The Attitude of the United States to the Baltic Region in 1918–1922: The Example of

The Attitude of the United States to the Baltic Region in 1918–1922: The Example of Latvia1

Ēriks Jēkabsons

University of Latvia Aspazijas bulv. 5 Riga LV-1050, Latvia Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The article discusses the attitude of the USA towards the newborn independent Baltic States in 1918–1922 using the most devastated of them—Latvia—as an example. Relations between Latvia and the United States in 1918–1922 refl ect Latvia’s intense foreign policy eff orts to ensure its political and social development through relations with one of the world’s most infl uential and powerful economies in spite of the United States’ reserved behavior. In addition, this unique era in Latvia and the Baltic States as a whole (infl uenced by the Soviet Russian and German factors, war and its aftermath, and the ethnically diverse and complicated social situation) illustrates the specifi cs of US policy towards Eastern Europe and Russia.

Keywords: Baltic States, Latvia, Latvian War of Independence, recognition, Russian question, USA

After World War I, a number of new countries emerged in the devastated Central and Eastern Europe. Stabilization of these new countries and their mutual relations were very complicated. One of the most complex situations was in the Baltic region, where the Baltic States—Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia—were created in the former territory of the Russian Empire. The attitudes of the states victorious in the war—Great Britain, France and USA—to these intricate developments in the Baltic region differed from case to case; the attitude of the USA was particularly specifi c. The aim of this article is to disclose the attitude of the United States to the Baltic

1 This research was supported by the Latvian Council of Science research grant nr. lzp- 2018/2-0147 ‘War and Society 1914–1921’.

TalTechdoi: 10.2478/bjes-2021-0006 Journal of European Studies TalTech Journal of European Studies Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) 79 Ēriks Jēkabsons region from 1918 to 1922, using the most devastated of them—Latvia—as an example (see more Tarulis, 1965; Jēkabsons, 2018a; 2018b).

1. First contacts

Americans had established limited ties with imperial Russia’s Baltic provinces in the 19th century, but these were strictly of an economic nature. They viewed this area merely as one of Russia’s economically most advanced regions and saw in it potential for economic partnership. As World War I in Europe entered its final phase and national independence movements gained strength, the United States took note of Latvians as an entity in the context of events in Russia and Germany. However, its interest, though exhibiting a degree of sympathy at both the official and unofficial levels, was nevertheless very cautious, as this region was viewed as being part of Russia. This reticence persisted even as the Latvian state emerged. The situation in Latvia changed due to events in Europe and Russia; interest in the region grew significantly, as evidenced by diplomatic reports and the US first contacts with representatives of the Latvian state (Osborne, 1919; Papers…, 1931, pp. 667–668).

At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, the Latvian delegation, which was present in an observer’s role, and the American Commission to Negotiate Peace established preliminary contacts. Beginning in January, the Latvian delegates attempted to establish contacts with the Americans by submitting various letters and requests in hopes of obtaining their support. However, from the very outset the American stance toward Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia was clear: it was very cautious, as the United States sought to view the Latvian question in conjunction with Russia in the foreseeable future. Hence, the American Commission avoided providing a concrete response to the Latvian side’s petition to recognize Latvia’s statehood. The Americans maintained relations with the Latvians to obtain information about the situation in the Eastern Baltic region, and their interest was considerable, defined by Latvia’s geopolitical significance and the Russian and German influence factor. In March and April 1919, the United States’ interest intensified when the American Relief Administration (ARA) began its work, and on account of the German coup in the Latvian port city of Liepāja. The relationship between the two delegations, having been established in Paris, developed on the political level, but even more actively in matters

TalTech Journal of European Studies 80 Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) The Attitude of the United States to the Baltic Region in 1918–1922: The Example of Latvia of humanitarian aid with Herbert Hoover’s ARA, which at the time was a federal structure. The Latvian delegation was convinced, incorrectly, that the Americans were at least more favorably inclined towards the question of the Baltic States’ independence than the British. This assumption was enhanced when the US tried to lift the Blockade of Germany and German- controlled territories, which the British were opposed to. This, in fact, was not a good indicator, for the US had different intentions.

