Our attitude during the war towards the incorporation of each of the three Baltic States in the USSR is, presumably, as defined in respect of Latvia and Estonia in the written replies given on the 5th May, 1941 and the 2nd July, 1941 to the Master of the High Court and the Registrar of the Supreme Court, respectively. In the former document we stated in reply to a specific question that 'the Government has not officially recognised the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as the Sovereign Government of the Republics of Latvia and Estonia'. In the latter document, we stated in reply to specific questions from the Registrar of the High Court that 'the Government does not recognise the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics of Russia as a Sovereign Independent State, either de jure or de facto, in Latvia or Estonia'. This, of course, was a logical attitude to take up during the war in accordance with what seems to be the general policy of neutral States not to recognise any change in the status quo as at the outbreak of war brought about by acts of force during the war. The question is, however, as to what our attitude in this matter is now that hostilities have ceased. There seems little doubt that the States in question have de facto ceased to exist internationally. It does not necessarily follow, however, that we would, therefore, recognise that they now form a part of the Soviet Union. The question of our continuing to recognise Consular officers commissioned by the Baltic States prior to 1940 is, of course, a secondary question dependant on our attitude towards the major question. Clearly, however, as long as we continue to recognise such officers there is a prima facie case that we do not recognise the changes which have intervened since they were commissioned and which have led to their repudiation by the de facto authorities in the States concerned - see documents flagged 'A' on file 227/91:¹ a somewhat parallel case in a general way is that of the 'London' Polish Consulate General here except that if our continued recognition of that Mission involves non-recognition of the authorities which have disavowed him, there is a stronger case for regarding continued recognition of Baltic Consular officers as involving non-recognition of the changes which have taken place in those countries in that there is at least, nominally, an independent Polish Government in existence in Poland, whereas practically speaking, the Baltic countries have been simply annexed to the Soviet Union.

As regards the actual position in the matter of continued recognition of Consular officers from Baltic States, the relevant file (218/38) annexed hereto² suggests that there have been no developments whatever in this matter since January, 1940. At that date the Latvian Minister in London (Mr. Charles Zarine) held an exequatur issued to him on the 24th July, 1934, as Consul General for Latvia in this country. Mr. Zarine never, apparently, resided here nor indeed is there any evidence on the file that he ever visited this country. I find that the British Foreign Office list for 1946 (attached)³ still lists him (page 400) as Latvian Minister in London. The same list contains particulars of a big number of Latvian Consular Officers in Great Britain and (at pages 393 and 401 respectively) shows Estonian and Latvian Ministers, both accredited in 1934 (Mr. Zarine was accredited as Minister to London in July, 1933). It seems clear, therefore that the British Government has by inference not yet formally recognised the incorporation of the three Baltic States in the Soviet Union.

In so far as concerns M. de Bourg's present enquiry, it seems to me that a slightly modified version of the formula contained in the Secretary's minute of the 1st March, 1944, on the left-hand side of file 227/91⁴ might immediately meet the case and that Mr. de Bourg could be informed that 'since the termination of hostilities the question of recognition of the annexation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia by the Soviet Union has not arisen so far as the Irish Government is concerned and no decision has been taken with regard to it'. As peace has not yet been signed, there would, of course, be a case for arguing that until the political situation resulting from the recent war has been, as it were, consecrated by peace treaties, neutral States are not called upon to pronounce in regard to modifications in the status quo ante brought about during the war. Nothing has in fact happened since July, 1941, to lead us, in theory, to modify our attitude as then defined: considerations of policy may, of course, lead us to do so at any time but it is a question whether such considerations exist at present.

[matter omitted]