Dirva = Field. [volume] (Cleveland, Ohio) 1915-current, 1943-04-30
TIE BALTIC STATES PROBLEM

In one Of his recent speeches
Wendell Willkie reminisced: after
the last war was over, / saw our
bright dreams disappear, our stirring
slogans become the jest of the Gym
icap. The ably expressed ideas of
Vassili Soukhomline's article in The
Nation (Russia's Baltic Frontier,
March 27) go far in building sim
liar disillusions for future Wilkes.
1t is fashionable to treat the mil
lenial German Drang mach Osten
as something reprehensible. The
equally millenial Russian Drang
towards what Peter the Great called
''okno Evropu" Ca window to Eur
ope) should receive the same treat
ment since both these Drangs
trample over the natural rights of
the small nations who had the his
trlcal misfortune to settle the
Baltic before the Germans or the
Russians got there. Both Drangs
go against the spirit of the Allan
tic Charter.
Mr.. Soukhomline claims mot on
ly strategic but vital economic and
political reasons urged Russia to-
wards the shores of the Baltic"
Why stop at the Baltic? Why not
go on toward the Atlantic Ocean,
toward Denmark and Norway? A
case could be made out that these
same reasons urge Russia to rule
the world. The happy exponent of
the traditional Russian imperialistic
urge says: Before the First World
War 80 percent of Russia's foreign
trade went through the Baltic
ports" Cit is not clear whether Le-
nngrad is included). However, in
a letter to the New York Times
the I.atvian Minister in Washing
ton writes March 23): "On August
II, 1920, Soviet Russia signed a
peace treaty with Latvia and re-
cognized forever Latvia's indepen-
dence. Latvia granted to Soviet
Russia full transit possibilities, over
railroads, waterways and harbors,
and even lowered local tariffs for
Soviet transit goods. Soviet Rus
sia did not use these facilities May
be there was nothing to export,
maybe it was a certain Soviet pol
icy".
If Soviet Russia could get along
very well for over Is years without
the warm water ports of Latvia, it
would seem reasonable to presume
that she could just as we'll get
along without them, say, for an
other 1900 years.
Mr.. Soukhomline then fits an
other string into the Russian i'm
perialistic bow: "It is no doubt the
Allies would never have thought of
separating the Baltic provinces
from Russia lin 1879 had not
Russia been temporarily weakened
by war and revolution. Very true,
but thoughts" are not always in
accord with the facts of life and
justice. There was time when
the British Crown did not think to
let the American colonies separate
and become Independent. There is
reason to believe that the British
do not think to let India go the
whole way toward independence.
There was time when another
group of Allies thought to smother
the ideas of the French Revolution.
Does Mr.. Soukhomline wish to ar
que that a nation (small or large)
has no right to strive for political
independence and freedom just be-
cause somebody thinks" other
wise? The President of small Fin
land very aptly said on February
., 1943:
"Civilized nations can never sink
so low as not to acknowledge the
rights of nation to fight for it's
life and freadon1"
Mr.. Soukhomline winds up his
ably written imperialistic argument
with a historical misstatement and
the salve of a "social revolution.