Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Seppo Jyrkinen
Member
Posts: 317
Joined: 21 Dec 2010 17:51
Location: Finland, Lappeenranta

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by Seppo Jyrkinen » 22 Oct 2017 11:49

Kirby's sources were mainly German documents, which you can call a very bad mistake, but he opened one viewpoint, which was valuable. Even if not a complete "truth".

British were eager to limit Finland's trade, German's were in a side role. Routes which ships should have use (Northern or Southern), were once under discussions, but finally Germany accepted the same route as Great-Britain wanted.

I know the context of Dalton's word's: Mr. Nevakivi has gone through this issue. And Great-Britain's body language fits well with Dalton's words. - So far I know, nobody has found out "black on white" where Hitler orders Jews to be killed, but I'm very sure he gave such one.

Great-Britain limited oil transport to one ship only and at August 1940 they refused oil transport also with cargo ships. Except that amount which trucks needed between Liinahamari and Rovaniemi.
Seppo Koivisto wrote:Calculated total import of oil products (raw oil, distillates, gasoline, kerosene, fuel oil, lubrication oil, vaseline) 1000 tons:
1937: 226
1938: 251
1939: 258
1940: 101
1941: 84
1942: 98
Thanks a lot. Numbers are telling very clearly the results of Great-Britain's policy. Finland really was pushed into the corner - and Stalin had a reason to be grateful to Mr. Churchill.

- -
Nobody has proved any of my facts as untrue. So it seems to be, that history I wrote in my first post, is true.
A word irony is baked into the word history.

StrangerHereMyself
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Nov 2012 01:57
Location: Fuck off.

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by StrangerHereMyself » 22 Oct 2017 23:43

John T: ‘And in what degree does Åland 1918 help us to understand the British - Finnish relations in 1940?
What is the title of this thread? Britain stands accused of ‘pushing’ a purportedly autonomous country into certain actions. So, painfully obviously, the historic behaviour of Finland is pertinent in understanding their true motivation.
N.b. If a woman is accused of murdering her husband, and her defence is that she was ‘pushed’ to it by the deceased’s behaviour, and then it is found that she had attempted to murder him more than once before, that she had repeatedly proclaimed her wish to murder him, that she planned to do it, and stands to benefit from his death, then as much as the defence would prefer that no such evidence is admitted into court, the prosecution is yet entitled to enter that damning evidence—and a jury may decide that the woman, far from being ‘pushed’ into anything, did it willingly, and with malice aforethought.

John T: ‘And as history tells, it did work on one way or another, as Finnland kept her independence.’ Only by the leave and charity of other nations, rather suggesting that Finland cannot be considered a viable nation.

Further to the background of Finnish imperialism—a subject desperately avoided by the irredentists on this thread, when it is not causing them to chimp out:
[T]houghts of incorporating the closest linguistic relatives into an imagined ‘Greater Finland’ were far more frequent in appearance, especially among the educated public and students during the 1920s and 1930s. In these schemes, ‘Greater Finland’ was usually planned to include, as a non-negotiable minimum requirement, Russian Karelia with its Karelian and Finnish-speaking, but mostly Russian Orthodox, population. The area had by this time come to be seen as the cultural heartland of Finland after the compilation and publication of the Finnish folk epic Kalevala in the mid-nineteenth century. The orally transmitted tradition forming the basis for this work had mainly been collected from among the inhabitants of Russian Karelia, even though the area had never been politically part of Finland. Another target for claims was Ingermanland, the area around St. Petersburg (later Petrograd then Leningrad), with a population derived from Finnish immigrants settled there by the Swedish crown in the seventeenth century. Further claims included the Kola peninsula with its Sámi population, the Finnmark region of Norway and Västerbotten, the part of Sweden sharing a border with Finland, including a substantial Finnish-speaking minority. While the Estonians, linguistically, culturally and ethnically close to modern Finns, were usually included in these schemes upon a basis of assumed voluntariness, it is easy to see that attempts to redeem these Finnish irredenta would have brought Finland into conflict with practically all of its neighbours.

