The Soviet Union, Finland, and the Baltic StatesSoviet War News — Soviet Information Bureau, 1941

The Anglo-French-Soviet Negotiations of 1939 and the Position of the Baltic States.

During the whole period between 1934 and 1939, the undermining work of Hitler’s Germany in the Baltic countries continued unceasingly, and became more assiduous with every year, indeed with every month.

The Government of Finland, as might have been expected, proved to be the most closely orientated towards Germany, and in 1939 they had placed their country completely at the disposal of Hitler. Up to 1939, Hitler had had least success in Lithuania, since the question of Memel continued to be a bone of contention between Lithuania and Germany. On March 22, 1939, a Treaty was signed in Berlin transferring Klaiped (Memel) together with the whole of the surrounding district to Germany. This “ Treaty ” can hardly be considered a Treaty in the ordinary sense of that word, seeing that it had been brutally dictated to the Lithuanian Government under threat of an immediate movement of troops for the armed seizure of Memel.

It should be noted that after the seizure of Czechoslovakia and Memel, the Soviet Government made an official statement to the Governments of Latvia and Estonia, declaring that the Soviet Government could not permit the transformation of Latvia and Estonia into territories dependent on Germany, and should Hitler make any threats against Latvia and Estonia they could count on aid from the Soviet Union. Neither Government, however, made any response to this declaration of the Soviet Government. Moreover, on June 7, 1939 Latvia and Estonia signed non-aggression agreements with Germany.

History has already demonstrated the value of “ Treaties of Non-Aggression ” signed by Hitler. Latvia and Estonia obtained their “ Treaties of Non-Aggression ” in order that, at a convenient moment, under cover of the Non-Aggression obligations, they would be subjected to an attack by Germany.

However, the signature of these Treaties was a convenient pretext for the statesmen of Latvia and Estonia, “ justifying ” their hostile attitude towards the U.S.S.R., during the Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations ; this, of course, refers to the question of the guarantee of their security which was to have been formulated in the three-Power Pact (Britain, France, U.S.S.R.).

Going back somewhat, we should like to recall that during the French-Soviet negotiations of 1935 which led to the signature of a Pact of Mutual Assistance, the U.S.S.R. insisted on the inclusion in this Pact of a guarantee of the integrity of the Baltic States and, in return for this, the Soviet Union agreed to give her guarantee for the frontiers of Belgium, but this proposal was, of course, declined by Laval.

Being interested in her own security and considering that the violation of the independence (in any form whatever) of the Baltic States was a threat to herself, the U.S.S.R. demanded the inclusion of such a guarantee. On June 7, 1939, the then British Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, declared in Parliament : “ There remain one or two difficulties (in the negotiations), in particular the position of certain States, which did not want to receive a guarantee on the ground that it would compromise the strict neutrality which they desire to preserve.” These “ certain States ” were the Baltic States. The “ strict neutrality ” which the Baltic States intended to preserve reduced itself to the fulfilment of German demands. It was precisely Fascist Germany which was interested in preventing the Baltic countries from being guaranteed by Britain, France, and the U.S.S.R.

It is extremely important to note that the present British Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, in the course of an article in the “ Daily Telegraph and Morning Post,” June 8, 1939, referring to the demand of the Soviet Union for a guarantee of the Baltic States, said : “ The Russian claim that these (States) should be included in the triple guarantee is well-founded. There is no sense in having a crack in the peace diving bell.”

The well-known journalist and French Parliamentary Deputy, Henri de Kerillis, wrote in the “ Epoch,” of July 12 : “ As regards the guarantee to the Baltic States, the demands of the Soviet Union are absolutely justified and logical . . . . it is said that neither, Finland nor Estonia, nor Latvia, desires a French-Anglo-Soviet guarantee. What devilry! If they do not desire this guarantee, then this is only another reason for uneasiness.”