Politico-Economic Presence of the Kingdom of Serbia (Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes/Kingdom of Yugoslavia) on Romanian Territory: Navigation and Consular Representation (1903–1932)

Abstract

Beginning in the 1860s, both the Kingdom of Serbia (Yugoslavia) and Romania gained notoriety as important regional factors in the South-Eastern European struggle for power. The beginning of the 20th century marks the strategic emergence of common interests between the two states and significant growth of the trading volume between the two. In this context, the heightening presence of Belgrade on Romanian territory was noticed, both politically, highlighted by consular representation, and economically, defined through the Danubian navigation-commerce binomial relation. In the first three decades of the 20th century, the Yugoslav Kingdom represented an important factor in Danubian navigation and an active presence in Romanian ports. The main vector in promoting their economic interests in the region was the Serbian Navigation Company, which became the Serbian Navigation Service, and subsequently, the Yugoslav Navigation Service. This service operated in the majority of Romanian ports and competed successfully against a multitude of significant, long-standing companies. The dynamization of commercial trade on the Danube presupposed the operationalization of a consular network in Belgrade that included the port of Braila and the capital city, Bucharest. Between 1906 and 1932 the presence of 14 official Serbian (Yugoslav) consuls was recorded in Romania, of which 5 were based in Braila and 9 in Bucharest. In relation to the regional scale of the Serbian (Yugoslav) Kingdom in the aforementioned time period, Belgrade had a consistent politico-economic presence in Romania, with the interstate relations reaching significant heights that have temporarily contributed to the consolidation of regional stability.

1. Introduction

The aim of the study is to summarize a number of key points of the presence of Serbia (Yugoslav Kingdom) in Romanian cities during the first half of the 20th century from the perspective of economic interest generated by Danubian navigation and commerce, as well as consular representation as an element of political interest. The chosen period (1903–1932) takes into account the Serbian–Yugoslav economic–political presences in the Romanian space after the beginning of the 20th century. The years 1903–1930 mark a consistent presence in terms of navigation, while 1909–1932 marks consular representation, suggesting that the combined periodization should be 1903–1932.

The scientific breakthrough consists of highlighting the interests of the Serbian (Yugoslav) Kingdom in Romania—two states with a common rich history and gaining steady recognition regionally after acquiring their independence and liberating themselves from Ottoman influence. For the beginning of the 20th century, the existing historiography highlights the direct relationship between economic activities in the field of navigation/commercial exchanges and the consular representations whose duties are to promote them. From the perspective of the binomial “trade consular representation”, an insufficiently explored historical issue could consider the way in which navigation agencies collaborated or acted together in the promotion of the interests of the sending states. The archival material used in this study does not provide sufficient data on the functioning of this type of collaboration between the representations of the navigation companies and the consular ones. The main contribution of this study is a quantitative analysis of the way in which the navigation and consular representations evolved in the Romanian space in the first three decades of the 20th century. Starting from these historical landmarks, further research could consider the analysis of topics such as the relationship between the representatives of the Serbian/Yugoslav navigation companies and the consular officials in Romanian cities; the way in which Serbian/Yugoslav consular representations were involved in supporting the shipping agencies from Belgrade operating in Romanian ports; and the concrete steps taken by Belgrade consular officials, alongside the Romanian authorities, to promote their own economic interests.

Historiography—The main focal point of the research approach refers to the profound study of original documents existent in the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Romania (AMFAR) in the “Foreign Representatives in Romania—Staff of Foreign Embassies and Consulates” [trad.: Reprezentanți străini în România—Personalul Legațiunilor și Consulatelor străine] collection, file no. 17 (Serbia) and in Subject 68—Romania and Foreign River, Maritime, and Air Navigation Companies, Vol. 17 (Yugoslavia). The data collected following the research process was completed with elements extracted from specialty works undergone by authors such as Carmen Atanasiu, Thoma Gâlcă, Wlaker D. Hines, Emil Octavian Mocanu, Lucia Taftă and Grigore C. Vasilescu.