Imperial dreams born of nationalist visions remained for a long time hopelessly unattainable, but the collapse of the Russian empire seemed suddenly, and tantalizingly, to bring them within reach. The consequences was a series of irredentist interventions in the conflicts following the disintegration of the empire, in a spirit combining anti-Bolshevism with romantic visions of gathering together all the Finnic nationalities.
(Silvennoinen, 131)
Finland went to war with her eyes open, officially to defend her integrity and freedom, and to reclaim the territories lost in the Winter War. The Finnish leadership, however, was not left in the dark as to the German war aims. If realized, they would mean the total destruction of the Soviet Union and the carving up of the Soviet empire by the victors. It was obvious that in such an event there would be little reason for Finland to limit her gains to regaining previous losses. More, much more, seemed to be within her grasp.
(Silvennoinen, 136–7)
… Finnish forces advanced in late summer 1941 into Soviet Karelia. Finland, thus, became an occupying power. Signs that the occupiers had no intention of ever leaving were soon visible. In the nationalist vision, the conquest of Karelia was to lead into the establishment of Greater Finland which was to be an ethnically and culturally homogenous state. Those considered ethnically or politically unfit to participate in the realization of this vision were herded into concentration camps to await deportation.
(Silvennoinen, 138)
However, during the heady summer and autumn months of 1941, Finland stood to gain much more should the Soviet Union really collapse from the weight of the German onslaught. The same people in Finland who in the years 1918–22 had seen their visions dashed were now occupying several influential positions in Finnish society. To them, it was clear that fate was offering a golden chance once more to realize the vision of an ethnically homogeneous, politically united ‘Greater Finland.’ It was equally clear that a decisive German victory over the Soviet Union would lead to a German-dominated Europe, in which the influence of Britain and the United States would be heavily curtailed. There would then be no need to take into account their reactions, and Finland would be free to realize its own Finnic empire as it saw fit. Symptomatic of this kind of thinking were the preparations the Finnish occupiers took to put their presence in Soviet Karelia on a permanent footing. Most importantly, preparations for an ethnic cleansing of the area were underway soon after the arrival of the occupiers, with the representatives of Russian and other ‘alien’ nationalities herded to concentration camps to await eventual deportation and settlement of the area by new Finnic immigrants.
(Silvennoinen, 140–41)

Reference:
Silvennoinen, Oula. “Janus of the North? Finland 1940–44: Finland’s road into alliance with Hitler.” Hitler’s Scandinavian Legacy. The Consequence of the German Invasion for the Scandinavian Countries, Then and Now, edited by John Gilmour and Jill Stephenson, Bloomsbury, 2013, pp. 129–44.
(Incidentally, that’s our very own Jill Stephenson, Professor Emiratis of Edinburgh University.)
This forum is shit. I would delete my account and posts but this forum is so shit it does not have this function. Shit forum. Shit mods. Shit everyone and everything.

John T
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by John T » 26 Oct 2017 07:39

Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: British were eager to limit Finland's trade, German's were in a side role.
I would present the time line as this:

September 1939, Great Britain imposes the Navicert system on european transantantic trade.

December 1939, Great Britain stops requiring Navicerts for goods intended to Finland even if delivered to Norwegian or Swedish ports.
This lasted through the Winter war, don't know if it was changed before April 9:th.
During this period Sweden buys as much oil as can be transported.

7 April 1940, Finland negotiates a trade agreement with Great Britain.

9 April 1940, Germany attacks Norway.

9 April 1940, GB stops ships destinied to Scandinavian ports as the risk of the ships and goods will fall into German hands is too great.
Swedes insist that the War trade agreement still are valid, but accepts Britains demand that goods must be guaranteed to to fall in German hands.
Vehviläinen's book states that Britain renounced the War trade agreement, but GB did not do that to Sweden, GB saw it as a saftey measure during teh fighting in the north to stop transports but aggreed with Sweden that in theory the trade agreement was still in effect.
and I see no reason that Finland would not follow suit if they had pushed the matter.

8 June 1940 Allied forces leaves Norway, proving that GB can't military support Finland.

10 June 1940 von Fieandt tells German envoy Blücher that Finland will be pleased to export as many of its goods to Germany as it could.
No restrictions of "normal trade" , Finland Gives it all to Germany IF Germany keeps the Russians out of Finland.

