Dirva = Field. [volume] (Cleveland, Ohio) 1915-current, 1943-09-24
PRINCIPLES or FREEDOM ON TRIAL
BY THE SHORES OF THE BALTIC

j via 97.6 per cent, and Lithuania,
9o.19 per cent. But who can trust
a plebiscite carried cut during
war under the threat, partly real.
lied, of an invasion, and the fear
of starvation? The plebiscite de.
manded by the Soviet Government
shows only that the Baltic peoples
were considered sovereign, and that
decision reached by their free
will was requested. Furthermore,
from the point Of view of inter-
national law, the position of the
Baltic States is not compromised
by the Russo-Germain Treaty of
August, 1889, because, as jurists
say, it was res inter aliCs acta,
which means the treaty was not
signed by the Baltic States and has
not affected their rights, and the
plebiscite of 1910 has no legal
value because enforced under at
least moral compulsion.
The political maturity of the
Baltic peoples is contested. But
this is not conclusive. The fact of
existing has an historical value
which may be destroyed either by
ones own will or by an enemy
force. Why should Cuba, San Sal
vador, Panama, Liberia be inde-
pendent states and not the Baltic
States, if both have legally been
and are such en- droit? And was
not Czecho- -Slovakia born at the
same time as the Baltic States?
And did not Albania become inde
pendent in 1912? When a being
has come into this world, nobody
can push it out except by killing
it. But nations live on as long as
there is in them the consciousness
of their right to existence.
We must discuss this problem in
the crude term of politics, TO wit:
Can the Baltic States enjoy per-
feet independence while Russia
needs their territories for her safe
ty and her outlets? This is not
new problem in history and in po-
litical geography. Germany, az
cording to her philosophers and
Statesmen, needed Denmark, Hol-
land and Belgium. The United
States has gone towards the Car
ribbean Sea, and there was the
trend to take possession of some
of those small republics in the
name of American safety. Like
wise, Russia tried to hold the Bal
tic States, and Catherine II put
them under her protection" at
he beginning of the eighteenth
century. The examples are many
but not conclusive, for each case
has different characteristics, ac-
cording to the various phases of
the particular history of the coun-
tries involved.
Belgium, after the revolution of
1880, whereby it won it's indepen-
dence, was neutralized by a pact
between Prussia, France and Eng
land. Only after eighty-four years
of peace and freedom was Belgium
invaded by the German Reich,
which succeeded to Prussia in the
duties of guarantor of neutrality.
Holland, after the Napoleonic ad-
versities and the loss of Belgium,
always kept herself neutral, enjoy
ing for 1O4 years peace and free
dom; only in 1910 was she invaded
by Hitler's armies. The Baltic
States have not had such a long
existence: they have enjoyed twen-
ty years of free life. We recall the
explicit declarations of Lenin, in
1921, in favor of their independence
and for a policy of good neighbor-
illness. Then, Russia was looking
FOR an entente with Germany and,
a little later, during the Interna-
tiOnal Conference at Genoa (May,
1929 the Treaty of Rapallo was
signed by Chancellor Wirth and
Minister Ratheenau (who was
shortly after killed by Nationalists)
for Germany, and by Tchicherin for
Russia. 1t is always the same sto-
ry: so long as the two 'big" neigh
boring Powers are on friendly
terms, there is no danger to the in
dependence of the little Baltic
States: but as soon as jealousies,
suspicious and frictions arise again
between them, the small states are
solicited by both parties with favors
and threats.
(To be continued.)