651 
 25 J5 
 py 1 
 
 he Banat Problem 
 
 By 
 John Jivi-Banatanu 
 
 Editor of •'America" 
 Roumanian Daily 
 
 CLEVELAND, O. 
 
 Published and Distributed by Roumanian 
 
 National League of America 
 
 5705 Detroit Ave. 
 
 1920 
 
o 
 
 o 
 
The Banat Problem 
 
 By 
 John Jivi-Banatanu 
 
 Editor of "America" 
 Roumanian Daily 
 
 CLEVELAND, O, 
 
 Published and Distributed by Roumanian 
 
 National League of America 
 
 5705 Detroit Ave. 
 
 1920 
 
3w£ 
 
 5 
 
 FOREWORD! 
 
 To people living in the United States, the 
 Banat of Temeshvar may seem very small and 
 far away, and the proposed division of this 
 province between Roumania and Serbia may 
 seem relatively a matter of small importance 
 at this time when the whole world is talking in 
 world-sized figures. 
 
 The proposed division of the Banat, however, 
 brings into question every principle for which 
 the world war was fought, the right of every 
 nation however small to complete territorial 
 integrity, the rights of self-determination, the 
 choice between diplomacy of the old order 
 based on special interest, or diplomacy based 
 on honest examination of facts. The problem 
 of the Banat revives all of the old Balkan issues. 
 
 This article, frankly, is a statement of the 
 Roumanian claims upon the whole of the Banat, 
 claims which the writer believes must appeal 
 not only to the American sense of justice but 
 to the American instinct of common sense. It 
 has for it purpose also to show that a just settle- 
 ment of the Banat question and of all the ques- 
 tions in the Near East are of direct importance, 
 not only to Roumanians but to Americans and 
 to all others who sincerely desire world peace. 
 
 Gift 
 JUL 2u (920 
 
The Banat Problem 
 I. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CASE 
 
 The Banat problem may be briefly stated thus : 
 
 The Banat of Temeshvar is the province of 
 what was once a part of Hungary which lies 
 across the Danube river from Belgrade, the 
 capital of Serbia. It is a rich province in agri- 
 culture, forests, minerals and other natural re- 
 sources. Through it runs the main line of 
 railroad from Paris and Berlin to Constantinople 
 and the Near East. 
 
 Its population is made up mainly of Rou- 
 manians, Swabians (Germans), and Serbians, 
 peoples who under centuries of Austrian and 
 Hungarian domination have seldom had a 
 chance to speak. The Roumanian population 
 dominates completely the counties in the eastern 
 half of the state and forms a relative majority 
 even in most of the counties to the west. In 
 the western counties, however, there are numer- 
 ous large colonies of Serbians, although even 
 there, the Swabians and Roimianians are more 
 numerous. 
 
 It has been evident the Swabians could not 
 control any part of the province since they are 
 far removed from any other German state. 
 Therefore since either Roumanians or Serbians 
 must dominate, this proposal has been made: 
 
 That the Banat be divided by an arbitrary 
 north and south line, the counties to the east- 
 
ward being attached to Roumania and those 
 to the west to Serbia. 
 
 Serbia has asked for this, maintaining 
 Serbian control is necessary in the western 
 provinces to protect the interests of the Serbian 
 colonists, furthermore, that a foothold in the 
 Banat is necessary to protect the approach to 
 Belgrade, and Serbian propagandists have been 
 very busy making a case at Paris. 
 
 Roumania says, however, this must not be 
 done, and goes back into the history and eth- 
 nology of the Banat to demonstrate that this 
 province is fundamentally a part of the Rou- 
 manian kingdom, that it is geographically a 
 part of Roumania and that it must be reunited 
 with the Roumanian kingdom, if there is to be 
 any hope of permanent peace in the Balkans 
 or of world peace. 
 
 PRINCIPLES INVOLVED 
 
 The facts which support these arguments will 
 be presented later in this article. The purpose 
 now is to show some of the principles which 
 have been raised by the proposed settlement of 
 the Banat problem, questions which involve 
 the methods, if not the motives of the Paris 
 conference. 
 
 Should any state or province ever be divided 
 arbitrarily without respect for its history, its 
 political and economic boundaries, or the wishes 
 of the majority of its people? 
 
 Even in the settlement of individual estates 
 it has been the axiom for ages to avoid arbitrary 
 divisions of property, giving for instance, to 
 one heir the horse, to another the wagon; to 
 one the house and barn, to another the land 
 
on which they rest; to one the mill pond, to 
 another the control of the tributary waters. 
 
 How much more dangerous then in settling 
 the estates of nations to follow this arbitrary 
 method, for the lands and properties of nations 
 cannot be partitioned without partitioning also 
 the human beings who are inseparable from 
 them. The causes of the world war were found 
 in such mistakes. 
 
 The method of settlement proposed for the 
 Banat is the old, old ''cut-and-try" method 
 which the Great Powers have always used in 
 dealing with their neighbors in the Near East.' 
 And with what terrible results? 
 
 MISTAKES OF PAST 
 
 Let us survey for a minute some of the mis- 
 takes made in the Near East in the past. 
 
