Evening star., 1940-01-30
Debate on Finland

Debate on Finland
The arguments for and against the
granting by this country of military
loan to Finland were set forth with
considerable clarity and complete
sincerity in a radio debate by four
members of the Senate Sunday eve
ming. Senators King of Utah and
Brown Of Michigan presented the
case for the making of an unre-
stricted loan. while Senators Gillette
of Iowa and Wiley of Wisconsin
spoke for the opposition.
All four speakers made it clear
that their personal sympathies lay
with Finland and they also indicated
their belief that the great majority
of the American people, feeling that
the Russian invasion was without a
shadow of justification, earnestly
hoped for Finnish victory. Senators
King and Brown specifically and en-
phatically expressed their conviction
that a Russian victory, with the ac-
companying spread of Communism
and the strengthening of the doctrine
that might makes right, would be
menace to the long-range interests
of the United States. A similar
sentiment might be found, inferen-
TALLY, in the remarks of the other
two speakers, but at that point all
agreement ended.
In the opinion of Senator Gillette,
any kind of aid for Finland, coming
from this Government, would be a
breach of neutrality and might tend
to involve this Nation in the Euro
pean war A loan to the Firms, in
his judgment, might commit us to
aid for other countries, with the final
result being direct involvement of
the United States. Senator Wiley is
in substantial agreement on these
points Although he advocates gifts
of money to Finland from private
sources-he suggests the sum of one
hundred million dollars-he is
strongly opposed to governmental
loan.
Irrespective of international law
or constitutional authority, would it
be wise course for the Congress to
follow, when this Nation is at peace,
to loan or make a gift of money to
another nation that is at WARP" he
asked. would it not establish a
new foreign policy? Would it not
be pregnant with problems for the
future if the Government of the
United States were to loan money or
make a gift of money to Finland
at this time?"
The Star. while not agreeing with
the arguments advanced by Senators
Gillette and Wiley. believes that the
latter set forth the basic issue in his
final question. A loan to Finland
loan of character which might be
expected to insure her success in the
fight against the Russian invader
might, as he suggested, involve prob
lens for the future. But what of the
alternative course? Are we not threat
ened with infinitely graver problems
if we refuse to lift finger at this
time to halt the spread of force
which threatens all remaining strong
holds of freedom? Should we permit
a legalistic devotion to a debatable
concept of neutrality-an attitude
based primarily on the fear of giving
offense to the lawless nations-to
deter us from pursuing course best
calculated to safeguard our vital in
terests of today and of the future?
It will be argued that America has
no interest in the fate of Finland
which is important enough to justify
an unrestricted loan to that republic.
But that argument, in The Stars
opinion, was answered effectively by
both Senator King and Senator
Brown.
with each blow struck against
nations small and great" the Utah
Senator said, sit becomes apparent
that the rights of all peoples have
been attacked and the principles Of
liberty and justice assailed. A world
that is not safe for minorities and
for small nations is world not safe
for democracy" And Senator Brown
had the same thought in mind when
| he said:
1--WE may stand aside and refuse
the paltry aid suggested. That re-
fusal might result in the spread Of
an unholy doctrine that will plague
us, may possibly destroy us in the
| years to come"