner ‘City of Marseilles’ struck a mine off east coast of Scotland, but was safely towed into port.
• Dutch Government issued formal declaration that Holland would defend her integrity against any attack.
• Discussions took place at Venice between Count Ciano and Count Csaky, Foreign Ministers of Italy and Hungary.

Sunday, 7th January

• Mr Churchill in France visiting British Forces.
• Attempt by Russian ski detachment to outflank Finns in Salla sector was defeated.
• Russian planes again bombed Turku and also raided town in Knopie.
• Paris reported patrol activity at different points of the front. Artillery action east of the Blies.
• British collier ‘Townele’ mined off South-East coast.
• British ship ‘Cedrington Court’ sunk off South-East coast.

Monday, 8th January

• Fight on Karelian Isthmus continued in desultory fashion.
• During weekend Finns won great victory in ‘waistline’ area. Russian 44th Division destroyed, 1,000 prisoners and large quantity of war material captured.
• Successes were also reported from farther north, engagements on Salla and Petsamo fronts yielding much valuable booty.
• Paris reported patrol activity in region west of Voges.
• New German Army HQ said to have been established at Recklinghamhausen, 10 miles from Dutch frontier.
• Reported that British liner ‘Highland Patriot’ was attacked by U-boat on December 29th, but beat enemy off with a 4-inch gun.
• British tanker reached Amsterdam after being attacked by Heinkel bomber on North Sea.
• Sir Edmund Ironside and Lord Gort decorated with Grand Cross of Legion of Honour by General Gamelin.
• Rationing scheme came into operation, food affected being sugar, butter, bacon and ham.

Tuesday 9th January

• Nazi planes attacked, with bombs and machine-guns, merchant ships, fishing craft and Trinity House vessel off East Coast. British steamers ‘Gowrie’, ‘Oakgrove’, and ‘Upminister’ sunk; steamer ‘Northwood’ attacked and trawler ‘Crystalite’ disabled. Danish ships ‘Ivan Kondrup’ and ‘Feddy’ also attacked but reached port.
• Union Castle liner ‘Dunbar Castle’ sunk by mines off South-East Coast.
• British tanker ‘British Liberty’ sunk.
• Dutch steamer ‘Truida’ mined.
• British trawler ‘River Earn’ reported sunk by Natzi bomber in North Sea.
• Russian communique admitted that Red troops had retreated several kilometres east of Suomussalmi.
• Soviet aircraft raided six small towns in Finland.
• Reported that Leningrad-Mumansk railway had again been cut by patrols.
• Announced that out of 5,911 ships – British Allied and neutral-convoyed by British Navy, only 12 were sunk while in convoy.
• First Colonial contingent from Cyprus land in France to join B.E.F.
• Creation of a Royal Air Force Command in France announced, with Air-Marshal A.S. Barrat as Commander-in-Chief.
• Reported that Italy had made representations to Germany concerning detention in German ports of war supplied sent by Italy to Finland.

Wednesday 10th January

• Artillery action and air activity reported from Western Front.
• RAF made bombing raid on German seaplane base of Sylt; reported that Hindenburg Dam connecting island with mainland was damaged.
• RAF aircraft had running flight with Messerschmitts over North Sea. One enemy fighter destroyed and at least one disabled. One British plane lost.
• Helsinki reported battle in progress north-east of Lake Ladoga. In Suomussalmi region Finns drove Russians back over frontier.
• Russians attacking in Salla sector with fresh troops.
• Finns reported that 700 out of 1,000 Soviet bombers ranged on eastern frontier were snowbound and frozen up.
• Norwegian steamer ‘Manx’ mined in North Sea.
• Sweden passed emergency laws giving Government wide powers in case of war.

70th Anniversary of Pearl Harbour

On December 7th 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour.  It was designed to completely neutralise the American fleet, instead it brought the United States of America from being a neutral country into the war.

Today on the 70th Anniversary we remember all those who lost their lives and their families due to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

http://www.britishpathe.com/embed.php?archive=84342

http://www.britishpathe.com/embed.php?archive=100017