Finland made her choice, there is no longer reason for GB to give Finland any favours for free.

What Britain did thereafter was a consequence of Finnish policy and that GB always wanted something back when negotiating,
you have to give the brits something to get something.
And as Finland had a small merchant fleet she had little to bargain with.
And the best bargaining chips, limiting export to germany already where given to the Germans,
So Finland had nothing to trade.

Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: I know the context of Dalton's word's: Mr. Nevakivi has gone through this issue. And Great-Britain's body language fits well with Dalton's words.
So you just ignore any facts that does not support your point of view,
and you still dont know what Dalton actually said.

Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: Great-Britain limited oil transport to one ship only
Who demanded that only Finnish flagged ships should be allowed to Petsamo, GB or Finland ?
Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: and at August 1940 they refused oil transport also with cargo ships. Except that amount which trucks needed between Liinahamari and Rovaniemi.
Seppo Koivisto wrote:Calculated total import of oil products (raw oil, distillates, gasoline, kerosene, fuel oil, lubrication oil, vaseline) 1000 tons:
1937: 226
1938: 251
1939: 258
1940: 101
1941: 84
1942: 98
Thanks a lot. Numbers are telling very clearly the results of Great-Britain's policy.
No it does tell that Germany rated Finland as a good Ally and kept her oil supply flowing.

If we compare this with Sweden, Finland got twice as much oil compared to pre war consumtion. (1941-42)

And for the period 1941-1944 Swedens oilsupply was:
398 Transatlantic trade, approved by Great Britain:
39 Romania
38 Other Continent, approved by Germany.
10 Soviet union
(excluding lubricating oils)
Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: Finland really was pushed into the corner - and Stalin had a reason to be grateful to Mr. Churchill.
Why Stalin?
Wasn't it Germany who won Finland to their casue?
Do you remember that Finland was at war with USSR, GB's Ally from June 1941 ?

Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: - -
Nobody has proved any of my facts as untrue. So it seems to be, that history I wrote in my first post, is true.
Sorry Seppo but if that is the conclusion you draws after the four pages in this thread,
There is not much I can do to assist you.

You just:
Confuses cause and effect
Ignore facts that does not support your claim
Denounces previous research, without reading it.
and declare yourself as the speaker of truth.

Cheers
/John T.

Seppo Jyrkinen
Member
Posts: 317
Joined: 21 Dec 2010 17:51
Location: Finland, Lappeenranta

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by Seppo Jyrkinen » 29 Oct 2017 07:47

Finland willing to sell goods to anybody. Pulp and paper and other products to Germany like before the war - that is normal trade. Violation of neutrality had been, if Finland had increased trade of goods which were important to German war machine.

Sweden's export to Germany grew up 1/3 between 1939 and 1940 and ball-bearing steel even 2/3. And still Great-Britain allowed Sweden to import goods from West. Trade was not important in the eyes of London.

Selling forest industry products did not give to British any legal rights to limit Finland foreign trade. All countries had right to have trade with anybody without Great-Britain's approval. Limiting Finland's trade was state terrorism - or an act of war. A policy of a colonialist.
John T wrote: Who demanded that only Finnish flagged ships should be allowed to Petsamo, GB or Finland ?
Seriously?

- -
This thread is for Great-Britain's actions. What specific fact is missing? Or is not true?

Great-Britain's goal was to harm Germany's oil logistics and Finland was one tool for it. That's the main conclusion.
A word irony is baked into the word history.

histan
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 17:22
Location: England

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by histan » 29 Oct 2017 14:12

A discussion of the United Kingdom's attitude to Finland and associated decision making but not one reference to the freely available British Cabinet Papers of the time which contain weekly reports from the MEW that include its discussions with Finland. Plus record of Cabinet decision making.

Also show the attitude to Finland during the 1939 -1940 war and the pressure placed on Norway and Sweden to release British arms supplied to them for use by Finland.

Shows the changes in thinking concerning the status of Finland after the invasion of Denmark and Norway and that in effect Finland's trade was now under the control of Germany.

