This afterword outlines the current state of research of self-determination and recognition in the Baltic region during the First World War and its aftermath. Examining the subtle transformations in the meaning of the concept of self-determination in this period reveals that a fundamental consensus emerged among the Allied and Associated Powers concerning the illegitimacy of territorial acquisition and annexations. However, there were also differences regarding theories of the state and understandings of federalism that informed their views on self-determination. Moreover, national independence was not seen by Baltic national leaders as a primary goal before the start of the First World War, until it came to be advocated by two warring Great Powers: Imperial Germany and Soviet Russia.
1. L. Mälksoo. The Soviet Approach to the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination: Russia’s Farewell to Jus Publicum Europaeum. – Journal of the History of International Law, 2017, 19, 200–218, specifically, 207–208.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15718050-19231035
2. This discussion is exclusively based on English-, German-, and Estonian-language historiography. It should thus be regarded as an invitation to discussion rather than any kind of conclusive statement.
3. Remarkably, two recent interpretations of the intellectual history of self-determination do not even mention the Baltic case in their discussion of the period of the Great War, see: E. Weitz. Self-Determination: How a German Enlightenment Idea Became the Slogan of National Liberation and a Human Right. – The American Historical Review, 2015, 120, 2, 462–496;
https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/120.2.462
A. Liebich. Cultural Nationhood and Political Statehood: The Birth of Self-Determination. Routledge, London, New York, 2022. On recognition, including that of the Baltic states, see: M. Fabry. Recognizing States: International Society and the Establishment of New States since 1776. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, 132–134. On the collapse of the continental empires, see: A. Roshwald. Ethnic Nationalism and the Fall of Empires: Central Europe, Russia and the Middle East, 1914–1923. Routledge, London, New York, 2001.
4. B. Chernev. The Brest-Litovsk Moment: Self-Determination Discourse in Eastern Europe before Wilsonianism. – Diplomacy & Statecraft, 2011, 22, 3, 369–387; B. Chernev. The Twilight of Empire: The Brest-Litovsk Conference and the Remaking of East-Central Europe, 1917–1918. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 2017; on the “Wilsonian moment”, see: E. Manela. The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007. For a broader prehistory of the term, see: E. Weitz. Self-Determination, and the introduction of this special issue.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2011.599635
5. Cf. Chernev’s uninformed reference to “largely illiterate Latvian and Estonian peasants” when discussing what kinds of collective “selves” could be found in the Baltic littoral, The Brest-Litovsk Moment, 376. The level of literacy among Latvian and Estonian peasants was 96 per cent according to the 1896 census in the Russian Empire, A. Kasekamp. A History of the Baltic States. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills, 2010, 85. The level of literacy in the Lithuanian area was considerably lower (just below 50 per cent), yet much higher than the average in the Russian Empire (just below 30 per cent), see: T. Balkelis. The Making of Modern Lithuania. Routledge, New York, 2009, 8.
6. See: E. Jansen. Eestlane muutuvas ajas. Seisusühiskonnast kodanikuühiskonda. Ajalooarhiiv, Tartu, 2007; C. Wetherell, A. Plakans. Borders, Ethnicity, and Demographic Patterns in the Russian Baltic Provinces in the Late Nineteenth Century. – Continuity and Change, 1999, 14, 1, 33–56.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0268416099003252
7. T. Balkelis. The Making of Modern Lithuania, 34–35.
8. For a comparative discussion of the developments in Lithuanian lands and Baltic provinces, see: A. Kasekamp. A History of the Baltic States, 68–94.
9. See: E. Jansen. Eestlane muutuvas ajas. See also: T. Balkelis. The Making of Modern Lithuania.
10. K. Piirimäe. Federalism in the Baltic: Interpretations of Self-Determination and Sovereignty in Estonia in the First Half of the 20th Century. – East Central Europe, 2012, 39, 237–265
https://doi.org/10.1163/18763308-03903004;
D. J. Smith. Across the Lines: National Self-determination in the Baltic between the Russian, German and Allied Conceptions. – Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis, 2015, 31, 155–168
https://doi.org/10.15181/ahuk.v31i0.1204;
cf. T. Balkelis, War, Revolution and Nation-Making in Lithuania, 1914–1923. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199668021.001.0001
11. E. Piirimäe. Humanität versus Nationalism as the Foundation of the Russian Empire. Jegór von Sivers’ Herderian Cosmopolitanism. – Ajalooline Ajakiri, 2012, 1/2 (139/140), 79–113, specifically 95–102.
