Latvia & Russia: One problem of the world-peace considered

In Short

This book is a focused, impassioned plea for the international recognition of Latvia as a sovereign, independent state. Writing in 1920, the author systematically dismantles the arguments of Russian political factions who sought to reconstitute the former Russian Empire by incorporating its "borderland peoples." By analyzing the economic, historical, and strategic realities of the Baltic region, the text warns that a restored, centralized Russia would inevitably be a source of future instability. It has endured as a primary source document for understanding the complex geopolitical transition following the Russian Revolution.

The Story

The narrative begins by framing the collapse of the Russian Empire not as a mere localized crisis, but as the central challenge facing the Paris Peace Conference. The author posits that universal peace is impossible as long as the vast, chaotic territory of Russia remains in a state of civil war. The core of the argument centers on the "borderland peoples," specifically the Letts, who have suffered under centuries of Russian domination. These nationalities are portrayed as having reached a point of exhaustion with imperial rule and, for the sake of their own cultural and economic survival, they demand full independence.

The author shifts his focus to the "Russian Sphinx"—the various political groups in exile who claimed to represent the Russian people. These groups, led by figures like Admiral Koltchak and represented in London and Paris by diplomats such as M. Mandelstam, advocate for a "provisional regime." They argue that the independence of borderland states should be postponed until a constituent assembly can be elected to decide the fate of the former empire. The author rejects this outright, arguing that such a delay is a tactical maneuver designed to trap these nations back into a centralized, Tzarist-style administrative structure. He asserts that the Russian people will be unable to freely express their will for the foreseeable future, making the postponement of Latvian independence an unjust and dangerous policy.

He then systematically refutes the idea of an "All-Russian Federation." He argues that such a structure is a historical and cultural impossibility because there is no common civilization or economic interest uniting the disparate parts of the former empire. He exposes the internal contradictions of the Russian groups, citing their past hostility toward even minor autonomy for the Letts. He predicts that any attempt to force these peoples back into a federation would inevitably lead to a resurgence of Russian chauvinism and the violent suppression of non-Russian cultures.

Finally, the author addresses the strategic and economic concerns of the Great Powers. He dismisses the fear that an independent Latvia would be a threat to Russia or a destabilizing force in the Baltic. Instead, he presents the new Baltic states as a cordon sanitaire—a necessary barrier of democratic, independent nations that would prevent the direct, toxic influence of German political and economic interests from dominating a ruined, susceptible Russia. The book concludes that the only path to a stable, peaceful Europe is the total recognition of these states, effectively ending the "apple of discord" that has historically fueled conflict between East and West.

How It Unfolds

The necessity of peace The author establishes that the Russian civil war is the primary obstacle to a stable global order. He argues that international peace cannot be secured until the status of the borderlands is definitively settled.

The folly of postponement The argument addresses the Russian political elite’s attempt to delay decisions on independence. The author demonstrates that "provisional" status is merely a veil for maintaining old imperial control over unwilling nations.

The impossibility of federation The middle section argues that Russia lacks the cultural and economic cohesion required for a functional federation. The author highlights the profound differences between Latvian interests and those of the Russian interior.

The strategic imperative The text analyzes the geopolitical map of the Baltic. It argues that a string of independent states serves as a vital buffer between a resurgent Germany and a volatile Russia.

The final conclusion The book ends by asserting that the independence of Latvia is a matter of international justice. It frames the existence of these new states as the best mechanism for preventing future European wars.

The People

The author, Arveds Bergs, acts as the primary voice of the Latvian National Council, driven by a desire for national self-determination. He is pragmatic and firm, framing Latvian independence as an indisputable right under the principles of international law.

Opposing him are the various figures representing the "Russian Political Conference." Among them is M. Mandelstam, the "literary idealist," who insists that reunion with Russia is in the best interest of the borderlands. Bergs views Mandelstam as a relic of Tzarist bureaucracy, one who ignores the actual lived experience of those he seeks to govern.

Then there is M. C. Nabokoff, a Russian diplomat in London, whose dismissive attitude toward the independence movements—comparing them to "a nursery"—provides the author with proof of the underlying arrogance and chauvinism within the Russian political class.

Admiral Koltchak serves as the embodiment of the "provisional" military power that the author critiques. Bergs views Koltchak’s movement not as a legitimate government, but as a temporary, unstable force that would merely delay the inevitable disintegration of the Russian state.

Finally, Vladimir Lenin appears as the "microbe" of disorder. While the author despises the Bolsheviks, he uses the chaos they created to illustrate why Russia is in no state to manage its former territories, effectively using the Bolshevik threat to bolster his case for immediate, permanent separation.

In Its Own Voice

"No world-peace is possible before peace in Russia is re-established!"

This opening statement highlights the author's conviction that the instability of the Russian state is the primary danger to the global order.

"To the naïve and dreamy soul of the childlike Russian villagers, the extreme sociological theories of the West, born from a very complex economic situation, are a direct temptation and a dangerous poison, as illustrated by M. Lenin’s sealed railway carriage."

This observation reflects the author's disdain for both Bolshevik influence and the paternalistic view of the Russian peasantry.

"The Lettish people can claim it as a right, for it finds itself in the first rank of the peoples who have suffered from the war."

This passage serves as the emotional and moral anchor of his argument for immediate sovereignty.

What It's Really About

The central theme is the conflict between imperial continuity and national self-determination. The author argues that the "All-Russian Federation" is a political fiction designed to preserve the dominance of the Great-Russians over the borderland peoples. The book grapples with the question of whether a nation-state can exist without a history of centralized rule, and it asserts that common civilization is a prerequisite for any federation—a foundation he argues does not exist in the Russian context. Underlying this is a deep skepticism of "great power" politics, as the author constantly pivots back to the principles of self-determination to challenge the arguments of those who would see the Baltic states swallowed back into a larger, dysfunctional entity.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of the Russian Revolution or the emergence of the modern Baltic states will find this book an invaluable, primary look at the intellectual climate of 1920. It provides a rare, grounded perspective from a representative of a small nation navigating the wreckage of empires. The prose is precise and logically structured, making the author’s arguments easy to follow even a century later.

However, readers should be prepared for the author’s period-specific rhetoric. His descriptions of the "ignorant masses" of Russia and his dismissive characterizations of various ethnic groups reflect the elitist, nationalist, and occasionally colonialist attitudes common to political writing of that era. One should not look here for modern progressive discourse on social equity, but rather for a sharp, tactical analysis of early 20th-century diplomacy. The book is essentially a long-form political memorandum, which may feel dense to those expecting a narrative history. Yet, for those who value the "voice of the room" in historical decision-making, the intensity and urgency of the author’s prose make it a compelling read. It remains a stark reminder of how thin the line between sovereign statehood and imperial subjugation was during the post-WWI reorganization of the world.