123 Sch 62/470: Telegram
The Minister in Finland (Schoenfeld) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 15—4:10 a.m.]
1230. At request of President Ryti I called on him this afternoon and had 2 hours or more of conversation with him besides half an hour spent in his company and that [of] Madame Ryti for coffee. [Page 109] Ryti said he had learned of my forthcoming departure for consultation and desired me to say to you and to the President on his behalf that Finnish democracy which dates from fourteenth century in recorded history was analogous only to that of Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland in Europe and that none of these peoples had ever been serfs. Finland stood for same ideals of political and social freedom as United States and had no intention of deviating in slightest from them. He again made point that Finland had no political commitments to Germans and remained free to make its own decisions though he alluded to question of essential supplies.
President told me for first time from any authorized source that so far from taking negative and defeatist (my words) attitude toward problems of world war he fully intended as soon as in his judgment opportunity offered to take positive measures implying that these measures would be designed to terminate conflict with U. S. S. R. by saying that decision in March 1940 to go personally to Moscow for peace negotiations was taken by himself alone and against much opposition. I told President this was most important statement and that I had long felt something should be done to remove impression that Finnish policy was merely negative and static in presence of tremendous issues now at stake in world. His statement was made very cautiously and he made considerable point of fact that decision as to time for action though steadily kept in mind must be his own.
I had opportunity to tell President I had been greatly disappointed in his speech December 6 which struck me as having been made by scholarly and deeply thoughtful man such as I knew him to be as if in complete “vacuum” since it seemed entirely to ignore large moral issues involved in our past [part?] in world war except for allusion by implication to possible Japanese victory. His response was that careful examination of speech which he hoped would be made by us and particularly by you should make it plain that he had been principally concerned with security of small nations including Finland and their equal rights with great powers. Finnish spokesman, however, as representative of small nation could not undertake to discuss in specific language many other issues of war and in any case Russian danger for Finland and for Europe remained uppermost in his mind throughout that speech.
2. Also referred to attendance of Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and other Government representatives at Japanese Legation reception December 8 to celebrate anniversary of Pearl Harbor93 saying this had made particularly bad impression on us. He gave no adequate explanation and obviously could not.
[Page 110]President brought up question of my personal status and that of this Legation in recent months which afforded me opportunity to tell him, mentioning isolation and intimidation of our friends, that speaking to him as man to man and fully cognizant as I was of delicacy of subject, it was fact that impenetrable barrier had developed in intercourse with Foreign Office and that relations between ourselves and Finnish Government could not improve until confidence was reestablished between Legation and Foreign Office. President said he was most grateful for opportunity to discuss this question frankly. He said condition was due to fact that in Finland’s short independent history Foreign Office was probably weakest point in administrative organization. Thanks to Marshal Mannerheim, respectable army had been built up but it had not yet been possible to create diplomatic organization adequate to national needs. I gained impression President was fully inclined at the moment to take drastic action to change incumbency of Foreign Ministry but he may well have to reflect that this matter which must also be considered in light of effect of possible action on Nazi cobelligerent.
Ryti alluded to his vehemence and rather intemperate attitude during his conversation with me last September 25 and told me his reaction had been due to use of words “provocation” in memorandum I then handed him. He apologized in effect for his attitude at that time and intimated desire for some specification of use of that term. I did not follow his lead beyond saying that if my Government should undertake to set out facts on which use of term was based list would be impressive.
Ryti reiterated his expressions of confidence and esteem for me and said he hoped I would soon return.94
Clear impression left on my mind by today’s conversation and especially by Ryti’s reference to intention not to remain passive is that my forthcoming departure is well understood as political gesture on our part and that it will have effect on policy here.
- A reception had been held at the Japanese Legation in celebration of the first anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Prime Minister Rangell, and other Finnish Governmental officials, had attended. Here they viewed with seeming approval a Japanese film of this attack, and there had been reports that some of these officials had publicly congratulated the Japanese on the attack.↩
- The Chargé in Finland informed the Department by telegram No. 1267 on December 24, 1942, that “Rumor is now current here that Mr. Schoenfeld will not return until Witting has resigned.” (123 Sch 62/474)↩