Part 3

Besides, M. Mandelstam appears to be ill-informed on the economic life of Latvia. It is not true that Latvia needs the Russian market for her agricultural products. It will not be difficult for her to find a more profitable market in the West. It is equally not true that Latvia will be deprived of the transit trade of Russia, for her ports are the most convenient transit points for Russia; and Latvia, for the purpose of increasing and developing this transit trade, will do her best to further her own interests. M. Mandelstam is equally mistaken as regards Lettish industry. Fuel, in the shape of coal, has been supplied to her up to the present not by Russia, but principally by England, and Russian iron ore could easily be replaced by Swedish. Generally speaking, one may say that Latvia, being in a better economic situation than Russia, can rightly hope that the latter will look for normal economic relations with Latvia, and it would have been more comprehensive and more natural if M. Mandelstam had only taken up the defence of Russia’s economic interests.

ASPIRATIONS OF THE LETTS

M. Mandelstam may unhesitatingly leave the defence of Lettish interests to the Letts themselves. They have studied them and understand them well. Lettish aspirations were born neither to-day nor yesterday. The birth of the Lettish movement took place in 1860. Since that time it has been under the double oppression of the Baltic barons and the Russian bureaucracy. But it has courageously borne this double yoke, and has proved its vitality and activity. It has thrived and developed; it has taken deep root in the soul of the people whence it cannot be eradicated again. It is certain that the Lettish people possesses what President Wilson calls “well-defined national aspirations.” These have clearly appeared in the sharp and closely-followed line maintained by the Lettish people during the whole war in perfect unanimity. The Letts have fought with all their might against Germany to defend their aspirations against Teutonic tendencies. The National Council of Latvia, in the fatal period of the Russian flight and the German occupation of a considerable portion of Latvia, was able to centre in itself the whole social activity and political thought of the Lettish people. In its first session, from 16th to 19th November, 1917, it asked for the Lettish nation the right to dispose of themselves. In the second, from 15th to 19th January, 1918, it very categorically stated that “Latvia asks to be recognised as a sovereign, independent and indivisible State.” The National Council informed Russia of its decision in the speech of its representative, J. Goldman, in the Constituent Assembly of Russia, on the 5th January, 1918. The National Council, in spite of the personal danger to its members, in a protest note addressed on the 4th April, 1918, to the German Chancellor, Count Hertling, explicitly opposed the German inclination to unite Latvia to Germany. Already in July, 1918, the National Council had addressed itself to the Allied Governments and the opinion of the whole world, protesting against the peace of Brest-Litovsk and revealing the clumsy deceit of the German occupation authority in proclaiming as the will of the Lettish people the decisions of the Landesrath, a usurping body composed of German barons and their servants; and the National Council emphasised the unbending decision of the Lettish people to attain the realisation of its natural rights to independence. The National Council of Latvia considered it a great honour that its aspirations were crowned with success. It was recognised as an independent body by the Governments of England and Japan.

Having suffered long at the hands of both Russia and Germany, the Lettish people has come to the conclusion that it would find its interests guaranteed only by independence. It is not a passing mood, but a firm conviction, for which the Lettish people has suffered and which it will never and in no case surrender. And it awaits the realisation of its aspirations and the solemn proclamation of its rights.

PROTESTS OF THE RUSSIAN GROUPS

However, the Russian groups protest in the name of the interests of the Russian people, who, they say, will oppose the separation of an independent Latvia. One might briefly reply that the one-sided interests of the Russian people would not solve this question, and that an exclusive solution in favour of the interests of the Russian people would be in opposition to the principle of international relations proclaimed by the Allies. In his speech delivered on the 4th July, 1918, President Wilson declared: “The settlement of any one of the questions concerning either territories, national sovereignty, economic or political relations, must be made on the basis of the free acceptation of such a settlement by the peoples directly concerned, and not on the basis of material interest or advantage of any other nation or people.” And in the message of September 27th, 1918, President Wilson said: “No individual or special interest of a nation or a group of nations shall be able so to inspire a part of the arrangement that it would not be in agreement with the united interests of all.”

It would seem that these declarations leave nothing to be desired from the point of view of clearness and conciseness, and they were pronounced in the most solemn manner and adopted both by the Allies and their adversaries as a basis on which future international relations might be established. It would seem also that these declarations do not leave any doubt about the fact that the question of Latvia and her fate should be solved on the basis of the aspirations and wishes of the Lettish people, and not in accordance with the interests of Russia. However, to complete the picture, we might as well discuss the question of those Russian interests which, we are told, would suffer by the separation of Latvia.

ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF RUSSIA

The Russian groups and their ideologists put forward the economic interests of Russia, which, they say, do not in any way permit the separation of Latvia. “Russian foreign trade,” says Mandelstam (_Memorandum on the Delimitation of the Rights of States and Nations_), “was principally sea-borne; from this point of view the Baltic ports were of the highest importance to it” (p. 58). “The complete separation of the Baltic provinces from Russia would put this latter in an extremely difficult and grave situation, by depriving her of her outlets in the Baltic, which are not only the most important but also the only practicable ones in the winter” (p. 60).

The fact in itself is certainly correct. Before the war almost half of the imports and more than two-fifths of the exports of European Russia by sea passed through the great ports of Latvia: Riga, Libau, Windau. But who would suppose that Latvia will close her ports to the transit trade of Russia? On the contrary, Latvia understands quite well that she is the natural intermediary between East and West, and will, in her own interests, do her best by every means to encourage trade with Russia. The natural destiny of Latvia is to be a storehouse for goods coming from the West to Russia and _vice versa_. And everything makes us believe that Latvia will be in a position to perform that rôle better than Russia herself.

The chief conditions required by commerce are the following: Suitable technical establishments, simple and precise juridical relations, and lastly, order and tranquillity. Russia has not been able to provide these conditions. To be satisfied of this, one has but to remember the wretched equipment of the ports, so disproportionate to their world-importance, the miserable state of the railways, the lack of means of transport, the abuses and disorder. Judicial relations were regulated by laws dating almost from the Flood, the same for the Russian villages as for the towns of universal importance, laws which would much better have suited the former alone. The proceedings at the courts of law were of fabulous duration; the code of laws affecting commercial houses and companies was out of date; conditions of credit were of the worst; and, in consequence, Germany, which enjoys the ability to accommodate herself to all the Russian conditions, increasingly invaded the economic life of the Baltic Sea, dispersing the competition of others. No, it was neither Russian firms nor capital which prevailed there, but those of Germany, and the watchword came not from Petrograd but from Berlin. Russia would not have succeeded as quickly as Latvia in freeing herself from the preponderating influence on the shores of the Baltic. That is why Russia’s interests will in no way suffer if the intermediary’s rôle is played neither by her nor Germany, but by those who are familiar with the Baltic, whom nature has attached to it, and who consequently have natural rights to it.

STRATEGICAL INTERESTS OF RUSSIA

The Russian groups lay great stress on the strategical interests of Russia. The separation of Latvia, they say, would greatly prejudice these. The frontiers of Russia, after Latvia’s separation, would strategically be so disadvantageous that it would be difficult to defend them successfully. The former frontiers, with Latvia included, were on the contrary very favourable. Yet Russia did not and could not defend them. There is no doubt that if, in 1914, the Germans had, instead of throwing themselves on France, directed their forces to the East, they would have occupied without much difficulty the whole territory of Latvia; and Russia would have been deprived anyhow of the advantages of strategical frontiers and bases for her fleet. This hypothesis has been fully proved by the events that followed. In the spring of 1915, the German forces, relatively weak, easily succeeded in seizing the South of Courland, with the very important base for their navy at Libau, and took up positions on the River Venta. An attempt was then made to draw the attention of the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaievich, to the necessity of a vigorous defence of Courland in view of her military, political and economic importance. It was then that the Grand Duke, not sharing the opinion of the Russian groups on the strategical importance of Latvia, made his famous retort, “I don’t give a damn for your Courland!”--words which to-day still resound in the ears of every Lett. And in the summer of 1915, a few German detachments were seen occupying, almost without any resistance on the part of the Russians, the greater part of Courland. It is easy to believe in the little importance of the German forces and in Courland’s weak defence when one learns that mere patrols of cavalry took possession of whole towns almost without firing a shot. Seeing this, two sections of Lettish reservists who had been ordered to retreat, begged to be allowed to defend Mitau, and the permission was granted to them. These heroic soldiers offered to the Germans such a violent and unexpected resistance that the latter hesitated for a long time before coming nearer to the town.

In the autumn of 1915, the front was established on the line of the River Daugava (Dwina). The Russian Political Conference will perhaps say that this is precisely the strategic line which they contemplate. If that is so, it is fresh proof that in the hands of Russia strategical advantages have no importance. We know from the words publicly pronounced by the commander of an army on the Riga front, Radko-Dmitrieff, that Riga would have fallen in the autumn of 1915 but for the bravery of the Lettish troops, raised, as it is known, by Lettish patriots, after heated argument with the Russian bureaucracy. In the main, it was not the Russians so much as the Letts who defended the Riga front. It is enough to recollect the long siege which they sustained without respite on the “island of death,” near Ixküle, and the famous breach made by them in the German front near Mangoul, a breach which unfortunately led to nothing, owing to the lack of Russian troops to support them. Let us quote the characteristic and significant words spoken by the Kaiser after an inspection of the Riga front: “Riga will fall into my hands like a ripe fruit when eight stars have died out on that front.” He meant by this the eight detachments of the Lettish army.

