Latvijos politikų nuostatos Palangos priklausomybės klausimu 1918-1921 m

LTSiame straipsnyje, remiantis archyviniais ir periodinės spaudos šaltiniais, nagrinėjamos 1918 m. lapkričio 18 d. valstybingumą paskelbusios Latvijos Respublikos politinių veikėjų nuostatos Palangos krašto priklausomybės klausimu iki Lietuvos ir Latvijos sienos nustatymo 1921 m. kovo mėn. Reikšminiai žodžiai: Palanga, Latvija, politikai, nuostatos, 1918-1921 m.

ENThe Palanga region has been a part of the Curonian governorate of the Tsarist Russian Empire since 1819, and after the proclamation of the Latvian state in 1918 it became an integral part of it. During the Latvian War of Independence (1918-1920), the authorities of the Republic of Latvia were established in Palanga, the self-government of Palanga town and municipality was formed, and measures were taken to reduce the consequences of the Great War for the local population. The attitudes of Latvian public figures regarding the dependence of Palanga were not unanimous, they changed. In 1919, it was fully agreed to hand over Palanga to Lithuania, but in order to obtain the Mažeikiai rail node. During the negotiations between Lithuania and Latvia in 1919, the representatives of Latvia agreed to hand over Palanga to Lithuania, so that it would then become its only access to the sea. At that time, the only railway passed through Mažeikiai from the Latvian capital Riga through Jelgava (Mintauja) to the second largest city Liepaja. In 1920, the issue of the Mažeikiai rail node became irrelevant to Latvian politicians both due to the Lithuania’s justified reluctance not to hand over Mažeikiai to Latvia and to the Latvian government’s decision to start building a railway from Jelgava to Liepaja through Latvian territory. Additionally, Lithuania’s demands to surrender the part of Alūkštė (in Latvian Ilūksta) district, where from July 1919 to October 1920 stood the Lithuanian army, which expelled the Russian Bolsheviks, some Latvian politicians were encouraged to keep Palanga in the country’s territory. The opinion was expressed that Palanga is important for Latvia due to strategic (access by land to Klaipeda region and Germany), economic (border customs duties, amber, fish resources and production) and ethnographic reasons (Latvians formed the majority in the northern part of Palanga region around Šventoji village).This opinion was especially supported by the famous Latvian diplomat Janis Sėskis, who agitated that Latvia should try to keep Palanga for the reasons mentioned above, and try to get support among the people of Palanga for the region’s survival within Latvia. The letters of the local residents of Palanga region and the analysis of the sentiments revealed in them allow us to speculate that in the case of a plebiscite, its results could have been useful for Latvia. This opinion was also supported by the Latvian representatives in the Arbitration Commission chaired by the British representative, Professor James Young Simpson. Latvian politicians hoped that the Arbitration Commission would resolve the Palanga issue in Latvia’s favour: even if all the country’s strategic needs were not met, at least the ethnographic principle and the sentiments of the local population due to the country’s territorial-administrative dependence would be taken into account. However, less categorical figures, such as the Latvian Foreign Minister Zigfrids Anna Meierovics, advocated the handover of Palanga to Lithuania in 1920-1921, realising that this would be a significant boost to the creation (establishment) of the Baltic Entente. It can be said that Latvian politicians generally supported the surrender of the town of Palanga and its surroundings inhabited by the majority of Lithuanians to Lithuania.The protests of the representatives of the parties of the Constituent Assembly of Latvia, made on 15 March 1921, were directed only against the separation of most of the Latvian-inhabited section - the northern part of Palanga municipality (Šventoji) and the southern part of the neighbouring Rucava municipality (Būtingė) inhabited only by Latvians. Lithuania’s plans to build a seaport at the Šventoji River mouth were considered unrealistic and ethnographi- cally incorrect by Latvian politicians. Recognising the annexation of Palanga and its surroundings to Lithuania, Latvian Foreign Minister Meierovics protested against the separation of the northern parts of Palanga municipality and southern areas of Rucava municipality as Latvian-majority human settlements and urged J Y Simpson to improve the border project, taking into account the ethnographic situation. On 20 March 1921, the unchanged decision of super-arbitrator J Y Simpson was announced. Latvia was forced to recognise the established Latvian-Lithuanian border, and on 30 March 1921, its state institutions and military units withdrew from the Lithuanian part of the city of Palanga, the municipality, and the southern part of Rucava municipality. Thus, Latvia, having accepted the decision of J Y Simpson (conceded on resolving the border dispute), showed not only good will, but also political aspirations to form positive neighbourly relations with Lithuania in the future. Key words: Palanga, Latvia, politicians, attitudes, 1918-1921.