2. Historical Context

Starting with the first two decades of the 19th century and until the beginning of the Second World War, the Serbian (Yugoslav) Kingdom and Romania distinguished themselves as important regional factors in the South-Eastern European power struggle. Notwithstanding the geographical proximity and their riparian status, these two state entities were in the center of historical evolution in the aforementioned period that were linked to the so-called “European question” (the decline of the Ottoman Empire.) A significant event in the common history between Serbia and Romania sought state independence and exiting Ottoman domination, following the Russo-Turkish war between 1877 and 1878, which ended in the defeat of the Empire, consecrated through the San Stefano and Berlin treaties. After gaining independence, the main political objectives of the two states focused on offensive techniques that sought its consolidation, imposing their stances on an European level, imposing their sovereignty on Danubian territorial waters, and promoting their own economic interests. During the same time period, both states understood the need for institutionalizing their own navigation companies that would ensure their independence from already established companies that operated on the Romanian Danube since the 1830s. Since the beginning of the 20th century and until the start of the Second World War, Serbia and Romania bore relevant roles in the Danubian region and the Balkans, having crucial positions during the Balkan Wars, the First World War (at the end of which the two states were on the same side), and key-events of the interwar period. The aforementioned period established a substantial development of the bilateral Romanian-Serbian relations. The political component of these collaborations materialized through the emergence of the Little Entente in the year 1921, a strategic initiative between Romania and Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, later joined by Czechoslovakia, whose purpose was the diminishing of Hungary’s territorial claims (Fejito 1991).

The cooperation between the Yugoslav Kingdom and Romania gained innovative positive aspects in February 1934 in the context of shared belonging in the Little Entente or the Balkan Pact, an alliance that ensured regional security (Bordeiu 2008).

3. Presences of Yugoslav Navigation in Romanian Ports (1903–1930)

In the second half of the 19th century and until the start of the Second World War, the Danube was characterized as a real “land” of commercial and political competitiveness, making it an archetypal landmark in Europe’s history. Its protagonists were mainly the great riparian or non-riparian states (Austria-Hungary, France, Russia, and Italy.) The end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century mark new relevant entities on Danubian navigation markets, namely, riparian, continuously affirming states after gaining their independence, such as Romania, Serbia, and Bulgaria. In this geopolitical and economic competition, these states acted with the purpose of creating and consolidating their own fleets in order to diminish their degree of dependence from foreign navigation companies for commercial trade purposes. The first institutionalized models of Serbian navigation on the Danube materialized under the French-Serbian Company with its headquarters in Paris in the years following the Crimean War. Its founders were Prince Mihailo of Serbia and Claude Boiullon. The company specialized in transporting cargo between Marseille, Istanbul and the Danube (Uygun 2018, p. 107), a navigation line for regular trade to Belgrade via the Romanian Danube was created to facilitate the process. In 1861, the company had coursed the route regularly between Belgrade and Galati, stopping at Braila, utilizing two vessels. The shipyard’s fleet was supplemented with four more vessels to withstand the demand. In the same year, the Franco-Serbian Company benefitted from a concession between the Braila Harbor and renting additional storage space (Taftă 1999, pp. 139, 165; Mocanu 2013, p. 108).

At the start of the 20th century, the Serbian Navigation Company (DRP), which operated in the majority of Romanian harbors, competed successfully against great names in the Danubian navigation industry at that time: the Austrian company Erste Donau-Dampfschiffahrts-Gesellschaft (DDSG), the Hungarian company MFTR, the Romanian River Navigation (RRN) Company, and the Russian Navigation Company. In the year 1903, the Serbian Company’s fleet consisted of seven ships/tugboats with a total capacity of 2855 HP and 42 barges/tankers with a total capacity of 16,300 HP. In the same year, the Serbian Company handled 18 of its own pontoons (Mocanu 2013, p. 289).

At the end of the First World War, the DRP, alongside other Yugoslav companies, was at the top of logistic capability in Danubian navigation, owning 165 propulsion vessels and 928 vessels without propulsion (Atanasiu 2003, p. 141).

In 1922, the Serbian Navigation Service became Yugoslav and is began its consistent presence in the Romanian ports Orsova, Turnu Severin, and Bazias. The operating agreement between the two states mainly sought the imposition of mooring conditions in Romanian ports of long-distance vessels exclusively; the Romanian state added the condition that eventual advantages for Serbian ships were to be granted reciprocally (AMFAR, Subject 68, Vol. 17, Note nr. 6785 of 9 March 1920).

In 1925, DRP kept its spot in the most successful navigation companies through having a consistent and diversified fleet made up of passenger ships—9760 HP; tugboats—34,243 HP; and barges and tankers—475,679 tons (Hines 1925, p. 15).

The Serbian Navigation Company (DRP) was founded in 1926. Before this date, the majority of its Yugoslav commercial fleet was grouped in Brodarski Sindikats (SHS) (Vasilescu 1931, p. 65).

