Great Britain, British Jews, and the international protection of Romanian Jews, 1900-1914: a study of Jewish diplomacy and minority rights

 
 
62
 
origins, strengthened the relations between the two countries. Although the 
Romanian attitude towards Germany was friendly, at least some political 
leaders disliked German financial control. Their main reasoning for this was 
that the arrangements put Romania in a humiliating position and hurt its 
national pride.
15
 At the same time, the French also demonstrated their economic 
influence. The ‘Hallier affair’, relating to a harbour works contract and its 
subsequent compensation dispute, ended up embarrassingly for the 
Romanians. French pressure compelled Romania to grant substantial 
compensation to the French harbour works contractor.
16
    
 
The German bankers stipulated that no further Romanian treasury bonds 
could be issued until the present loan was paid off in 1904.
17
 Initially, the 
bankers also refused to grant further advances to the Romanian government, 
but, eventually, King Carol personally managed to persuade the German banks 
to give an advance on the long-term loan, thereby overcoming the short-term 
difficulties. In Britain, the Jewish Chronicle bitterly remarked that Romania had 
managed to ‘coax’ a loan from the financiers but that it probably would not be 
able to do so again due to its deplorable behaviour concerning the Jewish 
question.
18
 This was the typical tone that the Jewish Chronicle adopted. The 
newspaper returned to the Romanian loan theme many times during the 
following years, always linking it to the Jewish question.  
 
Many contemporaries — both Jews and Romanians — liked to draw 
attention to the fact that many Berlin bankers involved in the Romanian 
financial crisis were Jewish. The main banking houses dealing with the case 
were Disconto Bank Gesellschaft, Bleichröder, and Rothschild, of which the 
latter two were markedly Jewish.
19
 The Romanian government scorned the 
influence exerted by the Berlin group, but at the same time the Romanians were 
eager to please the bankers. There was a close relationship between the Berlin 
bankers and some leading Romanian statesmen, for example Petre P. Carp of 
the Conservative Party. All this suggests that the Jewish origins of the Berlin 
bankers did not play a large role in their financial dealings with the Romanians, 
unlike some Jewish leaders in Britain wished to believe.  
 
Although Romanian economic difficulties were undoubtedly a short-term 
factor behind Jewish mass emigration from Romania, there was still a great deal 
of disagreement among contemporaries on what the main reasons were for the 
emigration. Indeed, disputes over the factors generating the emigration wave 
have continued in historical research. The main question was whether 
emigration could be attributed, on the one hand, to persecution of Jews or, on 
the other hand, to the financial crisis. The pro-Jewish interpretation  —  also 
                                                           
15
  
FO 104/140/6, Kennedy to Salisbury, 20 March 1899; FO 104/143/3, Kennedy to 
Salisbury, 17 Jan. 1900. 
16
  
Seton-Watson 1934, 382. 
17
   FO 104/147/49, Chargé D’affaires Henry Trotter to Foreign Secretary Lord 
Lansdowne, 6 July 1901; Roumanian Bulletin, supplement to JC, 11 July 1902. 
18
  
JC leader, 9 Feb. 1900. This was the first time that the Jewish Chronicle discussed the 
Romanian financial situation and Jewish emigration from Romania in detail. 
19
  
FO 104/143/66, Kennedy to Salisbury, 26 Aug. 1900. 

---

 
 
63
actively promoted by the British Jewry — usually found two main factors to be 
underlying the emigration: firstly, Romanian government policy towards Jews 
and, secondly, the virulent anti-Semitism in Romanian society. The existence of 
economic reasons was nonetheless acknowledged. The anti-Jewish 
interpretation took the economic crisis into account as well, but mainly blamed 
international Jewish organisations for provoking Romanian Jews to emigrate. 
This viewpoint further maintained that the Jewish population was increasing so 
fast that Jews could no longer find any employment. 
 
Furthermore, general reasons for Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe 
also held true in Romania. The Jewish population was growing rapidly, just as 
the anti-Jewish observers liked to argue. Prospects for traditional Jewish trades 
and occupations deteriorated in the changing economic conditions, and Jews 
faced increasing competition from gentiles in trades. Restrictions on Jewish 
residence usually permitted them to live only in specific geographical areas (in 
Russia) or in towns, which further intensified competition and concentrated too 
many people who were engaged in the same trade within one locality. 
Moreover, physical persecution and pogroms were often the immediate factor 
pushing Jews to make a decision to emigrate; this applied more to Russia than 
to Romania, as in Romania physical violence against Jews was not frequent, and 
actual murderous pogroms of the type seen in Russian did not occur.
20
 
 
Lloyd P. Gartner has argued against the view that East European Jewish 
emigration was the result of persecution and pogroms. True, there were 
pogroms, but, still, the highest emigration rate was from the province of Galicia 
in the Austrian Empire, where no pogroms took place and the Jews were legally 
emancipated, but the Jewish population was very poor. Ukraine, the pogrom 
heartland of the Russian Empire had, in contrast, a relatively low emigration 
rate.
21
  
 
Gartner emphasises the demographical and economic characteristics of the 
Jewish communities as the main reason for the emigration wave. The East 
European Jewish population was young, but there were no opportunities for 
the young people, since the traditional economy could not expand. The 
occupational structure of Jewish communities was rigid and very much 
concentrated on certain key sectors, mainly on small business and artisan 
trades. Restrictions on residency, for the most part, closed the major economic 
centres in Russia to the Jews. On the other hand, Gartner emphasises the pull-
factors: America was an appealing destination. Steamship transportation had 
also made the overseas journey affordable by the end of the nineteenth 
century.
22
 Contemporaries usually tended to overlook pull-factors; the lure of 
America was mentioned only occasionally. 
 
Gartner’s arguments — that general demographical and economic 
explanations seem to have relevance to both the volume and timing of 
emigration — have been supported by Charlotte Erickson. Erickson draws 
                                                           
20
  
Ettinger 1976, 860-861.  
21
  
Gartner 1984, 1-3. 
22
  
Gartner 1984, 4. 

---