 "From time immemorial, Europe has been 
 confronted with an Eastern Question," writes 
 J. A. R. Marriott in his ''Historical Study in 
 European Diplomacy," and John Morley des- 
 cribes "that shifting, intractable, and inter- 
 woven tangle of conflicting interests, rival 
 people and antagonistic faiths" which he con- 
 siders under the one heading of "Balkanism, 
 the Unsolved Eastern Question." 
 
 But why has there been this interwoven 
 tangle of conflicting interests? Has it really 
 been a tangle of the interests of the Balkan 
 people .themselves or of the interests of the 
 various Great Powers which had in the Balkans 
 something at stake? Has not history proved 
 the Great Powers in the past always ready to 
 set the Balkan nations against each other, 
 
always anxious to keep them weak, to prevent 
 them from working out their national destinies? 
 
 There is no denying this, as Herbert Adams 
 Gibbons points out in the Century Magazine 
 for March 1920 in an article on Roumania: 
 
 "To prevent the Balkan states from forming 
 an alliance and securing national unity the 
 Great Powers at Paris in 1856 and at Berlin in 
 1878 arranged frontiers in such a way as to 
 kindle the animosity of one Balkan race against 
 another." 
 
 It was in 1878 that Bessarabia was taken 
 away from Roumania and given to Russia in 
 violation of the most sacred pledges of friend- 
 ship. Of the reason why none of the other 
 Great Powers made a move to protect Rou- 
 mania against this steal by Russia, Marriott in 
 his book, "The Eastern Question," p. 305, 
 makes this ^illuminating comment: 
 
 "That was a gross blunder, the consequences 
 of which are not yet exhausted, yet we could not 
 turn aside from the pursuit of larger issues to 
 befriend a state in whose fortunes Great Britain 
 was not directly interested." 
 
 "SOMEBODY'S" INTERESTS 
 
 So it has been always in the Near East. 
 Self interest first. And the self interest of the 
 Great Powers has always dictated the little 
 states of the Near East should be retarded in 
 development, for were a single great state to 
 grow to maturity there, it would no longer be 
 possible to dictate policies which make possible 
 exploitation by outside interests. 
 
 Now in the Banat problem. Isn't it the 
 same fundamental principle at stake? Borrow- 
 
ing from Peter to pay Paul. Taking from Rou- 
 mania to satisfy the debt to Serbia. With no 
 real thought for the rights in the case. With no 
 real thought for the future. With little or no 
 regard for the wishes of the majority of the 
 people who have their homes in the Banat. 
 
 Roumania's ethnical, economic and historic 
 destiny can never be complete without the whole 
 of the Banat. And yet to Serbia the addition of 
 a portion of the Banat would be of relatively 
 little future importance. Immediate desires 
 would be satisfied so far as Serbia is concerned. 
 But Roumania would be left with a new ''Irre- 
 denta." To-day 'The League of Banat" — a 
 great organization to redeem the whole province 
 — is the immediate result. 
 
 Thus it will be seen the Banat affords a real 
 opportunity for Americans, an opportunity to 
 see that in this one case, at least, the old order 
 of "high diplomacy" with reference to the Near 
 East is not perpetuated. It was for this pur- 
 pose Americans entered the war, to see that in 
 all international affairs right should succeed 
 special privilege. 
 
 II. 
 
 ETHNICAL 
 
 AND 
 
 GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION 
 
 Consider the geographical boundaries of 
 the Banat and it will be seen readily that it is a 
 distinct unit, one which under any circumstances 
 would not be easily divisible into two parts under 
 separate governments, but which is all the 
 
harder to partition because the whole is ' so 
 obviously a part of the Greater Roumania and 
 proper sphere of influence. 
 
 The Banat lies on a sloping shoulder of land 
 which leads down from the Carpathian moun- 
 tains! The walls of the Carpathians are the 
 eastern boundary. On the other three sides 
 are rivers, broad and navigable most of their 
 length. 
 
 On the north, the river Maros comes down 
 from the mountains between the Banat and the 
 redeemed Roumanian province of Transylvania. 
 On the west, the Theiss forms the boundary to 
 the turning point where it joins the Danube. 
 And the Danube forms the southern boundary 
 running between the Banat and Serbia all the 
 way to the Iron Gates. 
 
 The Banat is thus an essential part of that 
 portion of reimited Roumania which lies west 
 of the Carpathian mountains. It fills in the 
 space between Transylvania and the Danube. 
 It is essential that Roumania. retain the whole 
 of the Banat if there is to be free egress by 
 river water-ways from Transylvania to the rest 
 of the kingdom. If the Serbian claim to a 
 foothold in the Banat is allowed it will be the 
 same as establishing a foreign toll gate through 
 which all Roumanian water traffic must pass. 
 (See Map No. 1). 
 
 BANAT ALWAYS A UNIT 
 
 Not only is the Banat now a geographical 
 imit but it has always been a unit politically no 
 matter what rule it might be enduring. And it 
 has been a characteristically Roumanian prov- 
 ince ever since the second century when the 
 
j:^^^LEJjrrc:j^ jr^^z:rTiTs*jrjE;i^ "f/^fz/jvTUOjr 
 
 
 
 ■S'£/eS/<0^ 
 
 MAP No. 1. This map shows how the Banat, geographically, is a part ofthe Greater 
 Roumanian unit, the southwest cornerstone of the Kingdom. Bounded by the Danube 
 the Theiss and the Muresh rivers, it fills out the provinces regained from|Hungary in 
 Transylvania and Crichana. To take away any part of thetBanat and give i^ *« Serbia 
 would be to destroy geographical unity and isolate the Roumanians of the west by pre- 
 7en"Lg commumSiorwyh^heRoumL^^ east through the Danubian system. 
 