The American Commission dispatched a mission from Paris to the Baltic “provinces” in April, thereby indicating the United States’ interest in events in the region. Undoubtedly, mission leader Lt. Col. Warwick Greene was one of the most prominent representatives of the Allied Powers in Latvia, and the mission’s significance from the perspective of Latvia’s Interim Government, and objectively, cannot be denied (especially in relation to the new Ulmanis government established in May–July). In spite of his political conservatism, which, combined with Americans’ traditionally negative view of the breakup of super powers, led Latvians to believe that the US was negatively inclined toward the Interim Government and Latvia’s sovereignty in general, the anti-Bolshevik Greene attempted to implement a just policy, based on his own sense of justice and the American approach, toward the various parties involved in the ongoing conflict. Greene could not be indifferent towards the former traditional elite comprised primarily of the Baltic German landed gentry; however, Greene was critical of Germany in general and thereby of its political aims in Latvia. It is not true, contrary to a popular belief, that Greene and his mission were unequivocally supportive of the Germans in their conflict with the Latvians. For example, the mission and Greene personally granted protection to Latvian officials whom the Germans wanted to arrest after the April 16 coup in Liepāja. Greene was not only an observer of the situation in the Baltic and an informer to the American Commission in Paris, but he also engaged in independent politics, working towards the creation of a strong anti-Bolshevik coalition in Latvia. Due to several factors, this aim was only partly successful during the second half of the mission’s stay in Latvia, in the summer of 1919, when the Germans had been defeated near Cēsis. The mission along with other Allied representations achieved the signing of a ceasefire in Strazdumuiža. Greene’s mission played a very significant role at this very crucial time for Latvia. Although from Greene’s perspective Latvia was but one of many temporary national creations in Eastern Europe, certain changes in his views were apparent, as he familiarized himself with the situation on the ground and local peoples. By the end of his mission’s presence in Latvia, although Greene remained

TalTech Journal of European Studies Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) 81 Ēriks Jēkabsons skeptical of the Baltic nations’ long-term prospects of independence, he admitted that their demands for sovereignty were legitimate, and that they possessed the qualities necessary for achieving that aim (see Rimsha, 1966; Jēkabsons, 2014).

At the same time, in the spring and summer of 1919, parallel to cooperation with the ARA, the Latvian delegation in Paris was intent on convincing the American Commission of the legitimacy of Latvia’s secession from Russia and was interested, along with other states in the region, in the question of purchasing supplies from the United States’ Liquidation Commission. Because the United States was unwilling to sign agreements with governments of non-recognized states, a company by the name of Central Union “Konzums” was suggested as a go-between, and a contract essentially guaranteed by the Latvian government was signed. The purchase comprised a significant part of the Latvian state’s debt to the US (the other being flour purchased from the American Relief Administration at this time), and opinions about the quality and necessity of the purchase differed. Undeniably, these goods reached Latvia at a crucial juncture—on the eve of Pavel Bermondt-Avalov’s assault, and were significant to the Latvian state, its army, and its civilians (Agreement…, 1919).

2. American Relief

The American Relief Administration played a special role in strengthening Latvia’s statehood. Herbert Hoover and the agencies established under his auspices to provide aid to Europe’s war-torn countries became interested in the Baltic already at the end of 1918; this interest was due to the immense devastation in this region and its important proximity to Russia (or, according to the American perspective of the time, as part of Russia), as well as to the Americans’ policy on the containment of Bolshevism while improving the social conditions of local populations. The first shipment of flour arrived in Liepāja at the beginning of April, and the Americans ascertained that the humanitarian condition was dire, the provisional government weak, the military and political situation complicated, and relations between the Latvians and bad. All of these were precursors to the April 16 coup, which the Americans witnessed directly. Afterwards, with no real government in place, the ARA ceased to supply flour to the population, and the organization’s representatives, echoing Warwick Greene’s political

TalTech Journal of European Studies 82 Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) The Attitude of the United States to the Baltic Region in 1918–1922: The Example of Latvia mission, actively engaged in finding a resolution for the situation in order to resume distributing food to the populace.

