Yesterday the News Chronicle published the first report from Stockholm about the peace negotiations between the USSR and Finland. Sweden is playing the part of mediator. It couldn’t have been otherwise after the refusal of the British government. The report caused quite a stir in London.

All the newspapers today are full of the most sensationalist reports on this subject. Leaving aside the absurdities and exaggerations, one thing can be stated for sure: the peace talks are under way. This has been the sole topic of conversation all day long in political and government circles. It’s interesting and symptomatic that news of the peace negotiations has been met with obvious displeasure and even irritation among the elite, with Sweden, rather than the USSR, supplying the main target for criticism. Sweden is being accused of all manner of mortal sins: she has ‘put pressure’ on Finland, she ‘toadies’ before Germany, she is ‘running to seed’, she is engrossed in ‘manicure culture’, etc. It’s perfectly clear that Sweden is being intimidated. To what end?

I found the answer in my conversation today with Prytz, who, after a long interval, came over for lunch. It transpires that the Supreme War Council’s decision about dispatching an expeditionary corps to Finland was not mere words. My fears have come true: the French government plus British activists succeeded in nudging Chamberlain to the point when the British envoy in Stockholm put the following question to the Swedish government: how would it respond to an Anglo-French request to allow the transit of Allied troops earmarked for Finland through Swedish territory? The Swedish foreign minister, Günther,

Christian Ernst Günther, Swedish minister for foreign affairs, 1939–45.

replied that the Swedish government would regard such a step as a violation of the policy of neutrality, and therefore did not even consider it possible to discuss the question raised by the British envoy. In this way, the ‘Allies’’ attempt to unleash war in Scandinavia seems to have failed. What is curious, however, is that my démarche was made on 22 February. The British made a démarche in Stockholm in early March, i.e. after the British government had learned of our intention to make peace with the Finns. Only one conclusion can be drawn: not only does the British government not desire an end to the Finnish war but, on the contrary, it makes efforts to prolong and intensify it. True, Prytz makes one qualification: it is not clear to him why the British government tested the ground in Stockholm. Was it seriously considering sending troops to Finland? Or rather was it counting on exploiting the anticipated refusal of the Swedish government as an argument against sending troops to Finland in its negotiations with the French? For the information at Prytz’s disposal also suggests that it is the French government which is leading the dance on the question of dispatching an expeditionary corps to Finland. I don’t know whether Prytz is right or not about this, but, even taking into account his qualification, we can safely say that the ‘Allies’ are against putting an end to the Finnish war, that they are attempting to scupper the peace negotiations, and will continue to do so.

Why? The reasons, I believe, are as follows:

(1) The longer the USSR is occupied in the north, the longer the ‘Allies’ are safe from ‘Soviet danger’ in the Near East, which is much more important to them than Finland.

(2) The Finnish war is ‘weakening’ the USSR and reducing its capacity to supply Germany with raw materials and foodstuffs.

(3) For as long as the Finnish war rumbles on, the possibility remains of drawing Scandinavia into a major war and creating a ‘mobile’ front there against Germany.

(4) A peace agreement, despite and in the face of England’s refusal to mediate, would be a heavy blow to the prestige of Great Britain in Scandinavia.

Nonetheless, if Sweden stands firm and the peace negotiations don’t drag on too long, the British activists will not be able to do great harm in spite of all their malevolence.

Speed! It is no less important now than it was at the front in February.