Roman colonists planted by Trajan mingled 
 with the original Dacians to form the Rou- 
 manian race. Long before the Mag^^ars or 
 Hungarians came, or the Serbian or Swabian 
 German colonists, the Banat was a powerful 
 and autonomous Roumanian state. The 
 Magyars conquered only after the death of 
 Prince Glad. 
 
 History adequately reveals the relatively 
 small importance of the various efforts by 
 nationalities other than the Roumanians to 
 dominate the Banat. Most of these colonies 
 came either as the result of persecutions in their 
 home land or upon invitation of the Austrian 
 and Hungarian governments which wished to 
 reduce the importance of the Roumanians every- 
 where. 
 
 EARLY IMMIGRANTS 
 
 The first colonists were the Serbs in the 
 fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. They came 
 imder the leadership of the patriarch Arsenic 
 Cemoevici, after their country had been in- 
 vaded by the Turks. There had been a handful 
 of Serbians in the Banat and southern Hungary 
 even prior to this, after the defeat by the Turks 
 at Kossovo in the fourteenth century, but those 
 pioneers were only a handful. 
 
 When the Banat was in turn conquered by 
 the Turks in 1552, the Roumanian natives and 
 the Serbian colonists alike were driven to refuge. 
 The Serbians pressed on farther north. The 
 Roumanians, for the most part, were compressed 
 into the hilly counties in the eastern part of the 
 Banat near the Carpathians, although some of 
 
 10 
 
them remained in the western lowlands even 
 during Turkish occupation. 
 
 The Turks were driven out of the Banat 
 in 1718, and when they left, the western part of 
 the province was almost but not wholly deserted. 
 Religious persecutions by the Magyars had 
 succeeded Turkish oppression in confining the 
 Roumanians to the eastern counties. 
 
 It was at this time the Serbians took ad- 
 vantage of the situation of the Roumanian 
 population in the Banat to cross the Theiss 
 and the Danube in great numbers, and migra- 
 tions begun then were continued almost down to 
 the present time. 
 
 It would be hard to say whether all these 
 Serb migrations were voluntary or whether many 
 were under compulsion, for numbers doubtless 
 were included in forced colonizations listed in 
 K. Von Czoemig's book ''Ethnographic der 
 Oesterreichischen" (Vienna, 1855) which de- 
 tails such occurrences from 1720 to 1846. 
 
 ROUMANIANS PREDOMINATE 
 
 It will suffice to point out the following 
 facts. The population of the Banat despite 
 early Serb migrations had been left almost pure 
 Roumanian after the Turks receded in 1718. 
 By 1910, according to official Hungarian statis- 
 tics, there were 592,049 Roumanians; 284,328 
 Serbians in the province and 387,547 Swabian 
 (Germans), and 76,058 persons of other national 
 origins. 
 
 But despite forced colonization under Aus- 
 trian and Hungarian suzerainty and despite 
 voluntary immigration due to the richness of 
 the country, and despite the persecution and 
 
 11 
 
suppression of the Roumanians in all parts of the 
 Banat, they had maintained a clear majority 
 in the whole province. Out of a total popula- 
 tion of 1,582,133 in the Banat, the Roumanians, 
 even by Hungarian count, numbered 592,049. 
 
 A word as to Hungarian statistics. They 
 have always been notoriously corrupt and un- 
 fair to the Roumanians. In 1900, for instance, 
 the llimgarians claimed only 170,124 Magyars 
 in the Banat. In their 19 10 census they claimed 
 more than double this number. According to 
 the Hungarians, the Roimianian population in 
 the same time had increased only from 578,789 
 to 592,049. These figures alone are sufficient 
 to indicate contraband census methods. ' 
 
 Most historians in dealing with census figures 
 on Roumanian population in districts under 
 Magyar rule prefer to use religious statistics. 
 Using these church figures in his ''Notes Sur 
 La Guerre Roumaine," N. P. Commene, a 
 French writer, determines the Roumanian popu- 
 lation in the Banat at 615,336 and the Serbian 
 population at only 284,328 as compared with the 
 Magyar figures of 592,049. This probably is 
 nearly correct. 
 
 SWABIANS NUMEROUS 
 
 It will be noticed at once that the Swabian 
 (German) population in the Banat, as well as 
 the Roumanian, outnumbers the Serbian ele- 
 ment. And the Swabians we know are almost 
 unanimous in declaring they want to be at- 
 tached to the Roumanian kingdom. The Rou- 
 manians alone, if a plebescite were held would 
 be able to carry the vote for imion with Rou- 
 mania. Aided by the Swabians, the vote against 
 
 12 
 
MAP No. 2 
 
 In this map, all areas in plain white indicate areas where 
 Roumanian population predominates. Thus it will be seen that in 
 Serbia, itself, just south of the Danube in the Timoc valley, there 
 is a large region where the population is almost entirely Rou- 
 manian, with the Serbian population appearing only in isolated 
 groups (shown by black dots). Roumania makes no claim to 
 these 290,000 Roumanians who happen to be living in Serbia proper. 
 
