In 1932, faced with Japan’s invasion of Manchuria, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Stimson articulated a clear stance that the United States would not recognize territorial changes achieved through force. This position, soon known as the Stimson Doctrine, set out to counter Japan’s ambitions and reflected a deeper conviction that aggression should not be rewarded with legitimacy. It was a conviction that America can lead a different path. Though limited in immediate effect, it set a precedent that would shape American diplomacy and international law.

Eight years later, that principle was unexpectedly called upon again, in a region of Europe often ignored by the great powers. In the summer of 1940, as World War II engulfed Europe, the three Baltic republics—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—were systematically occupied by the Soviet Union. Under the secret protocols of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the USSR and Nazi Germany had divided Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. Now, as Hitler’s armies swept westward, Stalin moved east.

Soviet troops crossed the borders, puppet regimes were installed, and sham elections held. By August, formal annexation into the USSR was complete. The process was swift and coercive, and designed to give a veneer of legality to a blatant act of aggression.

To some in Washington, this echoed the pattern of Manchuria. This time, however, the U.S. response would be firmer, more specific, and profoundly consequential.

The Declaration

The U.S. reply was shaped by both principle and people. Loy W. Henderson, Director of Eastern European Affairs, had lived in Latvia after World War I and was married to a Latvian. For him, the loss of Baltic independence had a personal dimension.

Working with Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, and with the backing of President Roosevelt, Henderson drafted a statement that would become a cornerstone of U.S. non-recognition policy.

On July 23, 1940, Acting Secretary Welles issued a declaration condemning the “devious processes” by which the Baltics had been stripped of independence. Welles wrote:

“The people of the United States are opposed to predatory activities, no matter where they occur or by whom they are committed. They maintain their traditional sympathy for the victims of aggression and their consistent opposition to the subjugation of small nations by force or by threat of force.”

He affirmed that the U.S. “will continue to stand by these principles” of non-aggression and self-determination, without which “the basis of modern civilization itself – cannot be preserved.” Its message was clear.

The Legacy of Non-Recognition

Though only a few paragraphs long, the Welles Declaration laid the foundation for decades of U.S. foreign policy. The legations of the Baltic states continued operating in Washington, preserving legal continuity for nearly fifty years. More than fifty countries eventually followed the U.S. lead on non-recognition. When Baltic independence was restored in 1991, that legacy gave diplomatic weight and legal coherence to their claims. 

The United States upheld this non-recognition policy consistently. Official U.S. maps did not depict the Baltic states as part of the USSR. In international forums, American diplomats routinely corrected or contested any reference to the Baltics as Soviet territory. It remained a quiet but persistent thread in U.S.-Soviet relations, reaffirmed through congressional resolutions and presidential statements throughout the Cold War. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan explicitly reaffirmed the policy in a statement commemorating the anniversary of the Welles Declaration.

Remembering From Afar

For the Baltic-American community, the Welles Declaration was more than symbolic. It validated their identity and sustained their dream and political activism through decades of exile. It was evidence that the world had not forgotten the Baltic states nor accepted Soviet claims. In a Cold War landscape shaped by realpolitik, the Welles Declaration stood out as an assertion of principle. The non-recognition policy gave meaning and structure to the long fight for restoration as well as proving that principle – when clearly expressed and consistently upheld – can help shape the arc of history. 

Eighty-five years later, the principles embedded in the Welles Declaration continue to resonate. Much as it rejected the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in 1940, today’s U.S. policy similarly refuses to recognize Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and its ongoing occupation of eastern Ukraine. 

On the anniversary of the Welles Declaration, we remember what it means to insist that borders not be rewritten by force. We reflect on the courage to defy expedience for the sake of legitimacy. We recognize how the quiet insistence by the United States helped preserve the Baltic dream across generations.

The world may not always heed that lesson immediately. But history does. And so, we commemorate the Welles Declaration not only as a triumph of the past, but as a guidepost for the future.

