740.0011 Mutual Guarantee (Locarno)/617
The Chargé in Estonia (Carlson) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 15.]
Sir:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Action Taken by the Baltic States
Notwithstanding the fact that it is being said that the three Baltic States have adopted an attitude of watchful waiting in respect to the March 7th events in Germany, it is, nevertheless being asserted that the new situation has resulted in the taking of certain steps by these States. Thus, there are persons who state that the visit which Mr. Münters, the Secretary General of the Latvian Foreign Office is now making to Warsaw, is in direct connection with the Hitler action of March 7th. On the other hand it is being stated that, because of the altered foreign political situation, the conference of the Baltic Foreign Ministers which is scheduled to take place in Tallinn in May of this year has been advanced by one month. Furthermore, it is also said that Lithuania has already made guarded inquiries as to the procedure it is to follow in order to avail itself of the German non-aggression pact offer.
The foregoing and similar matters have been discussed by the Legation with the Chief of the Political Department of the Estonian Foreign Office, Mr. R. Möllerson, with Mr. B. Dailide, the Lithuanian Minister to Estonia, and with Mr. E. Kreewinsh, the Minister for Latvia at Tallinn. Their remarks on the foregoing topics are received briefly below.
All three of these officials insist that the present visit of General Secretary Miinters to Warsaw is strictly a matter of procotol and [Page 276] that it is without political significance. The visit did not represent an attempt on the part of Poland to gain support in the Baltic area for the recent Polish protest against the domination of the League of Nations by the big European nations in their own interest.34 The three Baltic countries were among the “satisfied” states of Europe and had nothing to gain by associating themselves with a protest of this kind. Furthermore, the visit did not signify that Poland was trying to use Latvia as a means of bringing about a rapprochement between itself and Lithuania, now that the political position of Lithuania had been improved through the removal of the Lithuanian-German estrangement. Poland was always ready to regulate the difficulty with Lithuania, but it felt that the first step had to be taken by Lithuania. For these and other reasons it was hard to assign a political motive for Mr. Miinters visit to Warsaw.
Divergency of opinion also exists concerning the reported advancement of the May meeting at Tallinn of the Baltic Foreign Minister[s]. Mr. Möllerson of the Tallinn Foreign Office said that absolutely no consideration had been given to this question. The same opinion was also expressed by Mr. Kreewinsh, the Latvian Minister to Estonia. Mr. Dailide, the Minister for Lithuania at Tallinn stated, however, that the date for the holding of the meeting depended upon Germany’s further steps in regard to the suggested pact of non-aggression with Lithuania. If, for example, a definite non-aggression pact offer were to be made to Lithuania by Germany, the former would request the immediate convocation of the Baltic Foreign Ministers’ conference which is scheduled to be held in May.
In regard to Lithuanian action in the matter of the non-aggression pact proffered it by Germany, the Latvian Minister to Tallinn had the following remarks to make. He said that the Lithuanian Government through its diplomatic representatives at Tallinn and at Riga had already endeavored to ascertain the views of the Latvian and Estonian Governments as to the steps which might be taken in order to give the Hitler non-aggression pact overtures a concrete form at as early a date as possible. Mr. Kreewinsh said that Lithuania had been informed by both Latvia and Estonia that this was a matter in which the latter States could not well interfere. At the same time the advisability of the making by Lithuania of guarded inquiries in Berlin as to Germany’s plans for the conclusion of a pact of non-aggression with Lithuania had been suggested.
Mr. Dailide, the Lithuanian Minister at Tallinn, was disposed to discount the value of the German non-aggression pact offer to Lithuania. He said that it had been Lithuania’s experience that there was not very much faith to be placed in the signature of Germany when affixed to a treaty. Experience had shown that treaties were respected [Page 277] by Germany only as long as it was to the latter’s interest to do so. Consequently, Lithuania would not be inclined to attach much importance to a pact of non-aggression with Germany, unless the pact were to be guaranteed by a third country. In general Lithuania did not favor bi-lateral security treaties. It placed much greater importance upon a system of collective security and hoped that an arrangement of this kind would be brought about.
Mr. Dailide went on to say that, up to the present time, Lithuania had not been approached by Germany on the subject of a non-aggression pact. If such a proposal were to be made in the near future, the Lithuanian Government would ask for the immediate holding of a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Baltic States under the terms of the existing Treaty of Understanding and Collaboration between these States. It was not likely that Lithuania would take independent action in a matter of the above kind; it would unquestionably be guided to a great extent by the steps of the other two Baltic States.
Conclusion
In conclusion the Legation wishes to lay stress upon two statements made to it in the above-mentioned conversation with the Latvian Minister to Estonia of which a summary is attached hereto in the form of a memorandum.35 The first of these is the Minister’s characterization of the Latvian and Estonian attitude towards recent European events. Thus, the Minister stated that recent European developments had strengthened the status of the States of Eastern Europe, and, in particular, of Latvia and Estonia. He said that the conclusion of the Franco-Soviet pact of mutual assistance had been welcomed by these States from the viewpoint that such a pact was of much greater advantage to the Baltic States than a similar pact between the Soviet Union and Germany would have been.
At the same time the Latvian and Estonian Governments also felt that the Hitler European peace plan contained elements which would tend to make their positions more secure. On the other hand, Latvia and Estonia were by no means pleased with the recent White Paper which had been issued in London,36 the details of which had found very little sympathy either in Riga or in Tallinn.
In the second place, it was of special interest to learn from Minister Kreewinsh that protests had been lodged in Riga by the French Government and in Tallinn by the Soviet Government because of the comparatively good press which the Hitler action of March 7, 1936, had had both in Latvia and in Estonia.
Respectfully yours,