Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
On November 28, 1904, a new commercial treaty was signed between Germany and Serbia. Though limited in economic impact, the treaty carried political implications which greatly magnify its historical importance. For both signatories this treaty proved consequential to their respective relations with Austria-Hungary. Indeed, for Serbia it became one of the bases from which to carry on the struggle for the fulfillment of her national ambitions. But while its final importance is political, and emphatically so, the treaty can scarcely be understood without an appreciation of the economic motivation behind it. It will not do to dismiss the treaty as merely another manifestation of German expansionism; money, not empire, seems to have lured Germany into this rockiest part of the Balkans. The Serbo-German commercial treaty, therefore, must be studied against the background of two rivalries, separate both in membership and in kind— one the rivalry, mainly political and national, between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and the other the commercial rivalry between Germany and Austria-Hungary in the Balkans. In the pages that follow an attempt will be made to pursue the second aspect in some detail; the first can here only be summarized.
1. The literature on the Austro-German economic rivalry in the Balkans is very large, though a complete modern study is still missing. Some aspects of this rivalry have most recently been treated in the following: Paskaleva, V., “Über den wirtschaftlichen Einfluss Österreich-Ungarns in Bulgarien 1878 bis 1918,” in Österreich-Ungarn in der Weltpolitik, ed. Klein, Fritz (Berlin, 1965), pp. 184–203;Google ScholarTodorova, Zwetana, “Die deutsch-bulgarischen Handelsbeziehungen in den 80-er und 90-er Jahren des XIX. Jh.,” Académie Bulgare des Sciences; Institut d'Histoire, Études Historiques 3 (1966): 254–82;Google ScholarLoding, Dorte, “Deutschlands und Österreich-Ungarns Balkanpolitik 1912–1914 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer Wirtschaftsinteressen,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Hamburg, 1967);Google ScholarFischer, Fritz, Krieg der Illusionen (Düsseldorf, 1969), pp. 413–34;Google ScholarBridge, F. R., From Sadoua to Sarajevo (London, 1972), passim;Google ScholarGutsche, Willibald, “Serbien in den Mitteleuropaplänen des deutschen Imperialismus am Vorabend des ersten Weltkrieges,” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschqft 23 (1975): 35–48.Google Scholar
2. The text of the Austro-Serbian Secret Convention of 1881 is reprinted in Pribram, Francis, The Secret Treaties of Austria-Hungary (Cambridge, 1920), 1: 51–55.Google Scholar
3. The Serbian national aims were clearly enunciated in the writings of two influential Serbian statesmen of the nineteenth century, Ilja Garašanin (1812–74) and Jovan Ristić (1831–99). In the writings of both men, Austria-Hungary is portrayed as the enemy of the Serbian people. Cf. Hiller, Gerhard, Die Entwicklung des österreichisch-serbischen Gegensatzes 1908–1914 (Halle-Wittenberg, 1934), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
4. Bridge, pp. 45, 123, 262, 273, 278–79.
5. There was, of course, a third way—force. The application of force was frequently advocated, particularly by military circles, but the politically responsible elements, prior to 1914, always considered this solution inappropriate. Cf. Bridge, pp. 381–82.
6. Germany's share of Austro-Hungarian exports, in 1894, was 48.6%, that of the imports, 34%. By 1904, the respective figures were 44.6% and 36.7%.
7. Germany, Auswärtiges Amt, Akten [selected German Foreign Office Files, 1867–1920; microfilmed at Whaddon Hall] (hereafter cited as GFMA), Deutschland 172, vol. 1, Romberg to Bülow, no. 173, Aug. 2, 1901.
8. GFMA, Serbien 4, vol. 9, Wedel to Bülow, no. 368, Nov. 23, 1904.
9. Bridge, pp. 268–69, erroneously claims that the Austro-German commercial treaty was concluded in 1906. He confuses the conclusion of the treaty with its coming into force.