 13 
 
division of the Banat with Serbia, would *he 
 overwhelming. 
 
 Serbia has acknowledged the weakness of 
 her position in relinquishing her claim to the 
 whole of the Banat and contending only for the 
 western part where the Serbian colonists are 
 thickest. But there is a situation which makes 
 even this claim an absurdity. In Serbia proper, 
 south of the Danube near the Iron Gates, in the 
 valley of the Timoc river, there are large colonies 
 of pure Roumanians. (See Map No. 2). 
 
 Roumania does not for this reason lay claim 
 to a slice of Serbian territory. The Roumanians 
 in the Timoc valley, more than 290,000, form 
 a compact mass in the Serbian provinces 
 of Pozharevatz, Kraina, and Tchema-Rieka. 
 They happen to have made their homes within 
 the ethnical boundaries of Serbia and bow to 
 that fact. The Serbians in the Banat and the 
 Serbian governraent should be equally reason- 
 able as regards their claims in Roumanian terri- 
 tory. 
 
 President Wilson in his address to the United 
 States Senate, Jan. 22, 1917, in speaking of the 
 purposes of nationalities said: 
 
 "Peace cannot be had without concession 
 and sacrifice. The statesmen of the world must 
 plan for peace, and nations must adjust and 
 accommodate their policy to it in the same way 
 as in the past they have planned for war and 
 made ready for pitiless contest and rivalry." 
 
 SACRIFICES OF PEACE 
 
 Peace cannot be had without sacrifice of 
 selfish and unnatural ambition whether in the 
 case of the individual or of a nation. The 
 
 14 
 
Roumanians have made their concession in 
 not demanding the Roumanian population of 
 the Timoc valley and Southern Serbia. The 
 Serbians likewise must be made to give up their 
 unnatural claims upon the Banat. 
 
 The diplomats who have discussed seriously 
 the plan for partitioning the Banat between 
 Roumania and Serbia have considered only one 
 of the many facts which must be considered. 
 They have looked upon the Serbian colonies in 
 the Banat alone. They have not considered 
 properly the ethnology, the history and most of 
 all the geography of the Banat. Their remedy 
 is almost purely philosophical, provisional and 
 impracticable. Americans must bring pressure 
 to bear on these diplomats to see they do not 
 favor Serbian claims which in this case, instead 
 of following the principle laid down by President 
 Wilson, have been pressed to the point of ab- 
 surdity. 
 
 III. 
 
 SERBIAN CLAIMS ANALYZED 
 
 What has preceded has shown how futile 
 would be any attempts by the Serbian propa- 
 gandists to justify their claims to the Banat 
 partition on purely ethnical grounds. The 
 Roumanians were beyond doubt the original 
 people of the Banat. The Serbians at best have 
 never been more than refugees or colonists. Let 
 us examine nevertheless the claims of the Ser- 
 bians that they really do form the most consider- 
 able element in the western counties of the 
 province. There is no dispute as to Roumanian 
 preponderance in the eastern, mountainous 
 
 15 
 
coiinty of Caras-Severin where the Roumarrians 
 form 72 per cent, of the population and the 
 Serbs but 3 per cent. 
 
 The other two counties, Timis and Torontal 
 have a total population of 1,105,000, of which 
 only 266,000 are Serbs, even according to gen- 
 erous estimates. This gives them only 22 per 
 cent in those counties. They originally claimed 
 both these counties but as G. Mironesco pointed 
 out in ''The Problem of the Banat," "even the 
 moderate Serbs understood it was ridiculous 
 to assert that a territory should belong to a 
 population which did not form even a quarter 
 of the total population." Hence their claims 
 are now limited to Torontal only. 
 
 But even in the Torontal the Serbs do not 
 form a majority. Out of a total population 
 there of 615,151, the Serbs have only 199,750 or 
 32.04 per cent. The rest are Swabians and 
 Roumanians mostly. And the Swabians not 
 only desire to be united with the Roumanian 
 kingdom but they speak Roumanian, recog- 
 nizing it as the proper language of the province, 
 and are prepared for Roumanian citizenship. 
 
 SERBIAN "ISLANDS" 
 
 An examination of the situation in the whole 
 Banat by districts within the counties is even 
 more significant. The Roumanians have an 
 absolute majority in 18 districts and a relative 
 majority in three out of a total of 39. The 
 Swabians, who are Roumanians in sympathy, 
 have an absolute majority in 11 districts and a 
 relative majority in seven. The Serbs by con- 
 trast have an absolute majority in only three 
 districts and a relative majority in three. And 
 
 16 
 
/^•^//L ''^(D/^^S^ 
 
 /^Aeo^CD S^^C 
 
 
 
 MAP No. 3 
 
 The sparseness of the Serbian population in the Banat is shown 
 here by the black dots in the field of white which indicates Rou- 
 manian predominance. The Serbian population in the Banat is 
 confined to islands in the sea of Roumania and other national- 
 ities, islands which show plainly the Serbs were merely colonists 
 and not original inhabitants. 
 
 17 
 
it is important to note (Map No. 3) the Serbians 
 even in these districts have no geographical 
 cohesion: They form Uttle islands of Serbs in 
 the sea of Roumanians and Swabians. 
 