12. M. Lehti. A Baltic League as a Construct of the New Europe: Envisioning a Baltic Region and Small State Sovereignty in the Aftermath of the First World War. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, 1999, 61–66; H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise saatuslik tund. – Iseseisvusmanifest: artikleid, dokumente ja mälestusi. Toim. A. Pajur, T. Tannberg. Rahvusarhiiv, Tartu, 2014, 163–234, specifically 168–169.
13. D. Smith. Across the Lines, 157.
14. On Socialist thinking on self-determination in the Baltic, see: K. Piirimäe. Federalism, 243–249.
15. H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise paleus ja pragmaatika: Tartu versus Pariis. – Ajalooline Ajakiri, 2020, 3/4 (173/174), 243–301, specifically 247–249; K. Piirimäe. Federalism, 248–252.
https://doi.org/10.12697/AA.2020.3-4.04
16. A. Kasekamp, A History of the Baltic States, 92–93. On the Baltic question in the imperial Duma, see: T. Karjahärm. Vene impeeriumi parlament ja Baltikum, 1906–1917. Argo, Tallinn, 2021.
17. See: T. Balkelis. War, Revolution. See also the introduction of this special issue.
18. M. Lehti. A Baltic League, 75–78.
19. K. Piirimäe, Federalism, 248–252; H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise saatuslik tund, 173–174; H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise paleus, 249–251.
20. K. Piirimäe. Federalism, 250–251. On Estonian reform visions, see also: J. Undusk. Iseseisvusmanifesti intertekstuaalsus. – Iseseisvusmanifest: artikleid, dokumente ja mälestusi, 30–34.
21. A most interesting reform proposal from this period stems from the historian Hans Kruus, an Estonian Social Democrat: H. Kruus. Rahvusautonoomia (1917). – H. Kruus. Eesti küsimus. Ilmamaa, Tartu, 2005, 218–316 (on Switzerland and the US as models, see specifically 309–315).
22. For a more detailed overview, see: A. Kasekamp. A History of the Baltic States, 95–96. For the views of the Provisional Government on the Baltic nationalities’ question, see: K. Brüggemann. Die Revolutionen von 1917 in den russischen Ostseeprovinzen. – Zeitenwende: deutsche und russische Erfahrungen 1917–1919. Hrsg. von J. Tauber, A. Tschubarjan. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, 2022, 119–130, specifically 123–124.
https://doi.org/10.35998/9783830543824-08
23. M. Lehti. A Baltic League, 80–81; H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise saatuslik tund, 188–189.
24. M. Lehti. A Baltic League, 82–83. It is to be noted, however, that some Estonian leaders, notably among them Konstantin Päts, proposed a plan of Estonian-Finnish union also in April 1918 (when the Estonian territory was occupied by Germans). This was considered a problematic idea from the viewpoint of the Allies (Finland was strongly German-friendly). E. Medijainen. Enesemääramise udus: Eesti ja Ameerika Ühendriigid. – Ajalooline Ajakiri, 2016, 1 (155), 41–70, specifically 62.
25. M. Ilmjärv. Balti-küsimus Pariisi Rahukonverentsi eel ja ajal 1918–1920. – Acta Historica Tallinnensia, 2019, 25, 106–151, here 107. See also Heidi Rifk’s contribution in this special issue.
https://doi.org/10.3176/hist.2019.1.06
26. H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise saatuslik tund, 176–179. M. Kuldkepp. Rahvusliku enesemääramise kaudu Saksamaa külge: eestlased anneksionistliku Saksa poliitika sihtmärgina 1918. aasta okupatsiooni eel. – Esimene maailmasõda ja Eesti II. Toim. T. Tannberg. Eesti Ajalooarhiiv, Tartu, 2016, 369–433. Chernev, in his ‛The Brest Litovsk Momentʼ, does not discuss these early developments in Imperial Germany, attributing seminal significance to the Bolshevik advocacy of the principle since autumn 1917.
27. M. Kuldkepp. Rahvusliku enesemääramise kaudu Saksamaa külge, 431.
28. For a concise overview of its tactics, see: A. Kasekamp. A History of the Baltic States, 98.
29. See: J. Stalin, V. Lenin. Declaration of the Rights of the People of Russia.
<https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1917/11/02.htm>, accessed 7th November 2022.
