Your D.434 , 435  and 436.  Finland.
We have no comment to offer on the basic terms of armistice summarised in D.436 and additional points suggested in D.435, but draw attention to desire expressed in our 48 of 22nd February  that terms should expressly cover Australia and other Dominions.
2. Regarding paragraph (f)  of D.435 we would draw attention to the principle expressed in Clause 10 of the Australia - New Zealand Agreement  referring to our participation in any armistice commission to be set up.
3. The implication of the first paragraph of D.434  is that it is intended to negotiate a peace treaty with Finland shortly after the conclusion of the armistice. This suggestion causes us considerable concern for it has been a cardinal principle in our approach to the problems of the peace settlements that no final settlements should be made in respect of any of the enemies until after hostilities with all of them have been concluded. (See Clause 8 of the Australia -New Zealand Agreement). This view is based on the opinion that the piecemeal negotiations of peace will prejudice the chances of a sound world settlement and that a final settlement with one enemy or in any one part of the globe cannot be divorced from the final settlement with other enemies and in other quarters of the globe. A global war should be followed by a global peace. Moreover, we consider that there would be advantages in a period of delay between the armistices and the peace settlements both to ensure that the peace treaties are fitted into the post-war world situation and also to avoid distraction from the heavy tasks of war-time and rehabilitation by negotiations of peace treaties.