 The districts where the Serbs have an abso- 
 lute majority are Feher-Templom, Torobece and 
 Antfalva. Let us see how they are separated. 
 Between Feher-Templom and Antfalva is a 
 Roumanian- Swabian zone. Between Torobece 
 and Antfalva is a non- Serbian zone, chiefly 
 Swabian. 
 
 "The western part of the Banat resembles a 
 piece of ethnic mosaic work" declared Prof. 
 Cholnoky Jone, of Cluj university. He was a 
 Himgarian, at that, and no friend of Roumania. 
 
 IV. 
 
 A FAIR OFFER 
 
 Roumania has made a proposal which would 
 give a fair solution to the problem of the Banat. 
 In addition to renouncing all claims to the 400,- 
 000 Roumanians living in Serbia proper, in- 
 cluding the Timoc valley, Roumania has offered 
 to cede to Bulgaria certain territory in Dobrudja 
 in order to persuade Bulgaria to cede to Serbia 
 the Serbian areas in Bulgaria at Widin which 
 are adjoining Serbia proper. 
 
 This would be a sensible readjustment which 
 would go far all round to make peace in the 
 Balkans and the Near East, but the Serbians 
 have rejected it, refusing to make the sacrifices 
 which President Wilson has declared all nations- 
 should be ready to make for the sake of future 
 peace. Roumania has gone far to meet the 
 spirit of President Wilson's appeal and can do 
 
 18 
 
no more. This compromise failing, her claims 
 to the whole of the Banat now are presented 
 on the basis of cold facts. 
 
 The Roumanians would welcome settlement 
 now by a plebescite for the whole of the Banat, 
 including the Swabian population, a plebescite 
 free from all suspicion of foreign desire or in- 
 fluence. 
 
 AMERICANS CAN HELP 
 
 The French and Italians have already pro- 
 nounced themselves in favor of giving the whole 
 of the Banat to Roumania. But the support 
 of the Americans who are as Turgot, the great 
 French economist predicted in 1782, ''the hope 
 of mankind," is needed. The Americans can 
 do much so that it will not be said of this peace 
 as Claredon said of the treaty of Paris in 1856, 
 "We have made the peace but it is not THE 
 PEACE, because we have left so much in an 
 unsettled state." 
 
 And this should be done, not only because 
 the Roumanians in the Banat would otherwise 
 be left unsatisfied but because the Swabians 
 would be discontented. The Serbians have 
 asked that the Swabians be not considered in 
 the settlement of the Banat problem "because 
 they are so far away from any German state." 
 
 The Supreme Council must see this is no 
 reason at all. President Wilson has said: 
 
 "Peace must be planted on the tested founda- 
 tion of political liberty. We fought to assure 
 the rights of nations great and small, and the 
 privilege of men everywhere to choose their way 
 of life and obedience." 
 
 Not to take into consideration the historic 
 
 19 
 
and ethnic rights of the Roumanians *to the 
 whole of the Banat would be to .violate the deep- 
 est principles of justice. Not to take into ac- 
 count the wishes of the 387,545 Swabians, as the 
 Serbs insist, would be to disregard President 
 Wilson's injunction that all people have the 
 right to choose their own way of life and obedi- 
 ence. Nor do the Roumanians disregard the 
 very important rights of the Serbians in the 
 Banat. The Roumanians cannot allow them to 
 divide a province on claims which are relatively 
 superficial and unimportant, but they do promise 
 them under the Roumanian government which 
 would be established as the result of a plebescite, 
 full rights with other citizens in ordering and 
 adjusting that government. No more surely 
 could be done than that. 
 
 V. 
 
 HISTORICAL FACTS 
 
 "Banatul Timisoarei" is the Roumanian 
 title for the Banat although it never was gov- 
 erned by a Ban (the equivalent of a French 
 marquisate). The Banat seems to have ac- 
 quired this title after the peace of Passarowitz 
 when the Turks had been driven out in 1718. 
 In ancient times the Banat was a part of the 
 Roumanian principality of Transylvania. 
 
 When Trajan descended on the kingdom of 
 the ancient Dacians in the second century, he 
 made his headquarters at Jidovini in the Timis 
 valley. The Romans built a road which is 
 still seen today. They named the mineral 
 spring of Mehadia ''Thermae Herculis," a name 
 
 20 
 
which the Roumanians, children of the Romans 
 and the Dacians, have preserved. 
 
 The Himgarians, the last of the Barbarians 
 to invade the Banat, foimd the Roumanians 
 there well organized after the traditions of their 
 Roman and Dacian fathers and many bloody 
 battles were fought for domination of the ter- 
 ritory. After the death of Prince Glad, the 
 Roimianians and the Hungarians came to an 
 understanding which existed through the tenth 
 and the thirteenth century, although as usual 
 there were many infringements on the agree- 
 ment by the Huns. 
 
 In 1552, when the Turks came, the Banat was 
 made a Turkish sanjak or province, that is, all 
 except the eastern part where the Roumanians 
 true to the example of their Dacian forefathers 
 held their independence in the hills. The Turks 
 were driven out in 1716, but after the peace of 
 Passarowitz in 1718, the Austrian Hapsburgs 
 placed the province under military administra- 
 tion which they prolonged till 175JI, in order to 
 give excuse for religious persecutions of the 
 Roumanian population. 
 