Some primary source material would be useful.

Still looking through all the available material and when I have completed this may post a timeline of relevant British documentation.

This is a brand new area for me so it may take a little time.

Regards

John

John T
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by John T » 30 Oct 2017 08:21

Seppo Jyrkinen wrote:Finland willing to sell goods to anybody. Pulp and paper and other products to Germany like before the war - that is normal trade. Violation of neutrality had been, if Finland had increased trade of goods which were important to German war machine.
But Finland did increase export of metals to Germany during most of 1940.
Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: Sweden's export to Germany grew up 1/3 between 1939 and 1940 and ball-bearing steel even 2/3. And still Great-Britain allowed Sweden to import goods from West. Trade was not important in the eyes of London.
On the contrary Britain was all for Trade.
BUT Sweden allowed GB to charter 60% of her available merchant marine, while Finland refused.
Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: Selling forest industry products did not give to British any legal rights to limit Finland foreign trade. All countries had right to have trade with anybody without Great-Britain's approval. Limiting Finland's trade was state terrorism - or an act of war. A policy of a colonialist.
You say so
Seppo Jyrkinen wrote:
John T wrote: Who demanded that only Finnish flagged ships should be allowed to Petsamo, GB or Finland ?
Seriously?
Yes, seriously did you not know that FINLAND demanded only Finnish flagged vessels to Petsamo
(and then made a few exceptions)
Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: - -
This thread is for Great-Britain's actions. What specific fact is missing? Or is not true?
Is is still useless to disuss one party without looking at the other side in negotiations.
It is just silly.

Please read the tread and try to understand what others say, it would help.
Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: Great-Britain's goal was to harm Germany's oil logistics and Finland was one tool for it. That's the main conclusion.
Yes, and you try to tell us that Finlands oil situation was the main reason Finland choose to join Nazi Germany?

Cheers
/John T

John T
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by John T » 30 Oct 2017 08:24

histan wrote:A discussion of the United Kingdom's attitude to Finland and associated decision making but not one reference to the freely available British Cabinet Papers of the time which contain weekly reports from the MEW that include its discussions with Finland. Plus record of Cabinet decision making.

Also show the attitude to Finland during the 1939 -1940 war and the pressure placed on Norway and Sweden to release British arms supplied to them for use by Finland.
Interesting, look forward to see those.
histan wrote: Shows the changes in thinking concerning the status of Finland after the invasion of Denmark and Norway and that in effect Finland's trade was now under the control of Germany.
Remember Finlands transatlantic trade had been under British control since September 39.
histan wrote: Some primary source material would be useful.

Still looking through all the available material and when I have completed this may post a timeline of relevant British documentation.

This is a brand new area for me so it may take a little time.

Regards

John
Thanks I look forward to see what you digs up.

Cheers
/John T

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11424
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by Juha Tompuri » 30 Oct 2017 21:24

John T wrote:
Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: I know the context of Dalton's word's: Mr. Nevakivi has gone through this issue. And Great-Britain's body language fits well with Dalton's words.
So you just ignore any facts that does not support your point of view,
and you still dont know what Dalton actually said.
Do you?

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11424
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by Juha Tompuri » 30 Oct 2017 21:27

histan wrote:Some primary source material would be useful.

Still looking through all the available material and when I have completed this may post a timeline of relevant British documentation.

This is a brand new area for me so it may take a little time.
Thank you.
The more facts, the better.

Regards, Juha

histan
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 17:22
Location: England

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by histan » 30 Oct 2017 22:16

Trying to find Dalton's speech to parliament concerning Finland and oil but without success:

