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

 
21
organised solely to pressure the government and alter public opinion, but 
influencing gentile opinion still constituted a significant field in their activities. 
 
The Conjoint Committee favoured a discreet approach not only in its 
dealings with the Foreign Office but also in the way it publicised its campaigns. 
The leaders of the Anglo-Jewry did not want to risk the gains of emancipation 
they had acquired during the nineteenth century. The image of the British Jews 
as a law-abiding and well-integrated section of the population was always 
guarded very carefully. This meant that the Conjoint Committee opposed 
public rallies and marches because they threatened the respectable image of the 
Anglo-Jewry and were thus counter-productive. The Conjoint believed that 
nothing could be gained by demonstrations.
43
 This did not mean that no public 
action was taken, nor did it mean that everything happened behind closed 
Conjoint doors. Campaigns in the press were common, not only in the Jewish 
weekly newspaper, the Jewish Chronicle, but also in the mainstream press, in 
which pieces clarifying the ‘real’ situation in Romania (or elsewhere) were 
written and replies to any hostile articles were quickly produced.  
 
For the most part, research on British early twentieth century international 
relations has traditionally focused on the developments leading to the First 
World War, with much emphasis on the ‘threat of Germany’ and other 
comparable matters. British-Romanian relations in the period 1900-1914 have 
been for the most part ignored. Furthermore, there is no modern, all-
encompassing study on British-Romanian relations
44
.  
 
‘Romania ... seldom has been an area of serious concern of Britain’s foreign 
policy’.
45
 This summary by Paul D. Quinlan holds true especially for the time 
period prior to the First World War. British interests in Romania were chiefly 
connected with trade and finance. The main British investments in Romania 
were in oil, but Romanian grain exports and Danube navigation were also 
matters of interest. As far as the political issues were concerned, the Jewish 
question played a large role. The interests of Great Britain in the Romanian 
Jewish question originated partly in its international standing as one of the 
Great Powers, which justified its interference in the affairs of other, smaller 
countries. Britain had traditionally been the Power which was most likely to 
take action on behalf of human rights causes. However, there were also 
domestic factors that made Britain pay attention to the Romanian Jewish 
                                                           
43
  
Black 1988, 302; Levene 1981, 30. 
44
  
A classic general history is Nicolae Iorga’s A History of Anglo-Roumanian Relations 
(1931). Iorga’s study discusses the period before Romanian independence. Iorga 
mentions Jews in a hostile tone. There is a separate volume, a supplement to the 
periodical Anuarul Institutului de istorie si arheologie ”A. D. Xenopol” (1983), containing 
articles on British-Romanian relations and covering economic, political, and cultural 
relations. These articles are based on presentations given in the colloquy of 
Romanian and British historians in Iaşi 1981. Amazingly, the Jewish question is not 
discussed at all. W.N. Medlicott’s two-part classic article, The Recognition of 
Roumanian Independence (1933), is based on British diplomatic correspondence and is 
therefore particularly interesting. It gives a detailed chronological account on 
diplomatic developments, and the Jewish question features prominently.  
45
  
Quinlan 1977, 13, 15.  

---

 
22 
problem: the strong domestic Jewish lobby and the consequences of Jewish 
immigration to Britain. 
 
The British policy towards the Romanian Jewish question was related to 
the possibility of diplomatic intervention in Romanian internal affairs.
46
 The 
Treaty of Berlin (1878) was the international legal document that determined 
the position of Romanian Jews. The Congress promised to recognise Romanian 
independence on the condition that Romania guaranteed equal rights to 
persons of all religious confessions. Consequently, Romania passed a new 
naturalisation law in which the treaty provisions were very narrowly 
interpreted.
 
The Treaty of Berlin also brought about the idea of Great Power 
intervention — that is if one accepted that the Treaty allowed for joint Great 
power action on behalf of the Romanian Jews and that the Treaty provided for 
the possibility of joint Great Power action on behalf of Romanian Jews. The 
Treaty of Berlin was often referred to by the British government in 1900-1914, 
and the possibility of intervention was brought up frequently, not only in the 
context of the Jewish question, but when discussing other Balkan problems as 
well.     
 
 
1.5 Research questions 
 
 
Based on the considerations outlined above, my study concerns British and 
Anglo-Jewish views on the Romanian Jewish question in the early twentieth 
century. The topic will be approached from the viewpoint of Jewish diplomacy, 
international protection of minorities, and international relations. The research 
problems are related to the following themes: 
 
1) The conduct of Anglo-Jewish diplomacy on behalf of Romanian Jews 
 
2) The attitude of the British government as related to Jewish diplomacy 
 
3) The factors that shaped Jewish diplomacy and British foreign policy in 
 
the Romanian Jewish question.  
 
                                                           
46
  
Barry H. Steiner has studied preventive diplomacy directed at conflicts produced by 
ethnic rivalry within a state. According to Steiner, the conflict is between the ethnic 
group that controls the government and another group that is in a weaker position. 
Steiner has remarked that the great powers are rarely ready to intervene in internal 
ethnic disputes until the conflicts become violent. The great powers have to perceive 
the conflict to be an international issue. There are two objectives of preventive 
diplomacy: to enable the conflict to be discussed and negotiated, and to localise the 
dispute so as not to affect great power relations. However, at no point was it believed 
that the Jewish problem in Romania would escalate into an armed conflict. Certainly, 
the Peasant Revolt of 1907 had such undertones, but even the revolt did not include 
violent confrontation between Jews and the Romanian government. Neither did the 
Jewish population at any stage take up arms against the Romanians to resist 
government policy. Therefore, in the case of Romanian Jews, the issue of ‘preventive 
diplomacy’ was hardly applicable. Two of Steiner’s examples have some relevance to 
Romania, namely the Bosnian Revolution of 1875-1878 against the Ottomans and the 
Armenian unrest before the First World War, again in the Ottoman Empire. Steiner 
1998, 4, 10-13. 

---