10. Austria, K.u.K. Ministerium des Äussern, Diplotnatische Aktenstücke über die Handelsvertragsverhandhngen mit Serbien, 1905–1906 (Vienna, 1906);Google ScholarKraljevsko, SerbiaMinistarstvo, SrpskoDela, Inostranikh, Diphmatska Prepitska O Pregovorima Sa Trgouinski Ugovor C Austro-Ugarskom (Belgrade, 1906).Google Scholar
11. Djordjević, Dmitrije, “Tentatives de Collaboration Serbo-Hongroise en 1906,” Acta Jugoslaviae Historica 1 (1970): 117–43.Google Scholar
12. GFMA, Deutschland 172, vol. 5, Heyking to Bülow, no. 117, Sept. 14, 1904.
13. Ibid.
14. GFMA, Deutschland 172, vol. 6, Heyking to Bülow, telegram no. 44, Oct. 1, 1904.
15. Ibid., Bülow to Wedel, telegram no. 204, Oct. 3, 1904.
16. Ibid., Wedel to Bülow, telegram no. 126, Oct. 5, 1904.
17. Ibid., Heyking to Bülow, telegram no. 45, Oct. 7, 1904.
18. Neue Freie Presse, Vienna (hereafter cited as NFP), Nov. 13, 14, 1904.
19. GFMA, Deutschland 172, vol. 6, Heyking to Rosen, private letter, Nov. 14, 1904.
20. Trgovinski Glasnik, Belgrade, Oct. 6 (Sept. 22, old style), 1904.
21. GFMA, Serbien 4, vol. 9, Wedel to Bülow, no. 368, Nov. 23, 1904.
22. NFP, Jan. 31, 1905.
23. NFP, Jan. 29, 1905.
24. NFP, Feb. 8, 1905.
25. GFMA, Deutschland 172, vol. 6, Heyking to Bülow, telegram no. 7, Feb. 19, 1905.
26. Volkswirtschaftliche Chronik (Jena), Feb. 1905, p. 78.
27. NFP, Feb. 17, 1906.
28. Fritz Fischer mistakenly dates the outbreak of the customs war in 1905. Cf. Fischer, p. 413.
29. Bridge, p. 279.
30. It must be pointed out that beginning in 1907, Serbia was able to find access to a number of other markets, most notably in Turkey and Belgium, and to some extent in Great Britain and Italy.
31. Computed from: Austria, Handelsstatistischer Dienst, Statistische Übersichten betreffend den auswärtigen Handel der wichtigsten Staaten in den Jahren 1905–1909 (Vienna, 1912), pp. 45–48.Google Scholar
32. E.g., strong political and economic, especially financial, support from Great Britain and France.
33. Bogičević, Miloš, Die Auswärtige Politik Serbiens, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1931), 1: 2–3Google Scholar
34. Siécle, Paris, Jan. 25, 1906.
35. GFMA, Serbien 4, vol. 9, Monts (Rome) to Bülow, no. 45, Jan. 30, 1906.
36. Quoted in the London Times, Apr. 14, 1906.
37. British Documents on the Origins of the War, ed. Gooch, G. P. and Temperley, Harold, 11 vols. (London, 1926–1938) 5, no. 132, Thesiger (Belgrade) to Sir Edward Grey, Apr. 19, 1906; also no. 131, Sir George Buchanan (Sofia) to Grey, Apr. 18, 1906.Google Scholar
38. Bridge, p. 270, errs when he claims that this proposal was made in Apr. 1905. It was, in fact, made on Mar. 8, 1905. Cf. Die Grosse Politik der europäischen Kabinette 1871–1914, ed. Thimme, Friedrich et al. , 40 vols. (Berlin, 1922–1928), 22: 11–17.Google Scholar
39. GFMA, Serbien 7, vol. 16, Heyking to Bülow, no. 163, Nov. 22, 1904. In a private letter to Rosen (ibid., Heyking to Rosen, private, Nov. 25, 1904), Heyking calls the latter's attention to his report no. 163 and summarizes his arguments.
40. Ibid., Richthofen to Heyking, telegram no. 58, Dec. 17, 1904.
41. Löding, pp. 3–32, comes to the same conclusion.
42. Intimately connected with the problem of Germany's economic penetration of the Balkans is the problem of the relationship between government and business, between economics and politics in imperial Germany. This problem, despite such massive efforts as those of G. W. F. Hallgarten and Fritz Fischer, is as yet quite incompletely studied and understood. See Hallgarten, G. W. F., Imperialismus vor 1914 (Munich, 1963),Google Scholar and Fischer, Fritz, Illusionen and Griff nach der Weltmacht (Düsseldorf, 1961).Google Scholar
43. Quoted by Bridge, p. 268.
44. GFMA, Deutschland 172, vol. 6, Wedel to Bülow, private letter, Dec. 26, 1904.