Below is a list of speeches by Dalton from June 1940 onward.
2 speeches — MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (STAFF). Written Answers June 5, 1940
2 speeches — ECONOMIC WARFARE (PETROLEUM STOCKS, ITALY). Commons June 6, 1940
ECONOMIC WARFARE (MATLS, EXAMINATION). Written Answers June 11, 1940
MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC WARFARE. Written Answers June 12, 1940
4 speeches — ECONOMIC WARFARE (CO-ORDINATION). Commons June 18, 1940
2 speeches — ECONOMIC WARFARE (RUSSIAN IMPORTS). Commons June 25, 1940
3 speeches — ECONOMIC WARFARE. Commons July 2, 1940
4 speeches — MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC WARFARE. Commons July 23, 1940
2 speeches — CONTRABAND CONTROL (NAVICERTS). Commons July 30, 1940
9 speeches — SPAIN (OIL IMPORTS). Commons July 30, 1940
AMERICAN SURPLUS PRODUCTS. Commons July 30, 1940
2 speeches — CONTRABAND CONTROL (SYRIA). Commons August 6, 1940
2 speeches — SURPLUS COMMODITIES, NON-EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. Commons August 6, 1940
JAPAN (WAR MATERIALS). Written Answers August 6, 1940
12 speeches — GERMANY AND OCCUPIED TERRITORIES (FOOD SUPPLIES). Commons August 20, 1940
COFFEE EXPORTS, GERMANY. Commons August 20, 1940
3 speeches — MOVEMENT OF GOODS, FRANCE. Commons August 20, 1940
3 speeches — FRENCH PICTURES, BERMUDA. Commons October 15, 1940
4 speeches — SURPLUS WORLD RAW MATERIALS. Commons October 22, 1940
MR. FRANCIS RODD. Commons November 12, 1940
5 speeches — GERMAN WAR EFFORT. Commons November 12, 1940

Taken from
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/peop ... alton/1940

I can not find the quoted words

More information on this speech would be appreciated

This is his statement on 30.07.1940 on NAVICERTS

"Mr. Dalton
German occupation of the West European coastline from the North Cape to the Pyrenees has greatly changed the conditions of the economic war. The German Armies have succeeded in overrunning large parts of Western Europe, but the overseas imports which they require are still barred from the seas commanded by the Royal Navy. Many fewer ships are now engaged on legitimate neutral trade between Europe and the Americas. Moreover, we must now control, not only shipping approaching the Mediterranean or the North Sea, but all shipping crossing the Atlantic. To apply this control in the old way would mean diverting many ships far out of their course to contraband bases in British waters, either in this island or in West Africa. To avoid imposing such grave inconveniences upon shippers, shipowners and crews, His Majesty's Government have decided to extend the navicert system to all seaborne goods consigned to any European port, as well as to certain Atlantic islands and to certain neutral ports in North Africa. In future ships sailing from a neutral port to any such destination must obtain navicerts for all items of cargo, and in addition a ship navicert at the last port of loading. Any consignment not navicerted and any ship without a ship navicert, will henceforth be liable to seizure by our patrols. The same rules will apply to outgoing trade. Ships sailing from European ports, or from certain Atlantic islands, or from certain neutral ports in North Africa must have certificates of non-enemy origin for all items of their cargoes, and any ship whose cargo is not fully certificated will be liable to be seized together with all uncertificated items of the cargo. An Order-in-Council giving effect to these changes will be issued forthwith.

It has been suggested in some quarters that we intend to extend the blockade to certain neutral countries. This is not so. Where supplies can reach such neutrals without the risk of falling into the hands of the enemy we shall grant navicerts on such a scale as to allow imports adequate for domestic consumption, but not for reexport to other countries. Moreover, it will be the policy of His Majesty's Government not merely to allow such adequate supplies to pass through our controls, but to assist neutral countries to obtain them. These measures will greatly benefit those engaged in honest neutral trade. Delays in such trade, due to the exercise of our controls, will be much reduced. At the same time, a heavy blow will be struck at those who seek to elude our controls and to carry supplies either to or from the enemy. Our friends will be further encouraged, and our enemies discomforted, by some ingenious provisions which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Shipping will, I understand, immediately announce.