At the end of May, the mission began distributing flour to the local governments of Liepāja and other cities, thereby improving the local inhabitants’ circumstances, but found itself in conflict with British missions who accepted the status quo of German dominance and saw this as an unwise move. The supply of flour was of inestimable value, as illustrated by the deference that Kārlis Ulmanis’ provisional government, the pro-German Andrievs Niedra faction, and the German military displayed toward it. At the end of May, a new, amply staffed ARA mission under the leadership of John Groom arrived in Liepāja to begin valuable work in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. The Americans encountered difficulties in all fields they had to operate in “far from civilization”, in their own words. The situation was complicated by the unregulated financial system (various currencies were in circulation). While Ulmanis’ government’s grasp on the situation remained elusive, the ARA continued cooperating with local governments and threw its weight behind Warwick Greene’s endeavors to mitigate the political crisis. The so-called Cēsis battles changed the situation, after which the Ulmanis government regained control and resumed direct cooperation with the Americans. Meanwhile, the American mission and other representatives of the Allied Powers were forced to seek refuge on warships during the raid on Liepāja, when the Paris peace talks were in crisis mode. On June 24, when the mission resumed work, it encountered new difficulties, such as the lack of train cars, which had to be resolved in talks with the German forces. The results were positive, and shipments of American flour reached more remote populated areas, thus saving many inhabitants suffering from a lack of provisions.

The assistance rendered by the ARA was essential and practically irreplaceable, which is why the local government yielded to the Americans’ demand that certain civil servants of Baltic German extraction be retained in their positions. Generally speaking, the ARA mission and Americans tried to remain neutral in regard to Latvia’s internal affairs, yet during this complicated transition of power phase they came into conflict with the retreating German garrison and other political and military factors. The aforementioned position of the Americans and an analysis of their actions permits us to flesh out the sociopolitical scene in Rīga and Latvia at this time, because we are offered a neutral bystander’s perspective and testimony regarding an extremely complicated time period: that is, the transition of power that took place in Rīga from the end of June to the middle of July in

TalTech Journal of European Studies Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) 83 Ēriks Jēkabsons

1919. The ARA’s help was a significant factor in reducing the incidence of hunger and hunger-induced disease after months of destructive Bolshevik rule; this assistance was rendered at a time when Rīga was not under the auspices of the provisional government and its authorities. The Americans were witnesses to the complicated sanitary and food supply situation, as well as to the political backdrop, in which Germany and Baltic Germans and Niedra’s and Ulmanis’ provisional governments vied for power in an area freed of Bolshevik rule. Adhering to its specific aims, the ARA mission attempted to provide aid to all segments of the population regardless of their nationality and origin, and from the very outset took great care to make sure that the principle of equality was honored.

While engaging in general relief work, the ARA planned to provide assistance to Latvia’s children, which was one of the organization’s main objectives in all of the European countries in which it operated. Upon its arrival, the mission began preparations, first in Liepāja (the feeding of children began in June), and then in Rīga; its work included the creation of local committees to organize additional activities, such as providing children with check-ups. The Americans worked side by side with local doctors. Thomas Orbison was especially active in Liepāja, personally taking charge of many operations that local experts could have managed and exhibiting a deep interest in the ongoing aid work. The feeding of children was an essential part of the ARA’s work, because the situation of children in the big cities was dire, which was reflected in the high mortality rate. This was mainly due to the lack of food. The joint ARA mission completed its work in August of 1919 and continued its work as an organization with a mandate to feed the children (and no longer operating as a state structure). At the beginning of its operations in Latvia and elsewhere in Europe, the ARA was aware of its significance and in certain cases used food to influence events in its favor (such as threatening to suspend the supply of food); it often achieved what it wanted with this tactic (Jēkabsons, 2018a, pp. 147–292).

