“The Consequences of Lithuania’s Annexation of Klaipėda and Palanga: Exploring the Historical and Political Implications”

Oh, how good it would be if we had what Lithuanians have now! There is Palanga with as strong a seaside resort image as our Jūrmala and there is Klaipėda port, where the same amount of cargo is handled as Riga, Ventspils and Liepāja combined.

It’s mostly from the series that it’s good where we are not. If we were now in Palanga as hosts, and not as guests, it is likely that we would not be there, neither hosts nor guests. In other words, they would have lost Palanga not in border disputes with Lithuania, but as a practically extinct village in the farthest outskirts of Latvia. Many such villages are marked on Latvia’s 500 km long sea border. However, for Lithuania in the first version of its borders, Palanga was at the same time the only sea resort and the only sea port in the approach to the sea only a few kilometers long. That is why Latvia submitted to the begging of the victorious countries of the First World War and exchanged Palanga for a slightly larger area around Aknīsti. The great powers that recognized Lithuania politically and legally wanted Lithuania to be considered an economically viable country with access to the sea, even on paper. However, the Lithuanians did not start building a port at the mouth of the Sventaja (Šventoji) river. They used the opportunity to occupy the free city of Memel, or Klaipeda, which was taken from Germany but not returned to Lithuania due to the First World War. Next, the Second World War freed Klaipėda of its German inhabitants in such a way that the Soviet Union and its allies took full responsibility for the deportation of the Germans. In July and August 1945, the winners of the Second World War decided to amend the borders of the inhabited territories of the nations, not only of the countries, but also of the territories inhabited by the nations during the discussion held in Potsdam, a suburb of Berlin. This meant ethnic cleansing where peoples lived outside the new national borders.

PORT FOR LITHUANIA! Bridge on the Liepāja – Klaipėda road over the Sventaja river, at the mouth of which Lithuania was supposed to build a port / Arnis Kluinis

Lithuania’s fault for causing the world war

If Latvia had the power, it could bill Lithuania not only for Palanga, which was stolen from Latvia – supposedly because of the need for a port, but not converted into a port, but for all the losses and sufferings in the Second World War, because Lithuania can be blamed for causing this war. Namely, Lithuania was the first to demonstratively violate the Treaty of Versailles, and Germany later only followed Lithuania’s example. Indeed – why should Germany observe a treaty that Lithuania (even Lithuania!) can violate? In other words, Lithuania is to blame for the fury of the Germans, which led the Germans to hand over power to Hitler with the now well-known consequences. At the first moment, for incomprehensible reasons, these consequences turned out to be maximally favorable for Lithuania and moderately unfavorable for Latvia in the territorial aspect. Lithuania won not only Klaipeda in the West, but also Vilnius in the East. On the other hand, Latvia lost Abreni. In turn, it is impossible to see the difference between the suffering of Latvians and Lithuanians during the Soviet and German occupation.

Lithuania occupied Klaipeda on January 15, 1923. The date is not coincidental, but aligned with the moment when France took the Ruhr region from Germany in the same way. However, there was a huge difference between the actions of France and Lithuania in terms of their rationale. France acted on the grounds that Germany was violating the Treaty of Versailles by not paying France the reparations stipulated in the treaty in money and grain (coal). Slippery was the way in which France tried to force Germany to pay, despite Germany’s explanations that it was not paying because it did not want to, but because it could not. After that, we had to admit that the payments were definitely too high and to reduce them. The Ruhr was returned to Germany. It could still be presented as the fulfillment of the Treaty of Versailles, calling the fulfillment of the treaty one of the ways of fulfilling the treaty.

Unlike the Ruhr, it was impossible to find any justification for Lithuania’s actions in the Treaty of Versailles regarding Klaipėda. Although it has been known in the history of mankind since time immemorial that the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of agreements is determined by force, and not by the agreements themselves, Lithuania’s actions were scandalous, shocking, and fatal. It destroyed the illusion spread after the First World War that a war of an unprecedented scale would create an unprecedented world in which people would be able to agree at least to live without wars.

Oh, how familiar and relevant!

If Lithuania could in no way justify its actions with the Treaty of Versailles, then it had to be asserted that Lithuania’s actions were not Lithuania’s actions at all. Such reservations are exactly the same as those that are still being made by Russia, which has not taken either Crimea or Donbass from Ukraine to the extent that Russia was able to reach in 2014-2015. year’s war with Ukraine. No, only rebels with shotguns from a hunting supply store and tanks from a thrift store or maybe from the forest, where they have been accidentally forgotten since the Second World War, or maybe since the First World War, have successfully fought against the Ukrainian regular army.

The worst thing is that in 1923, Latvia diligently pretended to accept exactly the same Lithuanian reservations, which Latvia is very angry about now. I am angry not so much about Russia, which expresses such mind-boggling nonsense, but about the politicians of Western Europe, the USA and China, and also the society, which agrees with such nonsense. Rather, he only pretends to agree according to the same instructions that the newspaper “Jaunākās Zinės” shared on page 1 of the issue of January 15, 1923. under the title “Lithuanian Official Explanations”: “The first news about the events in the Klaipeda area was difficult to navigate. This news probably came from German circles and newspapers in Klaipeda. Telegrams from the French commissioner also spoke of armed gangs entering the Klaipeda area. Therefore, it seemed that the Lithuanian state the ruling circles participate in these works in some way. That the French and English also had a similar opinion is shown by the protest notes submitted to the Lithuanian government. Now, according to the Lithuanian government’s explanations and answers to the allies, it can be seen that the country of Lithuania does not participate in this rebellion work, it protects its border, let no one go to the aid of the rebels and observe neutrality.”