The 2nd September, 1917, the Germans broke through the Riga front, and at least two Russian divisions would have been made prisoners if it had not been for the stubborn resistance of certain Lettish regiments, which were then annihilated. After this struggle they existed only in name, a glorious name with which the Bolsheviki continued to frighten their Russian adversaries.[3]

By this we can see that favourable strategical positions, in unskilful hands, become rather a snare than an advantage. The fact is that you cannot get immediate advantage out of a favourable strategical line if you have not the wish, the will, and the capacity to profit by it. Russia lacked both the goodwill and the capacity; they were absent in the Commander-in-Chief as well as in that moujik deserter from Riazan who replied to all exhortations: “Why should I fight? I’m not going to fish in that sea.”

The world-war has proved that patriotic spirit in an army and an understanding of duty are no less indispensable than the technique, favourable positions, etc. Will Russia be able to make her Grand Dukes and moujiks believe that their feeling of duty must extend to the strategic frontiers of the Baltic Sea, in a foreign land? We doubt it. Therefore, Russia’s defence will not be prejudiced if the strategical points aimed towards the West fall into stronger and surer hands than hers.

And the question of Russia’s defence must be examined from another point of view. Against whom is Russia preparing her defence in the West? Against Latvia? It would be a grave insult to Russia to pretend that Latvia, with her two million and a half inhabitants, could dream of an aggressive act against Russia, which, counting only the Great-Russians, possesses 65 million inhabitants. Against Esthonia then, with her million and a half inhabitants? Against Lithuania, with her six million inhabitants? To put these questions is to answer them. Against Poland or Ukraine? But in that case the strategical positions of the Baltic Sea have nothing to do with it. Against a coalition of all these States? This is questionable, for strong and adequate as a defensive coalition of all these States might be regarded, an offensive coalition on their part against Russia is obviously unlikely and futile, for in the latter case there could be neither community of interest nor a common object in aggression.

There remains the hypothesis of M. Mandelstam (_Memorandum on the Delimitation of the Rights of States and Nations_, p. 57), that the territory of Latvia may serve as a very favourable point of disembarkation for armies attacking Russia. If M. Mandelstam has Germany in view as a potential adversary, one can set him at ease by telling him that all the interests of Latvia are directed against Germany, and to suspect her of a future alliance with Germany is simply inadmissible. In the case of an aggressive tendency on the part of Germany, Latvia will have to defend herself, and one can suppose that she will do it more successfully than Russia, which could not thus be other than much obliged to her, in view of Latvia’s carrying out for her a task which had proved beyond Russia’s power.

Russia’s defence will thus in no way be prejudiced by the shores of the Baltic not being guarded by herself but by a more watchful sentry, of whom one could not expect any aggressive tendency, but who would nevertheless oppose himself, in the name of his own interests, to any aggression coming either from the West or East.

The Lettish people claims the realisation of its natural right to an independent existence and free development. Within the boundaries of Russia this was and will be impossible. Consequently, the Lettish people is right in demanding its constitution as an independent State, and this all the more because the interests of the Russian people will not suffer by it.

GUARANTEES OF THE WORLD-PEACE

It would be possible to end here if the question was merely one of tracing a line of delimitation between the interests of the Russian people and those of the Lettish people. But that is not so--one could not lose sight of a more universal interest. What will be the result of the limits traced between the Lettish people and the Russian people, in the matter of other nations’ interests? A new international dawn will rise when the Paris Conference has established guarantees for the maintenance of peace. Everything must be done to avoid the disasters of a future war.

And precisely from this point of view, voices are heard proclaiming that in the interests of political equilibrium, a strong Russia must be rebuilt, as far as possible within her former frontiers. They even say that if no Russia existed, one must be invented.

PRINCIPLE OF POLITICAL EQUILIBRIUM

Certainly, it is possible to make a primary reply to this opinion by saying that political equilibrium is incriminated, and that in its place will come the League of Nations guaranteeing peace and justice for all. The reply is valid. But we are also disposed to agree with those who say that the League of Nations will be formed only in the future and at present it is incapable of fulfilling all the tasks which we await from it. For this reason, if only as a subsidiary factor, one must not lose sight of the problems of political equilibrium.