TalTech Journal of European Studies 84 Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) The Attitude of the United States to the Baltic Region in 1918–1922: The Example of Latvia

3. Stabilization of the Baltic States and American attitude

At the end of the summer and in the autumn of 1919, the official US policy in Washington, DC, and Paris towards the sovereignty of the Baltic States was negative, especially compared to that of the British. This was primarily due to the fact that the United States wished to see Russia within its old borders, which would include the Baltic on the grounds of autonomy (although the Americans were beginning to sense the difference between the Baltic nations and Russians). First of all, Under Secretary of State Frank Polk, who led the US delegation to Paris, was categorically opposed to the “division of Russia.” Thanks to him, the Allied Supreme Council softened some of the demands on Germany regarding army withdrawal and essentially blocked the use of Polish forces against Bermondt’s. A while later, it did not grant the so-called Niessel’s Inter-Allied Commission the necessary authority to withdraw German forces from the Baltic. Other members of the American Commission assumed this position. At the same time, the US State Department became increasingly interested in events in the Baltic and near Petrograd in anticipation of an assault by Russian anti-Bolshevik forces under Nikolai Yudenich. The situation was monitored in the US legations in Helsinki, Stockholm, and Copenhagen, and at the US representation in Rīga as well, as an armed conflict with Bermondt’s army erupted in Latvia. John Gade, appointed Commissioner to the three Baltic States by the State Department, and observers from the US Department of Defense arrived in Rīga to get a feel for the situation. Due to the aforementioned negative attitude towards the independence of the Baltic States, the status of the commission itself was undefined, and it was only allowed to act as an observer. The military observers in October, and the commission head upon arrival in November dispatched reports on a regular basis to the US State Department and the Department of Defense about political and military developments in Russia and in the Baltic (Kennan, 1956, pp. 140–520; Farnsworth, 1967, pp. 32–54; Floto, 1980, pp. 99–163; Walworth, 1986, pp. 125–140; Foglesong, 1995a; 1995b).

Even after the battles against Bermondt’s forces in Latvia, the prevailing attitudes remained, primarily dictated by the United States’ negative stance regarding the question of Baltic independence, and the influence of the non-Bolshevik Russian Embassy in Washington, DC was particularly noticeable. Nevertheless, the Latvian government took the presence of the State Department commission and American military observers in Rīga as

TalTech Journal of European Studies Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) 85 Ēriks Jēkabsons a very significant factor in the struggle to strengthen independence and official recognition. The Americans provided a steady flow of important information about events in Russia and the Baltic States. In many respects, this was possible due to the assistance of the Latvian authorities at all levels, providing news of interest from intelligence, domestic security, and military sources. The Americans were even permitted to participate in the interrogation of certain persons held in captivity and prisoners of war. The commission was focused on Soviet Russia but also monitored events in Latvia. It was clear that John Gade and other commission members were sympathetic to the Baltic German elite, maintaining friendly personal contacts with them. In addition, the Americans were often at odds and in competition with British representatives in the region, and they remained cautious in their dealings with the Latvian authorities, trying to adhere to a policy of non-recognition in a manner that did not insult the Latvians. This was not an easy task, as Latvia noticed that the heads of the ARA and American Red Cross organization exhibited a more positive stance, that there were favorable articles in the American press, and there was the case of Joseph Stehlin, an American volunteer in the Latvian army who was viewed favorably (Jēkabsons, 2010).

In spite of this official stance, the Latvian government was persistent in its attempts to secure the favor and goodwill of the United States, basing their hopes on the selfless work of the American charitable organizations, as well as on the principles of democracy that were the bedrock of the USA. Which is why US Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby’s note of August 1920, which stressed the importance of preserving the principle of Russia’s territorial integrity, was like an icy shower to the Latvians. The bitterness and even outrage were evident not only in official (government) ranks but at the unofficial (public) level as well. At the beginning of the summer, John Gade, the professional officer of the US State Department Commission in Rīga, was replaced by Evan Young, a career diplomat appointed as US Commissioner in Rīga. However, the representation’s main course of action remained unchanged. During this time, the Latvian state grew in strength, and a change was noted in the Commission’s attitude, although its primary focus was on Russia. By August, Commissioner Young was expressing fears of a possible Russian invasion of Latvia and the safety of the Americans. The commission increased its information output and were continuously assisted by the Latvian authorities.