 SERBS AID AUSTRIA 
 
 There was, at this time, a distinct effort to 
 annihilate the Roumanian majority in the prov- 
 ince, and it was to further this purpose the great 
 colonies of Serbians were brought in. Coimt 
 Claudius Marcy, appointed governor of Tenes- 
 var in 1720, with the consent of Empress Maria 
 Theresa, also brought in large numbers of 
 German peasants and placed them on lands 
 claimed by the crown. 
 
 In 1779, the Banat was turned over by the 
 Austrians from their own misrule to the misrule 
 
 21 
 
of the Hungarians, but after the revolution of 
 1848-1849 it was taken back again with the 
 county of Bacs and made an Austrian crown 
 land. In 1860, however, the Banat became 
 again and for the last time a subject of Hungary. 
 
 It is not necessary, however, to trace all the 
 events of Austrian and Hungarian misrule. It 
 is necessary to controvert certain historical 
 claims presented by the Serbian propagandists 
 after finding the weakness of their ethnical 
 rights in the Banat. 
 
 The Serbians claim to have had at times a 
 distinct Serbian organization of the Banat, a 
 "Voivodia", or principality. This is not ex- 
 actly correct. The Serbian Voivodia was ad- 
 ministrative and not a political unit and it was 
 never independent. Jt was a creation of the 
 Hapsburg government designed to favor the 
 Serbs and crush the Roumanians. 
 
 A CLAIM EXPLODED 
 
 Examine' the records of the Voivodia. You 
 will find them in German and not in Serbian. 
 This is final proof the Voivodia was the instru- 
 ment not of Serbian independence but of 
 Austrian oppression. 
 
 Destroy this claim and you have remaining 
 only the claim that the Serbians have lived long 
 in the Banat. But they themselves admit they 
 were never more than colonists, and at that, im- 
 ported by the Austrians with the hope of crowd- 
 ing out and denationalizing the Roumanians. 
 
 It is a signifigant fact that instead of crowd- 
 ing out or assimilating the Roumanians the 
 Serbians in the Banat have to a large extent 
 
 22 
 
been Roumanianized. They speak the Rou- 
 manian language. They are economically de- 
 pendent on their Roumanian neighbors. The 
 Banat is another striking example of the tenacity 
 of Roumanian national life which was attested 
 as long ago as the fifth century by Prisons, a 
 Byzantine historian, sent by Emperor Theo- 
 dosius II to the court of Attila, the Hun 
 chieftain. 
 
 History only drives one back to ethnology or 
 brings one face to face with the statistical facts 
 regarding the Banat as they stand today. The 
 proof that the Banat, the whole of it, belongs 
 to Roumania and is indomitably Roumanian, 
 cannot be gainsaid. 
 
 VI. 
 
 THE ECONOMIC SITUATION 
 
 After all other claims and counter claims 
 regarding the Banat have been considered and 
 analyzed it is necessary to consider and analyze 
 what is said about the Banat as an economic 
 problem. 
 
 The Roumanians claim the Banat is a unit 
 industrially and commercially just as it is geo- 
 graphically and therefore must not be broken 
 up. They point to the great coal and iron mines 
 in the eastern part of the province, to the systems 
 of canals and railways and rivers which have 
 been developed with the Banat as a unit and 
 show that no part can be taken away without 
 tremendous injury to itself and to the rest of 
 the province. 
 
 The Serbians, on the other hand blandly 
 insist they must have the western county of 
 
 23 
 
Torontal, although they can advance oitly one 
 economic reason, and even this very much 
 exaggerated. They say the Torontal is a rich 
 agricultural land in which there are many 
 Serbian farmers and hence it should be added 
 to Serbia to compensate for the agricultural 
 poverty of the mountainous land within the 
 borders of Serbia proper. 
 
 Forgetting for the moment all that has been 
 said regarding the injustice and impracticability 
 of the Serbian scheme in the light of history and 
 ethnology and military expediency. Let us see 
 the economic effect: 
 
 WOULD CHOKE INDUSTRY 
 
 It is as though the people of Great Britian 
 and Canada were to say to the United States: 
 
 ''We have a large number of French Cana- 
 dians and English Canadians living in the state 
 of Michigan. Now, you already have more 
 states than you need. Therefore we will take 
 Michigan. It will help our agriculture and it 
 will give us a foothold in your country to guaran- 
 tee us against invasion by your forces." 
 
 It is as absurd to say the Torontal is absolute- 
 ly essential to the food supply of Serbia as to say 
 the addition of Michigan to Canada would pro- 
 duce any appreciable effect. What would re- 
 sult is this: 
 
 If Canada took Michigan you would have 
 at the straits of the St. Clair river a toll station 
 controlled by a foreign power which could and 
 probably would exact tribute from all passing 
 traffic. Instead of a great open waterway be- 
 tween the two powers permitting the full de- 
 velopment of each you would have a closed 
 
 24 
 
MAP No. 4 
 
 The dotted line from Arad to the Danube shows the original 
 Serbian claim in the Banat, abandoned voluntarily on the face of 
 its absurdity. The dotted line from near Segedin to Bazias on the 
 Danube show the present Serbian claim to practically the whole 
 county of the Torontal. It will be seen at a glance if this claim is 
 allowed the whole Roumanian railway system will be cut in two 
 and an overlordship established on the Roumanian water rights 
 in the Maros, the Theiss and the Danube. 
 