###

The Origins of a Principle

In 1932, faced with Japan’s invasion of Manchuria, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Stimson articulated a clear stance that the United States would not recognize territorial changes achieved through force. This position, soon known as the Stimson Doctrine, set out to counter Japan’s ambitions and reflected a deeper conviction that aggression should not be rewarded with legitimacy. It was a conviction that America can lead a different path. Though limited in immediate effect, it set a precedent that would shape American diplomacy and international law.

Eight years later, that principle was unexpectedly called upon again, in a region of Europe often ignored by the great powers. In the summer of 1940, as World War II engulfed Europe, the three Baltic republics—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—were systematically occupied by the Soviet Union. Under the secret protocols of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the USSR and Nazi Germany had divided Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. Now, as Hitler’s armies swept westward, Stalin moved east.

Soviet troops crossed the borders, puppet regimes were installed, and sham elections held. By August, formal annexation into the USSR was complete. The process was swift and coercive, and designed to give a veneer of legality to a blatant act of aggression.

To some in Washington, this echoed the pattern of Manchuria. This time, however, the U.S. response would be firmer, more specific, and profoundly consequential.

The Declaration

The U.S. reply was shaped by both principle and people. Loy W. Henderson, Director of Eastern European Affairs, had lived in Latvia after World War I and was married to a Latvian. For him, the loss of Baltic independence had a personal dimension.

Working with Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, and with the backing of President Roosevelt, Henderson drafted a statement that would become a cornerstone of U.S. non-recognition policy.

On July 23, 1940, Acting Secretary Welles issued a declaration condemning the “devious processes” by which the Baltics had been stripped of independence. Welles wrote:

“The people of the United States are opposed to predatory activities, no matter where they occur or by whom they are committed. They maintain their traditional sympathy for the victims of aggression and their consistent opposition to the subjugation of small nations by force or by threat of force.”

He affirmed that the U.S. “will continue to stand by these principles” of non-aggression and self-determination, without which “the basis of modern civilization itself – cannot be preserved.” Its message was clear.

The Legacy of Non-Recognition

Though only a few paragraphs long, the Welles Declaration laid the foundation for decades of U.S. foreign policy. The legations of the Baltic states continued operating in Washington, preserving legal continuity for nearly fifty years. More than fifty countries eventually followed the U.S. lead on non-recognition. When Baltic independence was restored in 1991, that legacy gave diplomatic weight and legal coherence to their claims. 

The United States upheld this non-recognition policy consistently. Official U.S. maps did not depict the Baltic states as part of the USSR. In international forums, American diplomats routinely corrected or contested any reference to the Baltics as Soviet territory. It remained a quiet but persistent thread in U.S.-Soviet relations, reaffirmed through congressional resolutions and presidential statements throughout the Cold War. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan explicitly reaffirmed the policy in a statement commemorating the anniversary of the Welles Declaration.

Remembering From Afar

For the Baltic-American community, the Welles Declaration was more than symbolic. It validated their identity and sustained their dream and political activism through decades of exile. It was evidence that the world had not forgotten the Baltic states nor accepted Soviet claims. In a Cold War landscape shaped by realpolitik, the Welles Declaration stood out as an assertion of principle. The non-recognition policy gave meaning and structure to the long fight for restoration as well as proving that principle – when clearly expressed and consistently upheld – can help shape the arc of history. 

Eighty-five years later, the principles embedded in the Welles Declaration continue to resonate. Much as it rejected the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in 1940, today’s U.S. policy similarly refuses to recognize Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and its ongoing occupation of eastern Ukraine. 

On the anniversary of the Welles Declaration, we remember what it means to insist that borders not be rewritten by force. We reflect on the courage to defy expedience for the sake of legitimacy. We recognize how the quiet insistence by the United States helped preserve the Baltic dream across generations.

The world may not always heed that lesson immediately. But history does. And so, we commemorate the Welles Declaration not only as a triumph of the past, but as a guidepost for the future.

~ Alo Kuusik, Joint Baltic Amrican National Comittee

###