3 ms·
Actually it is not a contract, because it is not contractually binding. It is more a promise to help. And Churchill promised to help Finland in WW2 and did not
by kukkeliskuu 4y ago
Actually it is not a contract, because it is not contractually binding. It is more a promise to help. And Churchill promised to help Finland in WW2 and did not keep his promise.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y agoOn an international level, there is nothing but promises and sanctions, unless we resort to warfare. Let's hope it won't be neccesary to put those treaties to the test.
- kukkeliskuu 4y agoUltimately you are of course right, but this is not a fair characterization for this case. Some agremeents are made through the normal legislative process for each country, and are enforceable by international courts. These promises by heads of UK and Finland are not that kind of enforceable agreements, as they have not been approved by the legislature. They are just political statements by heads of state.
- bigDinosaur 4y agoHow could Britain realistically have helped Finland militarily in WW2?
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y agoIIRC, Churchill did try assemble to a force during the Winter war, but there simply wasn't anyway of getting enough men with winter combat experience.
- Wildgoose 4y agoThat's not true. Churchill was not Prime Minister when the Soviet Union invaded Finland.