 25 
 
waterway, a superficial means of profit* to the 
 one, a lasting detriment to the other. 
 
 It is not the land loss of the Torontal or 
 even the loss of the products of that county 
 which Roumania fears most. It is the lasting 
 damage to her industry and commerce. 
 
 If the whole Great Lakes system were not 
 an open waterway the development of the whole 
 region in the United States which borders on it 
 would be stunted and checked. This is what 
 will happen in the Banat if Serbia is given the 
 foothold she desires across the Danube and the 
 Theiss. 
 
 RIVER TRADE THREATENED 
 
 If Serbia is allowed to hold the Torontal, 
 she will control completely the waterways of the 
 Theiss and the Danube for all traffic going 
 through. More than that she will control not 
 only these rivers but the Temes river and the 
 Bega canal which come down from the interior 
 of the Banat. And she will block the through 
 railways from Western Europe to Constanti- 
 nople and the railways which lead from the 
 industrial regions in the eastern portion of the 
 Banat. And finally, she will control the river 
 traffic coming down the Maros and the Theiss 
 not only from the Banat but from Transylvania. 
 An intolerable condition will exist. (See Map 
 No. 4) ^ 
 
 Nature was very ingenious in laying out the 
 Banat. The mountainous eastern part of the 
 country was provided with deep wells of iron, 
 copper, tin, lead and zinc, and plenty of the 
 best steam coal. It was fitted to be a modern 
 industrial region. And the western plains ad- 
 
 26 
 
joining this region were made for the growing 
 of wheat, barley, oats, rye, maize and with flax 
 hemp to meet the needs of the industrial workers 
 of the eastern part. 
 
 Only 27.15 per cent of the land near the 
 mountains is arable, but the western fields more 
 than make up for this deficiency. Now let us 
 see what will happen if Serbia gets the principal 
 food bearing district of the province. 
 
 At Resitza and Anina (marked 1 and 2 on 
 Map No. 4) near Steirdorf are the great steel 
 rolling mills, and the great coal mines. There 
 are the industries which for years have supplied 
 all the rolling stock and rails for the Austro- 
 Hungarian railways. There are resources which, 
 when developed, will supply not only Roumania 
 but all of Eastern Europe. 
 
 RAILROADS ALSO AFFECTED 
 
 But the natural outlet for this region is by 
 the railways leading down through the lowlands 
 which Serbia claims. If Serbia gets the Torou; 
 tal, the natural rail lines (marked 3 and 4 on 
 Map No. 4) will be cut off and the road to the 
 Danube will be cut off. Because of the moun- 
 tainous nature of the country it would not be 
 feasible to build new lines in strictly Rouma- 
 nian territory east of the proposed boundary. 
 The only outlet for the products of this region 
 would be by way of the one mountain railroad 
 now in existence (marked 5 on Map No. 4). 
 This is the winding, over tunnelled, steep-graded 
 line from Oravica to the Reschitza railroad and 
 it is altogether unsatisfactory. 
 
 And after getting heavy steel products to the 
 Reschitza line, there would be further difficul- 
 
 27 
 
ties because the line from there to Temesvar is 
 already overcrowded and inadequate. And after 
 getting to Temesvar, the problems of distribu- 
 tion to all parts of the country would have been 
 only begim, for it still would be necessary to 
 follow circuitous overland routes to get around 
 the Carpathians without cutting through a 
 foreign count r>\ 
 
 It is obvious what would happen to the coal, 
 steel and iron country. Walled in by the im- 
 pregnable Carpathians on the east and by the 
 Serbian tollgates on the west, it would pine and 
 dwindle, Roumania, needing transportation to- 
 day more than ever in its history would receive 
 small relief from this territory. 
 
 WOULD ISOLATE TEMESVAR 
 
 And what of the important city of Temesvar 
 itself, accustomed to handling more than 8,500 
 trunks of fir and more than 400,000 tons of 
 merchandise annually. Many of its principal 
 railroads from the west and southwest would 
 be in Serbian hands. And the Bega canal 
 leading out to the Theiss and the Danube 
 would likewise be in the control of strangers. 
 
 All this could lead only to unrest and trouble, 
 possibly war at some future date. 
 
 The proposed division of the Banat could 
 create an economic situation which far from 
 relieving the food shortage of Serbia or providing 
 that country with military protection would only 
 lead to new dangers and distress. 
 
 Must Belgrade be protected and provisioned 
 by a portion of the Banat? It has been pointed 
 out with wisdom that Belgrade has long ceased 
 to be the logical capital of Serbia, and except in 
 
 28 
 
name only, is even now merely a provincial city. 
 It is safe to predict the time will come when the 
 Serbian capital will be transferred to some city 
 nearer the heart of that country. So there is 
 little in the argument that Belgrade must be 
 rationed and protected by a slice from the Banat. 
 This military argument of the Serbs because of 
 the extraordinary progress in methods made 
 during this war loses all value. 
 