TalTech Journal of European Studies 86 Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) The Attitude of the United States to the Baltic Region in 1918–1922: The Example of Latvia

4. The question of recognition, 1920–1922

Keeping their goal to achieve the United States’ recognition of Latvian independence, and its benevolence, in mind, for the Latvian side, the work of Latvia’s representatives in the US was crucial. Beginning in 1919, Jānis Kalniņš, a consular officer, was stationed in New York, and a year later in May a trade representative, Kārlis Ozols, also began work there. Both men began their work in earnest to represent the interests of Latvia. However, the American authorities they approached received them cautiously, viewing them as representatives of an unrecognized state and thus hampering their efforts. It was precisely because of this cool reception that Latvia was hindered in dispatching a diplomatic representative to the United States. At this time, in 1920, the Latvian government was prepared to engage in an enormous business affair with an obscure American company called USA International Corporation without properly checking its trustworthiness. As a result, Latvia lost a down payment of 450,000 US dollars, which it failed to recoup on top of monies invested over a period of some years related to the work of its diplomatic and consular representatives and legal advice rendered by foreign jurists. This loss was especially painful to a newborn country whose people, economy, and almost all aspects of life were in a dire situation due to the recent war (Jēkabsons, 2015, pp. 97–136).

US–Latvian relations were characterized by the latter’s attempts to secure the former’s recognition and favor, and the US attempt to hold on to its policy of territorial integrity in regards to Russia. The problem for the United States lay in the fact that other major countries had recognized Latvia’s sovereignty at the beginning of 1921, which prompted the Latvian government and people to turn to the US with high hopes. As the US dragged its feet, the Latvians felt increasingly bitter. US Commissioner Young, however, grew more vocal in advocating for recognizing Latvian independence. Latvia’s hopes that the change in the presidency in Washington, DC in April 1921 would help were not immediately fulfilled. In May 1921, Ludvigs Sēja began working in the US capital as a delegate of the Latvian government and, in fact, as its non-accredited (that is, unofficial) diplomatic representative. He was also stymied in his efforts to fulfill the tasks he had been entrusted with: to secure US recognition of Latvia and economic assistance. The US State Department promised to change its Baltic policy but failed to take action. All of this in spite of the Latvian authorities’ outreach and support to the US State Department Commission in Rīga, which was primarily tasked with monitoring Soviet

TalTech Journal of European Studies Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) 87 Ēriks Jēkabsons

Russia, as well as the efforts of Latvia’s representatives in Washington and New York, was hindered by non-recognition (Sēja, 1921).

After Latvia and Estonia joined the League of Nations in the fall of 1921, the Baltic republics were dismayed and even mortified by the United States’ unwillingness to recognize them. An almost general recognition was achieved already at the beginning of 1921. Yet, Latvians waited for US recognition, which came only in the summer of 1922, when the United States policy towards Russia changed, and the non-Bolshevik Russian representation in Washington, DC ceased to exist. A certain degree of incomprehension over US policy in regard to the Baltics was even appearing in the American press, which is why the Latvian representation succeeded in securing the publication of favorable articles in several leading newspapers. At the official level, the Americans continued to cite various reasons for the delay, but their promises remained empty. Due to changes in the international situation and the increasing contacts between the two countries, the call to recognize the independence of the Baltic States grew louder, widening the opportunities for American economic interests in the Baltic region, and a support movement emerged, with influential politicians, businessmen, scientists, and newspapers joining it. Ultimately, in the summer of 1922, with American policy towards Russia changing, the US government drafted a carefully worded memorandum recognizing Baltic sovereignty and submitted it to the Baltic governments (Medijainen, 2012). This recognition elicited a way of euphoria in Latvians who had been waiting for so long, hoping that it would provide economic and political benefits. The outcome of recognition was of a legal, formal nature. Hopes for cooperation in business ventures succeeded only partially due to American isolationism and other reasons. In spite of this, henceforth Latvian and US relations evolved on a basis of equality, leaving a lasting imprint, even when Latvia’s independence was de facto destroyed in 1940.

In addition to official relations, several American non-federal organizations were active in Latvia. In August 1919, the American Relief Administration began a new and qualitative period of work in Europe and the Baltic States; its first phase lasted until August 1920. The ARA continued its work as a part/ mission of the European Children’s Fund, an NGO, and this was particularly emphasized in official documents. The free assistance to European countries was possible due to funds collected during the ARA’s donation drive. The work of the American Red Cross in Latvia was no less important, as was also that of the American Young Men’s Christian Association and the Young Women’s Christian Association in 1921–1922.