Read more:  € 6.15 billion has been raised for the development of Covid-19 treatments and vaccines

Further on, it is implicitly but transparently recognized that Lithuania’s justification is not reliable, but a beneficial formula for Latvia, how to avoid the revision and shifting of the borders that have just been drawn by Latvia: explanations are important. They should be welcomed. (…) Lithuania’s declared neutrality will also strengthen Poland’s restraint, and thus Russia will not be given the slightest reason to interfere in this or that way in this very suspicious affair. The occupation of the Ruhr region is also taking place peacefully and without any special incidents. They calm the minds, and the hidden intentions of the Moscow government will not be able to materialize.”

France received a deserved punishment

photo-right photo-size-p40">

The GRAVE PLAQUE FOR FRANCE was placed not in the cemetery, but in front of the building opposite the Klaipeda Theater. In the beginning of the 20s of the last century, there was the headquarters of the French troops sent to guard the city. The inability of these soldiers to protect themselves showed that the entire country was also facing military defeat / Arnis Kluinis

On January 16, “Jaunākās Ziņas” stated that there is still no real clarity about the consequences of the seizure of Klaipeda. There were two different reports from sources in Poland that “after the capture of Klaipėda, there is a belief in political circles that the Allies will not reckon with the fact that happened, but with justice and the terms of the Treaty of Versailles”, but “diplomatic circles express thoughts that France will finally be satisfied with the fact that happened, to which England will not raise objections.” According to the January 17 news about such a difference in predictions about the future course of events, one might think that by “political circles” are meant those Polish politicians who have to reckon with the fact that “excitement prevails in the entire Vilnius press. Thus reprimanding that the Lithuanian “iron wolves” after The capture of Klaipeda will also appear in the vicinity of Vilnius.” On the other hand, the “diplomatic circles” broadcast the efforts of the great powers to ignore the madness in the eastern fringes of Europe.

On January 17, the change of power in Klaipeda was described in “Jaunājārei Žinės” under the heading “Leish partisans leave Klaipeda”. Further in the text, it follows that “therefore, the appearance of the Leys is considered liquidated”, although in reality this “appearance” was consolidated in the new power and state ownership of Klaipėda.

However, you cannot blame the readers of “Jaunākjaar Zinės” for leaving them in complete ignorance, because the newspaper did warn that “surprises could be expected from Germany. It cannot accept that Lithuania, taking advantage of complications in the Ruhr with France, hastened to occupy the Klaipeda region. In Berlin, one can get the impression that the German is not so much offended by the occupation of the Ruhr – it is done by a strong country, against which Germany cannot stand – but by the small, “ungrateful” Lithuania, which takes a bite out of the place where two strongmen have clashed. In Germany, there is barely controllable hatred towards Lithuania. Germany’s abstention can only be explained by the hope that France will expel the rebels.”

Read more:  Kalniete: Violence against women and children is a crime that must be eradicated - in Latvia - News

Now we know that France did not expel the “rebels”, that is, the Lithuanian army from Klaipeda, and for this negligence was punished with defeat at the beginning of the Second World War. Hitler was quite right and understood in time that France did not call Lithuania to order, not because it did not want to deal with such trifles, but because she herself is more trifling than these trifles.

How the Germans responded to their misfortune

It can hardly be called a “surprise” that in the middle of the last century Germany was stronger than Lithuania and therefore got Klaipėda back at the first request. It is dated March 22, 1939. Shortly before midnight, the German and Lithuanian foreign ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Juozs Urbšis signed a document stating that they “decided to settle the rejoining of Klaipėda region to the German state by means of an agreement, thereby solving the open issues between Germany and Lithuania and thus paving the way for the friendly establishment of mutual relations between the two countries” (Latvian translation from the newspaper “Brīva Zeme” on March 23 number).

Hitler’s visit to the acquired or recovered territory was expected even more, following the template that was used in 1935 in Saarland, in 1936 in the Rhineland, in 1938 in Austria and the Sudetenland. The only difference is that he came to the port city by ship. The newspaper “Rīts” reported on the following on March 24, 1939: “After arriving in Klaipeda, Hitler addressed the people of Klaipeda from the balcony of the theater. He expressed his joy at the fact that fate had allowed “to bring the Germans of Klaipeda back to the fatherland, which has never forgotten them and which they have not forgotten either.” “We do not want to do harm to others, but the harm that the outside world had done to the Germans had to be corrected. We have now largely reached the conclusion of this correction.”

Hitler’s speech lasted only 8 minutes. After that he left the theater and continued his journey through the city to finally return to the port again. The picture of Hitler on the balcony of the Klaipeda theater has become one of the icons of the Second World War. It is a common practice on the Internet to place the historical and current view of the same place next to each other. The actuality here is represented by the Lithuanian flag, whose color combination is as recognizable in the Baltics and, let’s hope, in Europe as the swastika and Hitler’s mustache. Next to it is also the group of two sculptures “Divorce” (Abschied, Atsisevikinimas), which in reality has been located near the Klaipeda railway station since 2002. The images of a woman and a child represent more than 40 thousand residents of Klaipeda. That’s how they were at the beginning of the Second World War. At the end of the war, none of them remained in Klaipeda, at least according to the Lithuanian version, how they got to Klaipeda forever.

2023-05-28 02:15:33
#Lithuanians #Klaipeda #Germans #Palanga #Latvians #deception

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent News

Editor's Pick