30. On Lenin’s original ideas, expressed in response to Austro-Marxists, in 1915 and 1916, see: B. Chernev. The Brest-Litovsk Moment, 370–371. Examining the decree from a constitutional history point of view might merit further study, even the persistent gap between proclaimed values and actual principles of action characteristic of the Bolsheviks.
31. See: H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise saatuslik tund, 205–206; E. Medijainen. Enesemääramise udus, 48.
32. R. A. Mark. National Self-Determination, as Understood by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. – Lithuanian Historical Studies, 2008, 13, 21–39. See also: L. Mälksoo. The Soviet Approach, 204–207.
https://doi.org/10.30965/25386565-01301004
33. B. Chernev. The Brest-Litovsk Moment, 375.
34. See: T. Throntveit. The Fable of the Fourteen Points: Woodrow Wilson and National Self-Determination. – Diplomatic History, 2011, 35, 445–481.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2011.00959.x
35. W. Wilson. Address of the President of the United States Delivered at a Joint Session of the Two Houses of Congress, February 11, 1918.
<https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp01v01/d59>, accessed 8th November 2022.
36. A. Kasekamp, A History of the Baltic States, 95–97.
37. H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise paleus, 252–255; cf. H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise saatuslik tund, 212.
38. H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise saatuslik tund, 230-232.
39. On the different recognitions of Lithuania and their discussion in Lithuanian historiography, see Sandra Grigaravičiūtė’s contribution to this special issue; on the Baltic Duchy, see: M. Kuldkepp. Rahvusliku enesemääramise kaudu, and Heidi Rifk’s contribution to this special issue.
40. J. Hiden. Estonia – Winning Recognition, 1918–1921. – The Estonian Foreign Ministry’s Yearbook, 2008/2009, 71–76, here 71.
41. See: M. Kuldkepp. Intriigid, provokatsioonid ja iseseisvuse sünd: Eesti välisdelegatsioon ja Aleksander Keskküla. – Ajalooline ajakiri, 2013, 145, 321–374; E. Medijainen. Enesemääramise udus, 54–56; Kalmo. Enesemääramise paleus.
https://doi.org/10.12697/AA.2013.3.03
42. H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise paleus, 256; A. Kasekamp. A History of the Baltic States, 99.
43. M. R. Beissinger. Self-determination as a Technology of Imperialism: The Soviet and Russian Experiences. – Ethnopolitics: Formerly Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 2015, 14, 479–487.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2015.1051810
44. L. Mälksoo. The Soviet Approach, 206.
45. A. Kasekamp. A History of the Baltic States, 101–102.
46. H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise paleus, 263; see also: M. Ilmjärv. Balti-küsimus.
47. T. Balkelis, War, Revolution, 46–49.
48. H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise paleus, 263–264.
49. C. Alston. The Suggested Basis for a Russian Federal Republic’: Britain, Anti-Bolshevik Russia and the Border States at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. – History, 91, 2006, 24–40.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-229X.2006.00357.x
50. E. Medijainen. Enesemääramise udus, 65–67. For the views of Russian nationalists and White Russians on Baltic national movements and eventually, independence, see: K. Brüggemann. Enesemääramine lastetoas? Vene nägemus Eestist revolutsiooni ja kodusõja ajal. – Vene aeg Eestis: uurimusi 16. sajandi keskpaigast kuni 20. sajandi alguseni. Toim. T. Tannberg. Eesti Ajalooarhiivi Kirjastus, Tartu, 2006, 361–385.
51. A. Kasekamp. A History of the Baltic States, 102–103.
52. M. Fabry. Recognizing States, 118–134.
53. A. Liebich. Cultural Nationhood, 70. However, the only proof he provides to support this claim is a citation from Henri Hauser’s critical discussion of this principle.
54. On this periodical, see: H. Hanak. The New Europe, 1916–20. – The Slavonic and East European Review, 1961, 39, 369–399. On Czechoslovakia, see also: B. Bari. New Worlds Tackling on Side-tracks: The National Concepts of T. G. Masaryk and Oszkár Jászi during the First World War (1914–1919). – The First World War and the Nationality Question in Europe: Global Impact and Local Dynamics. Ed. by X. M. Núñez Seixas. Brill, Leiden, 2020, 115–141.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004442245_007
55. T. G. Masaryk. Pangermanism and the Zone of Small Nations. – The New Europe: A Weekly Review of Foreign Politics, 1916, 1, 271–277, particularly 277.