TalTech Journal of European Studies 88 Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) The Attitude of the United States to the Baltic Region in 1918–1922: The Example of Latvia

5. Conclusions

Thus, starting in 1918, when the US government first encountered the question of Latvian sovereignty, up until 1922, when this superpower after a lengthy delay decided to recognize Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania de jure, its stance could be described as wavering, with an unwillingness to encroach on the future interests of neo-Bolshevik Russia. At the same time it was apparent that the US leadership was interested in curbing the spread of Soviet Russia’s influence and, in tandem with the other Entente powers, changing its political system. This is why the United States viewed the Baltic States with such interest due to their proximity to Soviet Russia. Latvia’s relations with the US during the period of discussion can be separated into several phases. In fact, the period from the fall of 1918 to the spring of 1919 can be viewed as one of intelligence gathering pertaining to a specific and important region of an imploding Russia that could potentially play an important role in regulating the situation in Eastern Europe. From the spring of 1919 to the fall of that year, the Americans were involved in a serious effort to assess the situation in the Baltic by dispatching a mission headed by Warwick Greene while supporting the American Relief Administration’s humanitarian aid to the Baltic populations to help curb the influence of the Bolsheviks. The Americans were specifically interested in public opinion, and governments were seen as a vehicle rather than a target of support to stave off the advances of communism.

In contrast to the years that followed, in the time period being discussed, the American Relief Administration’s activities in Latvia were an official and an integral part of US foreign policy. The time period lasting from the fall of 1919 until 1922, political, military, and economic relations between the US and Latvia, which the former did not yet recognize, were inadequate. In fact, in the fall of 1919, when the US State Department Commission arrived in Latvia in an official status (though coached to emphasize its unofficial status), the bilateral relations entered a new phase. The Latvian side’s hopes to achieve US recognition grew in the fall of 1920 and even more at the beginning of 1921, when other major powers were recognizing it. Obviously, the Latvian government endeavored to do everything in its means to achieve this recognition, intensifying political and economic ties, but encountering, on the one hand, a lukewarm reception and tepid support in political matters sugarcoated with declarative benevolence, and on the other—a cautious approach dictated by the US Russian policy, which was characterized by an unwillingness to engage in the affairs of the Baltic States.

TalTech Journal of European Studies Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) 89 Ēriks Jēkabsons

From the outset, the interim Latvian government oriented its policy towards the Entente powers. For the Latvian government and the Latvian people, just as for other countries exhausted by the war, relations with the United States, which had emerged from World War I as the world’s greatest superpower, were very important. Everyone hoped for US political and, even more importantly, economic support in spite of its declaration of isolationism. US policy towards the Baltic States differed from that of Great Britain and France both before and after its declaration: because the United States opposed the disintegration of the Russian Empire, its stance towards the Baltic States was the most negative, which is why it took so long to recognize their independence. In spite of this, it was the US that provided the Baltic States the greatest and most essential humanitarian aid. In addition, it provided crucial support to the Latvian state and the Latvian military during the War of Independence.

In 1919–1922, several American representations were operational in Latvia. The official ones were the mission of the delegation in Paris and the State Department Commission, which included representatives of the US Defense and Commerce Departments. And then there were the unofficial aid organization missions. Thus, there were hundreds of Americans active in Latvia at this time: state officials, officers, soldiers, doctors, nurses, civil servants, social workers, technical staff, and others. The American personnel kept changing, and these hundreds were able to become acquainted with Latvia and obtain a certain perspective. The American presence in the Baltic States at this time was the most intensive in history, with US agencies and aid organizations based in Riga to coordinate operations in the Baltic area. Relations between Latvia and the United States from 1918–1922 reflect Latvia’s intense foreign policy efforts to ensure its political and social development through relations with one of the world’s most influential and powerful economies in spite of the United States’ relatively cool and reserved behavior. In addition, this unique era in Latvia and the Baltic States as a whole (influenced by the Soviet Russian and German factors, war and its aftermath, and the ethnically diverse and complicated social situation) illustrates the specifics of US policy towards Eastern Europe and Russia.

