LATVIJOS IR ESTIJOS POŽIŪRIS Į KLAIPĖDOS ATPLĖŠIMĄ NUO LIETUVOS 1939 METAIS
LATVIA AND ESTONIA’S VIEW TO THE SEPARATION OF KLAIPĖDA FROM LITHUANIA IN 1939

Summary/Abstract: The article focuses on a topic that has never been tackled and constructively investigated in historiography. The issue of Klaipėda that was one of the key international problems for Lithuania in interwar years affected international status and the stability of its Northern neighbour countries including other baltic states – Latvia and Estonia. In 1923, having confirmed the annexation of Klaipėda region to Lithuania, they were both concerned that Lithuania would retain it, in this way not letting the historical German expansion to renew to the Northeast direction. In essence the subject of Klaipėda did not prevent Lithuania from cooperation with Latvia and Estonia and from clustering into the Baltic Entente. This question did not belong to the “specific” problems pointed out in the peace treaty of the 12th of September 1934 which constituted the exception in the cooperation of the three Baltic countries. Latvia’s backing of Lithuania in seeking to preserve Klaipėda is more tangible. The decision made by Latvian government to transform the Consulate in Klaipėda into General Consulate and to appoint Janis Seskis, a well-known politician and diplomat as a consul is considered as support to Lithuania. The activity of Latvian General Consul in Klaipėda was useful for Lithuania, the impression was that not only Germany had exceptional rights in Klaipėda region but that Latvia was also interested in it. The three-day visiting of Latvian navy in Klaipėda harbour (from the 5th to the 8th of August in 1935) is also considered as beneficial action on the part of Lithuania. Estonia’s try to mediate in Germany and Lithuania’s argument on Klaipėda in 1938 by advising to give Klaipėda to Germany by good will before it they occupied it by force is not treated as an action directed against Lithuania either. That action was determined by Estonian military and diplomatic office’s belief that peace and stability can be preserved in Europe by satisfying Germany’s ethnically-based territorial requirements. That leaders also assumed that the most dangerous enemy of Estonia is the USSR which can also be resisted with the help of Germany, therefore no Baltic country could be in conflict with it. The loss of Klaipėda was considered by Estonia as an inevitable and imminent event whereas Latvia treated it as a reprehensible fact of German expansion that Lithuania has to face and experience hard. Yielding Klaipėda did not stabilise the international status of baltic countries but worsened it because the danger of USSR aggression became more intense, especially and primarily for Estonia and Latvia. This fact only indicates one more time that the security of all three Baltic states is undivided.

• Details
• Contents