Paris Peace Conf. 184.01502/85
The Chief of the Mission to the Baltic Provinces (Greene) to the Secretary General of the Commission to Negotiate Peace (Grew)
Sir: An answer to your letter of July 15th has been delayed pending telegraphic information from Lieut. Col. E. J. Dawley in regard to the newspaper report that he was acting Military Governor of Riga. His reply having been received I desire to submit the following answer to the various points raised in your letter:
Referring to sub-paragraph 1: The word “Mission” was used because our party was officially sent out as the “Mission to Finland, Esthonia, Latvia and Lithuania”. The term “Commission” would have been preferable but we have never had authority to employ it.
Referring to sub-paragraph 2: Finland was included in our original credentials. So far as I know it had never been withdrawn officially from the jurisdiction of our investigations.
Referring to sub-paragraph 3 and main paragraph 2: I am well aware that our Mission was sent out to investigate and report; not to act or negotiate. There has never been any misunderstanding in regard to the scope of our duties. In all interviews and conferences, as well as in every public statement, we have announced that our powers were limited in this manner. Repeated requests were made to us to act as arbitrators in disputes and difficulties and to take an active hand in events for the purpose of furthering the interests of law and order and the re-establishment of stable conditions. We refused though an active role on our part would have promoted peace and a better understanding [Page 224] between hostile groups and might have lessened the bloodshed and disorder which prevail in the Baltic regions. We have, however, used our moral influence—which is very great in the case of American representatives—to urge conciliation between factions and to point out the steps which seemed to us to lead to peace and stable government. Along these lines we made suggestions and recommendations whenever it seemed opportune. Furthermore, when the occasion justified it we did not hesitate to express ourselves vigorously—to Esth, Lett, Lithuanian, Balt or German alike. We have lodged protests against courses of action which were flagrantly unjust or inhumane. An example is given in the attached letter in regard to the executions at Riga.54 Partly as a result of this letter and partly as a result of other representations made by the Allied representatives, a great improvement took place in prison conditions at Riga. Furthermore, the trial courts were reconstituted, there was a perceptible diminution in the number of executions and the executions themselves were much more humanely carried out.
I may also add that the stand taken by the Allied representatives, including our Mission, at Libau in April prevented, after the overthrow of the Ulmanis Government, the formation of a purely reactionary Bait Government. This would promptly and inevitably have led to civil war.
I wish to make it clear, however, that in the face of the terrors and disorder which prevail in these regions we have chafed greatly at our inactive role, knowing how much we could have accomplished with a little more authority, but we have refrained from action. This has been particularly difficult as all elements in these countries look to the Allied and Associated Governments to take the necessary measures to re-establish law and order in the Baltic regions. This was based generally on the feeling that these governments had won the war and were the arbiters of Europe, and specifically on Article XII of the Armistice and on the following articles of the Peace Treaty:
Article 116 which provides:
“Germany acknowledges and agrees to respect as permanent and inalienable the independence of all the territories which were part of the former Russian Empire on August 1, 1914.
“In accordance with the provisions of Article 259 of Part IX (Financial Clauses) and Article 292 of Part X (Economic Clauses) Germany accepts definitely the abrogation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaties and of all other treaties, conventions and agreements entered into by her with the Maximalist Government in Russia.
“The Allied and Associated Powers formally reserve the rights of Russia to obtain from Germany restitution and reparation based on the principles of the present Treaty.”
Article 117 which provides:
“Germany undertakes to recognize the full force of all treaties or agreements which may be entered into by the Allied and Associated Powers with States now existing or coming into existence in future in the whole or part of the former Empire of Russia as it existed on August 1, 1914, and to recognize the frontiers of any such States as determined therein.”
And Article 433 which provides:
“As a guarantee for the execution of the provisions of the present Treaty, by which Germany accepts definitely the abrogation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, and of all treaties, conventions and agreements entered into by her with the Maximalist Government in Russia, and in order to ensure the restoration of peace and good government in the Baltic Provinces and Lithuania, all German troops at present in the said territories shall return to within the frontiers of Germany as soon as the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers shall think the moment suitable, having regard to the internal situation of these territories. These troops shall abstain from all requisitions and seizures and from any other coercive measures, with a view to obtaining supplies intended for Germany, and shall in no way interfere with such measures for national defence as may be adopted by the Provisional Governments of Esthonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
“No other German troops shall, pending the evacuation or after the evacuation is complete, be admitted to the said territories.”
In view of these articles there is a very definite impression, whether right or wrong, on the part of the Esthonians, Letts, Lithuanians and Baits that the Allied and Associated Governments have certain responsibilities in the Baltic. They inevitably look to the representatives of these governments to carry out such responsibilities.
My statement about Lieut. Col. Dawley was based on newspaper reports. Immediately upon receipt of your letter I telegraphed him to come to Paris, both for the purpose of clearing up this matter and in order to furnish fresh information regarding the military and political situation.
This telegram being disapproved, the following was sent:55
“General Bliss wishes to know if newspaper report true that you are performing functions of military governor of Riga. If so he directs me that you surrender this position and return to proper functions of mission which are limited to observing and reporting cm political, economic and military situation. I assume all responsibility for whatever actions you may have taken at Riga and have as always complete confidence in your ability, judgment and discretion.”
To which the following answer was received:56
“Newspaper reports are not true. Tallents in advisory capacity only, declines aid of military governor and commander of Landeswehr. Report follows by mail.”
This would seem to end the matter.
Had Colonel Dawley assumed an active role at Riga in response to a request from General Gough, commanding the Inter-Allied Military Mission, I should have ventured to offer the following comment in regard to this sentence in the third paragraph of your letter:
“If your understanding is correct the American Peace Delegation is now placed in the embarrassing position of having an officer who was sent at its request to collect certain information acting as Military Governor of a foreign city, belonging to a country with which we have never been at war and acting under the orders of a foreign general.”
It is true that Riga is a foreign city belonging to a country with which we have never been at war, but it is also a city in a region in which the Allied and Associated Governments seem to have assumed certain responsibilities in regard to internal order and internal conditions under the sections of the Peace Treaty already quoted. It is also true that he would have been under the orders of a foreign general, but this has been repeatedly the case with American officers during the war and, indeed, the entire American Army was under the command of a supreme commander, Marshal Foch. General Gough is chief of the Inter-Allied Military Mission to the Baltic States and as such, it seems to me, has the right to call on American or French military officers in the Baltic to assist him, especially in the great emergency that existed at Riga after the attack on the city by the Esthonian Army and the proposed evacuation of the German and Bait troops. Without vigorous action on the part of the Allied representatives there might have been a massacre. Had General Gough as chief of the Inter-Allied Military Mission asked Colonel Dawley temporarily to perform the duties of acting Military Governor of Riga I should have considered the latter justified in accepting. In that case General Gough would have become temporarily his chief and responsible for his actions. I believe that in the emergency conditions existing in the Baltic General Gough is entitled to use his own best discretion and that Allied officers on the ground are justified in assisting him if he asks them to do so, especially when they are officers of the experience and ability of Colonel Dawley. This, however, is only a personal opinion submitted for what it is worth.
But the case is a hypothetical one as Colonel Dawley did not assume the duties of acting Military Governor of Riga.
In returning to the Baltic I will bear carefully in mind the instructions contained in your letter of July 15th and under no circumstances will I assume any active duties, no matter what the emergency, even if called on to do so by the chief of the Inter-Allied Military Mission.
I am [etc.]