Dr. Ēriks Jēkabsons is a professor at the University of Latvia, Faculty of History and Philosophy, as well as one of the leading researchers at the Institute of . His main research interests are modern history of Latvia, national minorities in Latvia, Latvian-Polish and

TalTech Journal of European Studies 90 Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) The Attitude of the United States to the Baltic Region in 1918–1922: The Example of Latvia

Latvian-Lithuanian relations in the first half of the 20th century, history of the Latvian army. He has written about 230 scientific publications (books and articles) and has won the award Latvian “Historian of the Year” twice.

References

Agreement of “Konzums” and Commission (1919), Latvijas Nacionālā arhīva Latvijas Valsts vēstures arhīvs [National Archives of Latvia, State Historical Archives of Latvia], F 1307, inv 1, f 650, pp. 51–52. Farnsworth, B. (1967), William C. Bullitt and the Soviet Union, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Floto, I. (1980), Colonel House in Paris. A Study of American Policy at the Paris Peace Conference 1919, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Foglesong, D. S. (1995a), America’s Secret War against Bolshevism: US Intervention in the Russian Civil War, 1917–1920, Chapel Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press. Foglesong, D. S. (1995b), ‘The United States, self-determination and the struggle against Bolshevism in the Eastern Baltic region, 1918–1920,’ Journal of Baltic Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 107–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/01629779500000031 Jēkabsons, Ē. (2010), ‘Amerikānis Džozefs Stēlins Latvijas armijā Neatkarības kara laikā’ [American Joseph Stehlin in Latvian army during the War of Independence], Tēvijas Sargs, no. 6, pp. 30–31. Jēkabsons, Ē. (2014), ‘Die Tätigkeit der amerikanischen Mission in Lettland unter der Leitung von Warwick Greene: Liepāja, April bis Mai 1919,’ Forschungen zur Baltischen Geschichte, vol. 9, pp. 152–176. Jēkabsons, Ē. (2015), ‘Zaudētie 450 000 dolāru: Neveiksmīgais Latvijas valdības darījums ar firmu “U.S.A. International Corporation” 1920. gadā’ [Lost 450,000 dollars: unfortunate deal with the company U.S.A. International Corporation], Latvijas Arhīvi, no. 3/4, pp. 97–136. Jēkabsons, Ē. (2018a), Latvijas un Amerikas Savienoto Valstu attiecības 1918–1922 [Relations of Latvia and USA, 1918–1922], Rīga: Latvijas Vēstures Institūta Apgāds. https://doi.org/10.22364/lviz.108.08 Jēkabsons, Ē. (2018b), ‘The Latvian War of Independence 1918–1920 and the United States,’ in L. Fleishman & A. Weiner (ed.) War, Revolution, and Governance: The Baltic Countries in the Twentieth Century, Boston: Academic Studies Press, pp. 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781618116215-003 Kennan, G. F. (1956), Soviet–American Relations, 1917–1920. Russia Leaves the War, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

TalTech Journal of European Studies Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33) 91 Ēriks Jēkabsons

Medijainen, E. (2012), ‘The US de jure recognition of the Baltic states,’ Trames, vol. 16(66/61), no. 4, pp. 305–322. https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2012.4.01 Osborne, L. (1919), L. Osborne to Secretary of State (1919.24.01), Hoover Institution and Archives, American Relief Administration, European Unit, Box 337-18. Papers Relating to the Foreign Policy of the United States (1931), 1918. Russia, vol. I, Washington. Rimscha, H. von (1966), ‘Die baltische Mission des amerikanischer Oberstleutnants Warwick Greene im Jahre 1919,’ in R. Endress (ed.) West-östliche Perspektiven. Wirtschaft – Soziologie – Wissenschaft – Politik, Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Erik v. Sivers zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Stuttgart: Forkel Verlag, pp. 99–117. Sēja, L. (1921), Reports, National Archives of Latvia, State Historical Archives of Latvia, F 293, inv 1, f 453, pp. 1–39. Tarulis, A. (1965), American-Baltic Relations, 1918–1922: The Struggle over Recognition, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. Walworth, A. (1986), Wilson and His Peacemakers: American Diplomacy at the Paris Peace Conference, New York & London: W. W. Norton & Company.

TalTech Journal of European Studies 92 Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)