Finally, I would recall that on 2nd July I informed the House that contraband control had been extended to French territory under enemy control and that no goods were being allowed to reach the enemy through unoccupied France. After a most careful review of all the circumstances, His Majesty's Government have now decided, with regret, that in present conditions they must treat all metropolitan France, as well as Algeria, Tunisia and French Morocco, in the same manner, for the purposes of contraband and enemy export control, as enemy-controlled territory. Goods destined for these territories are, therefore, liable to be seized as contraband and goods originating in, or owned by persons in, such territories, are liable to be placed in prize. These steps, which I have now announced, are designed to smooth the path of genuine neutral trade, while increasing the strength of our blockade and avoiding all unnecessary calls upon the Royal Navy. "

Regards

John

John T
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by John T » 30 Oct 2017 23:13

Juha Tompuri wrote:
John T wrote:
Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: I know the context of Dalton's word's: Mr. Nevakivi has gone through this issue. And Great-Britain's body language fits well with Dalton's words.
So you just ignore any facts that does not support your point of view,
and you still dont know what Dalton actually said.
Do you?

Regards, Juha
Relevant parts, but I did not provide the source:
"Göteborgstrafiken" by Nicolaus Rockberger 1973
John T Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:49 am wrote:
Seppo Jyrkinen wrote: "The smoking gun" in this piece of history is minister Hugh Dalton's words 30.7.1940 and ambassador Vereker's message 9.10.1940 is a confirmation which tells that Dalton's policy was successful.

Anything which might invalidate those two?
Do you have the full text of Dalton's speach 30.7.1940 ?
When Sweden negotiated transatlantic trade wiht Britain during 1940 Daltons speach where used as a basis for the negotiations.
As Dalton speach contained a passage that Britain shold not blockade the neutrals, but rather assist the neutrals to obtain goods.

One of the primary sources are CAB 68:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabi ... 0to%201942

In CAB 68/7 page 149 and 151 (that is page number from the PDF, the index in the file does not work with the actual pagination)
a similar text to Histans quote.

But remember that even if these are original documents they are sometimes edited to support the action prefered by Whitehall rather than an objective analysis.
But it does gives the British view.

Cheers
/John T

histan
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 17:22
Location: England

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by histan » 30 Oct 2017 23:22

I think that British policy can be considered in three parts

The first is the initial conduct of economic warfare by the UK, in which Finland was regarded as one among many neutrals

The second is the attitude of the UK during the Winter War - where Finland became a "special case"

The third is the period after the ending of the Winter War and the German occupation of Denmark and Norway followed almost immediately by the fall of France.

I guess that this thread is most focused on the latter phase and so I will start with British thinking during this period.

The British assessed the consequences of the German occupation:
Cosequences 01.jpg
Consequences 02.jpg
Consequences 03.jpg
I have not posted the complete document but those most relevant to this thread.

This will be true of those British documents that contain a lot of information that might not be relevant. I am very happy to provide full copies to anyone who might want them or to post the whole document if requested.

Regards

John
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

histan
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 17:22
Location: England

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by histan » 30 Oct 2017 23:51

Below is the MEW Report that relates to Dalton's speech on 30.07.1940
MEW July - August 1940 01.jpg
MEW July - August 1940 02.jpg
Posted out of sequence - I intended to post in chronological order to show the evolution of policy.

The previous quote from Dalton is taken from Hansard and is a verbatim record of his speech.

Regards

John
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

John T
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by John T » 01 Nov 2017 07:53

histan wrote:
...
This will be true of those British documents that contain a lot of information that might not be relevant. I am very happy to provide full copies to anyone who might want them or to post the whole document if requested.
Thanks
If the documents are available online, I apreciate a reference and I can look further.
(as my primary interest is Sweden and not Finland, but in this discussion the comparison are usefull)

Cheers
/John T

Seppo Jyrkinen
Member
Posts: 317
Joined: 21 Dec 2010 17:51
Location: Finland, Lappeenranta

Re: Great-Britain pushed Finland to cooperation with Germany

Post by Seppo Jyrkinen » 12 Nov 2017 15:47

Thank you very much, histan. From your document:
histan wrote:"AT their meeting held on the 10th April, 1940 - - the Ministerial Committee on Economic Policy agreed...

But in preparing the present appreciation, we have proceed on the assumption that the Allied Navies will treats seaborne imports to, end exports from, the Scandinavian and the Baltic States in precisely the same manner as they would imports to, or from, Germany."
Documents you published gave me interesting information and strengthens my opinion that small countries didn't have much value in London.
A word irony is baked into the word history.

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”