RUSSIA AS A FACTOR IN POLITICAL EQUILIBRIUM

This equilibrium does not establish the necessity of re-creating Russia as she was before the war, for Russia was in no way a factor powerful enough to support that equilibrium. Knowing Russia’s internal weakness, Germany had no fear in launching the world-war. And during the war Russia’s forces proved insufficient to weigh down the scales of victory on the Allies’ side. On the contrary, during all the time the hostilities lasted, Russia was strategically, as well as politically and economically, the weakest point of the Allies. Finally she left them to the grace of God after having made them a present of the pest of Bolshevism. It is clear that, even in the case of reconstruction in her former boundaries, Russia will not for a long time be in a position to perform the part of an ally and help to maintain the European equilibrium. Russia is ruined; ruined not only by the war, but also, and much more, by Bolshevism; ruined physically, economically and much more morally and intellectually. More than a generation will be required before Russia can count as a factor in European policy. And who will maintain the equilibrium in the meantime?

INTERNAL WEAKNESS OF RUSSIA

But even after a long rest and complete external reconstruction, Russia, in the case of serious aggression, will always prove internally to be a considerably weaker factor than it would be possible to judge of from the outside. That was the case during the Japanese war in 1904-5. And so she was also during the war which has just ended. Russia’s external strength has always been imaginary, for she has always been weak internally. And this is not an accidental, momentary or passing weakness, but a weakness dependent on Russia’s composition and her home-policy. We have already shown that Russia is composed of a series of regions which by their population, history, culture and economic interests are not bound together, but tend in different directions, and are merely held together by perpetual compulsion. By reason of this there will always be a centralised home-policy in Russia, and, consequently, a lot of unsolved and insoluble problems therein; a policy the principal means of which will always be force and compulsion. And as soon as compulsion relaxes, the problems and anomalies artificially kept under come again to the surface and paralyse all the forces of Russia. The history of Russia shows that precisely on account of her internal weakness and under the threat of revolution, she has been unable to end with success any one of the last wars.

POLITICAL LEANINGS OF RUSSIA TOWARDS GERMANY

But besides that, as concerns Russia, it will never be possible to tell in which direction she will turn. At the beginning of the last century, allied to Prussia and Austria, she fought against France, and became the inspirer of the Holy Alliance which was directed, in full accord with the character of Russia’s home-policy, against all the rights of peoples. In the middle of the last century, she fought against England, France, and Sardinia, after having secured the neutrality of Austria and Prussia. In 1870, her friendly neutrality gave Prussia the opportunity to crush France. There is something fateful in her traditional friendship with Germany. Behind the back of France, though allied to her, it was towards Germany that Nicholas II. felt himself attracted (see his correspondence with William II., published in Bourtzeff’s paper _L’Avenir_, 1917), as well as his ministers Sturmer and Protopopoff, unmasked in the speech of P. Miliukoff in the Imperial Douma, in February, 1917; M. Miliukoff himself (_Pages Modernes_, April number, 1919, page 6); and the Tzar’s General Skoropadsky; and Lenin and Trotsky who signed peace with Germany of the Kaiser and wanted an alliance with Germany of Scheidemann at any cost. At heart, M. Mandelstam also is not too remote from this fatal leaning. He threatens war if the Paris Conference shows itself disposed to recognise the independence of the States detached from Russia (_Some Reflections on the Question of a Great Poland and the Shores of the Baltic_, p. 10; _Memorandum on the Delimitation of the Rights of States and Nations_, p. 81). With what war and in alliance with whom does M. Mandelstam threaten us?

It is evident that the Russian Political Conference is not free from that fatal inclination. Its representative, M. Sazonoff, former Minister, is revealed by Prince Lichnovsky as ready to abandon France, “Russia’s cherished ally,” to Germany for plunder, on condition that the latter consents to give Russia a free hand in regard to Austria-Hungary.

It is also very interesting to notice that the crusade against the independent States of the Baltic, preached by M. Mandelstam in Paris, is put into execution in Latvia by the armies of General von der Goltz which have upset the legal Government of Latvia recognised by England and Japan. The hand of M. Mandelstam, seeking allies for the crusade against Latvia, has not remained in the air; von der Goltz has grasped it enthusiastically. Future Russia and bygone Germany have met in a common intrigue against independent Latvia. Finland, Esthonia, Lithuania, Ukraine and independent Poland are specks in the eyes of both; and who can guarantee that the points of contact will not increase with the lapse of time?

RUSSIA AS A PROBABLE DESTROYER OF THE WORLD-PEACE