740.0011 Mutual Guarantee (Eastern Locarno)/148
Memorandum by the Chargé in Estonia (Carlson)88
The American Chargé d’Affaires, a. i., at Tallinn called on the morning of April 15, 1935, on Mr. H. Laretei, the Assistant Estonian Foreign Minister, from whom he requested information concerning the recent Soviet overtures to Estonia respecting the possibilities for the conclusion of a pact of mutual assistance.
In response Mr. Laretei stated that on April 9, 1935, just prior to the departure of Mr. Litvinov for Geneva, a proposal on the above subject had been made to the Estonian Government by the U.S.S.R.; the proposal had approximately the following wording:
“It is now clear that Germany and Poland do not intend to adhere to the proposed pact of mutual assistance and for this reason the time has now come to make an agreement of the above kind without the participation of these two countries. On the occasion of Minister Seljamaa’s89 visit to Moscow in 1934, the latter had informed Mr. Litvinov that Estonia was not in a position to accept the proposed pact of mutual assistance because the proposal as first outlined by France contained no provisions under which the security of the Baltic States would be guaranteed by such a pact. If, therefore, Estonia would now agree in principle to enter into a pact of mutual assistance in which Germany and Poland were not included, Mr. Litvinov would, while in Geneva, take up with Mr. Laval the question of bringing into being the guarantees desired by Estonia.”
Mr. Laretei said that in its reply to the above proposal Estonia had said that it was still too early to discuss the questions involved in the proposal properly, that the proposal itself was not quite clear, and that for this reason Estonia wished to have the opportunity of discussing the matter with Lithuania and Latvia before giving a final answer to the U.S.S.R. with respect thereto.
The Estonian Foreign Office had soon learned that similar proposals had been made to Latvia and Lithuania. Following the preliminary exchanges of information on this subject it had become clear that Latvia had taken the same point of view on the subject as had [Page 242] Estonia. Lithuania, however, alarmed by the gravity of its relations with Germany, had been in favor of giving the Soviet Union an immediate favorable response to the latter’s proposals. It had nevertheless refrained from doing so and in its reply to the U.S.S.R., had given no definite answer stating that it wished to have the opportunity of discussing the matter with Latvia and Estonia before doing so.
Mr. Laretei went on to say that on Thursday, April 11th, there had been a preliminary discussion of this subject at Riga between the Estonian and Lithuanian Ministers in that city. On the same day the Latvian Minister in Tallinn had informed the Foreign Office at Tallinn that Mr. Urbschis of the Lithuanian Ministry for Foreign Affairs had suddenly decided to proceed to Riga to take part in the above discussions. At the same time Mr. Laretei had been asked whether he would also go to Riga to take part in a conference of the three States, on this subject. Mr. Laretei had been asked to leave for Riga on the same day, but owing to pressure of work, his departure had had to be postponed until Friday, the 12th of April, on which date he had left for Riga.
The discussions at Riga, according to Mr. Laretei, had not centered as much in the recent Soviet proposals themselves, as in the question as to the date on which the final discussions thereof could take place. It had been decided, therefore, that there would be no official discussions on this subject until the first week in May when the Foreign Ministers of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were to meet at Kaunas for their second meeting under the Treaty of Collaboration and Mutual Understanding which was concluded in 1934.90
Mr. Laretei went on to explain more fully the Estonian point of view with regard to the latest Soviet proposal for a Mutual Assistance Pact. He said that Estonia had declared its willingness to approve the London communiqué of February 3rd, 1935. He also said that the recent visits of British statesmen to European capitals had taken place for the purpose of securing information concerning the security systems foreseen in the communiqué. It was therefore quite clear that Estonia could not well commence the discussion of a pact which did not enter into the above systems. It had therefore been decided that Estonia could not do otherwise than to await the outcome of the two European conferences at Stresa and Geneva at which the above systems were to be taken up. Estonia preferred not to discuss matters relating to pacts outside of the above system until after the above conferences had taken place.
Mr. Laretei also said that in the recent proposal made to Estonia by the U.S.S.R. no mention was made of the other States which would [Page 243] probably participate in the new pact. While at Riga he had learned, however, that, according to information furnished the Lithuanian Foreign Office by the U.S.S.R. authorities, the new pact was to include six States, i. e., the U.S.S.R., France, Czechoslovakia and the three Baltic States.
Mr. Laretei stated that at the Estonian Foreign Office the sincerity of the Soviet pact proposal had at once been doubted. The Foreign Office at Tallinn had gained the impression that Litvinov wished to have the support of the Baltic States in the discussions which he intended to carry on with M. Laval at Geneva concerning the advisability of the early conclusion of the Pact of Mutual Assistance. France was apparently somewhat hesitant, because of the passive attitude which the Baltic States had taken toward the above Pact. Consequently Litvinov’s latest attempt to create Baltic interest in this measure, if successful, would, in the opinion of the Tallinn Foreign Office, have enabled him to bring pressure to bear upon France.
Mr. Laretei thereupon stated that as soon as the above proposal had been made to it by the U.S.S.R., information with respect thereto had at once been telephoned to the Foreign Offices at London and at Paris by Estonian representatives. At the latter capital it was said that France had no knowledge of the new pact which had been suggested by Moscow. The Estonian Minister at Paris had reported that the French Foreign Office did not seem to be particularly pleased with this latest Soviet step.
After the formal answers of Estonia and Latvia had been received in Moscow, Mr. Litvinov had stated that these formal replies were being regarded by the Soviet authorities as rejections of the U.S.S.R. proposal for a pact of mutual assistance. Mr. Litvinov had announced that he would not, therefore, undertake any steps with regard thereto while in Geneva.
Mr. Laretei then went on to mention the situation in Lithuania with respect to the proposed pact. While in Riga, Mr. Urbschis of the Kaunas Foreign Office had said that Lithuania’s position in this matter was essentially different from that of either Latvia or Estonia. Following the report of the British Prime Minister Mr. Simon [sic] to the House of Commons in which he announced that Hitler was against the signing of a pact of non-aggression with Lithuania, the latter’s situation had become difficult. Moreover, Lithuania’s position had become uncertain because of recent military demonstrations made by Germany along the Lithuanian frontier. Mr. Urbschis had stated that these demonstrations had been very active and aggressive and that army tanks and military units had played important parts therein. Moreover, these movements had been under the direction of German officers who had been seen studying maps and pointing in the direction [Page 244] of Lithuania. Lithuania had, therefore, become somewhat anxious and had feared that the Germans intended to commence some form of a military action in Klaipeda. Mr. Urbschis had also said that in Lithuanian circles it was felt that the proposed pact of mutual assistance with the U.S.S.R. might therefore afford a guarantee of its security and for this reason the acceptance thereof was being considered. Very strong representations had been made by both the Estonian and Latvian representatives at the Riga meetings in an effort to show to the Lithuanian representative the advisability of deferring action on the Litvinov proposal. Mr. Urbschis had finally stated that the Lithuanian Foreign Office understood, that the present moment was not a very favorable one for the acceptance of such a pact; and was, therefore, willing to give its agreement to the Estonian and Latvian proposals suggesting the postponement of action on the Soviet suggestion until after the European conferences at Stresa and Geneva had taken place and until the conference at Kaunas between the Baltic Foreign Ministers had been held.
Mr. Laretei said in conclusion that events which had since taken place at Stresa had shown the decision of the Baltic States to postpone the discussions of the Soviet proposal to be correct, the developments in Europe in the past three or four days having produced an entirely new political situation.