 REAL SERB OBJECTIVES 
 
 It is obvious that the real Serbian objective 
 is the control of the Banat waterways which are 
 vital to Roumania's future. Let us consider the 
 actual size and importance of these streams. 
 Hungarian figures follow: 
 
 The Muresh or Maros river between the 
 Banat and Transylvania has 118 kilometers nav- 
 igable for steamboats. 
 
 The Temesh river which taps the heart of the 
 Banat has 88 kilometers navigable for barges 
 and three kilometers where steamboats can go. 
 
 The Theiss from the confluence of the 
 Muresh to the junction with the Danube has 
 180 kilometers navigated by steamboats. 
 
 The Danube from the mouth of the Theiss 
 to Verciorova at the Iron Gates offers 250 
 kilometers navigable by steamboats. 
 
 In all there are 666 kilometers, 460 of them 
 in the comitat of Torontal itself which would be 
 directly affected if control were given to Serbia. 
 But these figures only tell a small part of the 
 story. All through navigation on the whole 
 Danubian system from the Black Sea to the 
 navigation head would thus be placed under 
 
 29 
 
Serbian domination. Not only Rouma»ia, but 
 Hungary and Austria and all other countries 
 directly or indirectly dependent on Danube 
 traffic, would suffer. Not only justice to the 
 Roumanian claims on the Banat but economic 
 justice to all Central Europe demand that the 
 Danube be kept open. 
 
 THE ITALIAN PARALLEL. 
 
 It is interesting now to contrast the handling 
 of the Banat problem with that of the similar 
 problem of the Italian littoral on the eastern 
 coast of the Adriatic. In its findings on the 
 Banat problem the Peace Conference has exactly 
 reversed the position it took in the earlier 
 dispute. 
 
 In the dispute between Italy and Jugoslavia, 
 President Wilson was among those who at first 
 agreed to an Italian frontier running from the 
 Arsa river to the Karawanken mountains, a 
 frontier which would have given to Italy more 
 than 300,000 Jugoslavs. 
 
 France, Great Britain and the United States 
 shared in a memorandum signed Dec. 9, 1919 
 which said: 
 
 "Italy's geographical position, as well as her 
 economic requirements, is held to justify this 
 serious infringement of ethnical principle." 
 
 For Italy, geography and economics are made 
 to apply despite ethnology. For Roumania in 
 the Banat, despite the fact there is no dispute 
 as to the justice of her claims either geograph- 
 ically, economically or ethnologically, a portion 
 of the province is about to be torn away and 
 handed as a pawn to Serbia. Why should not 
 
 30 
 
the principle which apphes to the Uttoral of the 
 Adriatic be apphed in the even stronger case of 
 the Uttoral of the Theiss and the Danube? 
 
 Mr. A. J. Balfour in his Mansion House 
 speech in 1903 cynically forecasted the present 
 situation as regards Serbia. 
 
 ''The weaker power first leans on one Eu- 
 ropean government, then on another European 
 government," said he, "intrigues with both, 
 does everything to bring the two into conflict, 
 in the hope it may come out the better for it." 
 
 But Lloyd George declared on Sept. 6, 1917: 
 
 "This is pre-eminently the day of small 
 nations." 
 
 And President Wilson declared in the United 
 States Senate on Jan. 22, 1917: 
 
 "People must not be handed about from 
 potentate to potentate as if they were property." 
 
 Let us see to it that through the unjust 
 reversion in the solution of the Banat problem 
 we do not go back to the ironic rule laid down by 
 Mr. Balfour so long before the war. Let us 
 follow rather the ideals set forth during the 
 war. 
 
 In working out the economic problems of 
 Roumania let there be as much justice as in 
 working out the economic salvation of Italy. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 In conclusion it will be sufficient merely to 
 point Out the following points which have been 
 established : 
 
 1. The Serbians never having been more 
 than colonists in the Banat cannot well contest 
 
 31 
 
the ethnical claims advanced by the Rouriianians 
 who beyond all doubt are the original inhabitants 
 of the province. 
 
 2. In history, because of the role which they 
 played as instrumemts of the Hapsburg and 
 Hungarian oppressors, the Serbs can find no 
 justification for their claims. Never have they 
 ruled or had any important part in free govern- 
 ment in the Banat, while the history of Rouma- 
 nia and the history of the Banat in the struggle 
 for independence are inseparable. 
 
 3. A glance at any map shows the Banat to 
 be a geographical unit, properly a part of the 
 new Greater Roumania. 
 
 4. Economic principles demand that the 
 whole of the Banat be restored to Roumania, 
 for otherwise neither Roumania nor the Banat 
 itself can be developed in accordance with their 
 rich promise. 
 
 5. A plebescite of the people anywhere in the 
 Banat would give the province back to Rouma- 
 nia. 
 
 In the old selfish principles which have been 
 revealed in the proposed settlement of the 
 Banat question by a partition between Rouma- 
 nia and Serbia, there is invoked an issue which 
 cannot be ignored by Americans. 
 
 It is this: 
 
 Shall the old "high diplomacy" be restored 
 in the Near East? Shall one nation there be 
 set against another? Shall there be a settlement 
 of mere convenience and not of justice? Or shall 
 we see to it that there is no peace of mind 
 among the diplomats at Paris until there is 
 actual peace in the Near East? 
 
 32 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 pmi 
 
 020 914 557 1