56. T. Throntveit. The Fable of the Fourteen Points; E. Medijainen. Enesemääramise udus, 47–48. See also: A. Lynch. Woodrow Wilson and the Principle of ‘National Self-Determination’: A Reconsideration. – Review of International Studies, 2002, 28, 419–436.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210502004199
57. D. Kelly. Woodrow Wilson and the Challenge of Federalism in World War One. – Federalism. Ed. by A. Lev. Hart Press, London, 2017, 167–188, particularly 170 and 174–175.
58. On Bluntschli’s complex account of nationality, one that reflected both his Swiss origin and fascination with the Chancellor of the Second Reich, Otto von Bismarck, see: D. Kelly. Popular Sovereignty as State Theory in the Nineteenth Century. – Popular Sovereignty in Historical Perspective. Ed. by R. Bourke, Q. Skinner. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 270–296. Interestingly, Estonian authors cited Bluntschli in support of the idea that each nation has a right to a state, see, e.g. H. Kruus. Rahvusautonoomia (1917), 291. Kruus did not notice that Bluntschli himself did not appear to support this idea in its absolute form, making a strong case for an understanding of nationality that was compatible with an idea of the federal state, see J. K. Bluntschli. The Theory of the State. Authorised English translation from the Sixth Edition. Batoche Books, Kitchener, 2000, specifically 88–97.
59. D. Kelly. Woodrow Wilson, 180. Quotation: W. Wilson, War Messages, 65th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Doc No 5, Serial No 7264, Washington, DC, 1917, 3–8, cited from D. Kelly. Woodrow Wilson, 175.
60. President Wilson’s Message to Congress, January 8, 1918. <https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-woodrow-wilsons-14-points>, accessed 7th November 2022.
61. A. Lynch. Woodrow Wilson, 428.
62. Ibid., 426; M. Fabry. Recognizing States, 123–125; 130–132.
63. O. Arens. Wilsonianism ilma Wilsonita: Ameerika Ühendriigid ja Eesti, 1918–1922. – Ameerika sajand. Toim. K. Piirimäe, M. Kuldkepp. Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, Tartu, 2022, 19–44, particularly 26, 34–40.
64. M. Kuldkepp. Eesti diplomaatilise esinduse küsimus ja Ameerika väliseestlased. – Ameerika sajand, 45–72, specifically 54–68.
65. O. Arens. Wilsonianism ilma Wilsonita.
66. M. Ilmjärv. Balti küsimus.
67. H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise paleus, 287.
68. On the Baltic League, see: M. Lehti. The Baltic League.
69. For a concise description of this dispute, see: A. Kasekamp. A History of the Baltic States, 104.
70. Ibid., 289. M. Lehti. A Baltic League.
71. L. Mälksoo. The Soviet Approach, 209–210.
72. H. Kalmo. Enesemääramise paleus, 298–301.
73. Digest of International Law. Ed by. G. H. Hackworth. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1940, vol. 1, 201, cited from M. Fabry. Recognizing States, 134.
74. Wilson’s term as US President had ended by that time; for the more precise developments leading towards the US recognition of the Baltic states, see Eero Medijainen’s contribution to this special issue and O. Arens. Wilsonianism ilma Wilsonita.
75. See, e.g., Z. Oklopcic. A Farewell to Rhetorical Arms? Unravelling the Self-Determination of Peoples. – Recognition versus Self-Determination: Dilemmas of Emancipatory Politics. Ed. by A. Eisenberg, J. Webber, G. Coulthard, A. Boisselle. UBCPress, Vancouver, 2014, 101–124, specifically 110.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199364909.003.0005
76. The term was used internationally already in the nineteenth century. For example, J. K. Bluntschli used it to buttress the idea that international law accepts the “right of nations to national development and self-determination”. Bluntschli contrasted this idea with the pretensions of the dynastic states of the Holy Alliance to support each other in suppressing domestic revolutions, see: J. K. Bluntschli. Das modernne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt. Beck, Nördlingen, 1868, 46–49. More research is needed for tracing the legacy of this usage and the idea of the “principle of nationality” in the early twentieth century. For the current state of the art, see: J. Fisch. The Right of Self-Determination of Peoples: The Domestication of an Illusion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015.
