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

 
201
 
The French were the only ones that agreed with the British suggestions. 
They believed that recognition of the annexations could indeed be made subject 
to a reaffirmation of the Berlin Treaty minority clauses. Italy was also in favour 
in principle, but it proposed that the Powers should act independently. The 
others did not want to make an official statement — Russia, especially, was 
against any further affirmation of minority rights. The British government 
thereby had to conclude that there was no prospect of a joint Great Power 
agreement on the matter. Britain decided to act on its own.  The Foreign Office 
intended to notify the Balkan governments about its intention to recognise the 
annexations on the condition that the Balkan states affirmed the binding force of 
the Berlin Treaty’s minority provisions.
81
 
 
In early April, Grey had informed Noel Buxton in the House of Commons 
that the Foreign Office planned to ask consuls who were stationed in the 
Balkans to write reports on minority issues.
82
 In May and June, unpleasant 
reports began to arrive from the Balkan Peninsula. The main problem was the 
Serbian situation, while there were only relatively minor grievances against 
Greece and Bulgaria. Romania was not mentioned in this context at all. 
However, the reports relating to other Balkan countries had some relevance to 
the Romanian situation as well, since they had an effect on the general British 
policy on the Balkan minority issues. 
 
The Serbian document described endless atrocities performed by the Serbs 
in the annexed Macedonian districts: forced emigration, closing of schools, 
destruction of mosques, confiscation of property, excessive taxation and lack of 
parliamentary representation, violence, rape, and torture. This oppression 
affected the Moslem population the most, and there were not many measures 
taken particularly against Jews — just as in Dobrudja, Jews were not specifically 
targeted.
83
  
 
The new Serbian territories had a large proportion of non-Serbs. The Serbs 
formed only a minority, and the other sections of population were comprised of 
Turks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Vlachs, and Macedonians. The Serbian 
policy seemed to aim at forced Muslim emigration and the resettlement of the 
area with ethnic Serbs.
84
 In the new Bulgarian territories, both Greeks and 
Muslims had complaints, but these were relatively minor in comparison to the 
situation in Serbia. Greece took anti-Slav measures in its new areas in order to 
drive away the Slav population. As in the other countries, these measures 
focused on schools and churches, and forced emigration.
85
  
                                                           
81
  
FO 371/2110/72/14331, Grey to Bertie, Goschen, de Bunsen, Rodd and Buchanan, 6 
May 1914. 
82
  
Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 60, question: Buxton, answer: Grey, 2 April 
1914. 
83
   FO 371/2110/72/25085, vice-consul in Monastir Charles A. Greig to Chargé 
D’affaires in Belgrade, Dayrell Crackanthorpe, 25 May 1914. 
84
   Boechk 1996, 162-173. Boeckh has for the most part used the Foreign Office 
documents. 
85
  
Boeckh 1996, 198-199, 228-230. 

---

 
202 
 
The Foreign Office was pressurised into publishing the controversial 
reports because of some promises Grey had given to Buxton. The Serbian report 
was, however, so sensational that it could not be published, as it would have 
presented the Serbs in an unfairly critical light compared to the other Balkan 
countries. In any case, Grey had so far refrained from publicising atrocities in 
the Balkans. Moreover, the report was not considered to be entirely truthful by 
the Foreign Office establishment.
86
  
 
In this situation, the Foreign Office decided to wait. The officials argued 
that it would be undesirable to publish reports that showed ‘an all-around 
absence of civil and religious freedom’ in the annexed territories.
87
 Grey 
admitted in the House of Commons that the general conditions in the area 
appeared to be ‘disturbed’, which in his opinion indicated that the Balkan states 
should be allowed an opportunity to stabilise the situation in the annexed 
provinces.
88
  
 
Noel Buxton proposed in June 1914 that a special commission on the 
treatment of minorities would be set up, or, alternatively, a Balkan conference 
on the minority questions be held. These suggestions were not welcomed at all 
by the Foreign Office.
89
 On the other hand, the Foreign Office promised the 
House of Commons that the British government would not recognise the border 
changes in the Balkans until the governments acknowledged the binding force 
of the Berlin Treaty in respect to their new territories.
90
   
 
The attitude of the Foreign Office, in reaffirming its commitment to the 
binding force of the Berlin Treaty in relation to the annexed territories, was 
warmly welcomed by the main Anglo-Jewish organisations and the Jewish 
Chronicle. David Alexander even boasted in a Board of Deputies meeting that 
the zealous Conjoint campaign had been the crucial influence in bringing about 
the government’s attitude.
91
  
 
In early July 1914, the Foreign Office prepared a letter to be sent to the 
British representatives in Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Romania, and Montenegro. 
The ministers were instructed to communicate the contents to the governments 
they were accredited to. The British government promised to recognise the 
territorial annexations on the condition that the minority provisions of the 
Berlin Treaty were reaffirmed — just as it had planned to do since autumn 1913. 
However, the draft was not sent after all; it was ‘suspended’, which was the 
comment that Crowe wrote in the margin of the draft.
92
 Although the reason for 
                                                           
86
  
FO 371/2110/72/25085, minute by Crowe, 8 June 1914. 
87
  
FO 371/2110/72/25085, minute by Parliamentary Under Secretary Francis Acland, 8 
June 1914 or after. 
88
  
Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 63, question: Buxton, answer: Grey, 18 June 
1914 
89
  
Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 64, question: Buxton, answer: Acland, 29 June 
1914 and speech by Buxton, 29 June 1914. 
90
  
Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 63, question: Sir J. D. Rees (Nottingham East), 
answer: Acland, 10 June 1914. 
91
  
BDBJ 3121/A/16, BDBJ meeting, 21 June 1914. 
92
  
FO 371/2110/72/31766, Crowe’s draft for a circular to British representatives in the 
Balkans, 8 July 1914. 

---