At the end of the 1920s, DRP was part of a cartel in Danubian navigation, alongside the following companies DDSG, MFTR, Lloyd Bavarian, the Continental Navigation Company of Amsterdam, and the SND (Gâlcă 1930, p. 164).

The importance of DRP in the main scheme of Danubian navigation was highlighted in the year 1930, when alongside the DDSG, MFTR and RRN, they would ensure the passage transport routes from Regensburg to the Black Sea (Vasilescu 1931, p. 40).

Previously, in 1924, 81% of the fleet belonged to the Yugoslav state, with the rest of it belonging to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, and included 24 passenger ships, 59 tugboats, 520 barges, and 31 tankers. In the year 1930, the Serbian Navigation Company owned a fleet that consisted of 21 passenger ships, 47 tugboats, 442 barges, and 28 tankers, extending its branches alongside the Danube, Tisa, and Drava (Mitea 2022, p. 237).

In early 1930, the Yugoslav Shipping Company also entered the Danube shipping scene, which operated seven tugboats, 66 barges, and a passenger vessel on the Danube (Vasilescu 1931, p. 66).

The ascent of Yugoslav navigation on the Romanian Danube during the interwar period was linked to a common interest of Romania and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the Iron Gates region, which led to a strategic partnership between the two states.

In 1925, this context generated an extraordinary opportunity when the SHS syndicate transported, from its national Yugoslav ports, significant quantities of corn through the Iron Gates to Galati and Braila for maritime export. Romanian ships belonging to the RNN also participated in this effort. The referenced period was characterized by the most pronounced convergence of Yugoslav and Romanian interests regarding the use of the Iron Gates (Hines 1925, p. 30). In 1929, the volume of Yugoslav grain traffic bound for the Black Sea amounted to 568,747 tons, while that of petroleum products totaled 558,054 tons (Mitea 2022, p. 201).

The Romanian-Yugoslav collaboration pertaining to the Iron Gates was institutionalized through the Versailles Treaty, in which the International Danube Commission (IDC) received the task to temporarily administer the maritime pilotage until Orsova, until the two states would form an agreement regarding the operation of a joint technical and administrative co-riparian service, which comprised Romanian and Yugoslav officials under the supervision of IDC (Vasilescu 1931, p. 27).

Another Yugoslav presence on the specter of both Danubian navigation and Romanian maritime transport was the Plovidha Company from Susak, which, in 1926, expressed its interest in direct maritime connections between Yugoslavia and Romania. This interest materialized through the implementation of regular monthly routes between the Dalmatian ports and the Sulina, Galati, and Braila ports. At that time, the Romanian Legation in Belgrade informed the authorities in Bucharest of the progress of the Yugoslav societies compared to economic relations and improving political bilateral relationships between Romania and the Yugoslav Kingdom (AMFAR, Subject 68, Vol. 17, Nota Legației României la Belgrad).

4. Serbia’s Consular Network in Romanian Cities (1909–1932)

Consular representation is an extremely important institution in ensuring the citizens’ protection scheme, especially the migrant population, and the state’s economic and commercial efforts. The institution of the consulate can be traced back to antiquity, when there was a need to protect sailors and traders that had abandoned their homelands to settle in foreign countries (Timofte 2010, p. 49).

The main elements in the conceptual sphere of consular representation sought terms such as the sending state, which establishes a consular office on a receiving state’s territory; consular offices of different ranks (consular agency, vice consulate, and general consulate); and consular ranks (consular agent, vice-consul, consul, and consul general).

Consular offices bore autonomy over the legates (embassies) in the states where they operated, only having a political subordination requirement. Generally, establishing a consular office sought to support the presence of significant communities of migrants in a certain region, whose interests and/or the existence of economic interests in that area had to be protected. When practicing this consular activity, according to the punctual interests of the sending state, the advancing or lowering of an office’s rank could happen, whether a consulate agency became a vice consulate or a consulate was demoted to a vice consulate (Mitea 2025, p. 81.)

The first form of political bilateral dialogue between Serbia and the Romanian Principates was institutionalized in the year 1836 when the Serbian Princely Diplomatic Agency was inaugurated in Bucharest (Ciurușchin 2010). After the conference in Berlin in 1878, Serbia and Romania obtained complete independence and diplomatic relations were raised to the highest level. Serbian representation in Bucharest had been upgraded to a diplomatic mission in January 1879 and from May the same year Minister Resident Milan A. Petronijevic was put in charge of the mission. (Zec 2011, p. 139).

The ensuing relations within the Little Entente, which matured over time into strong, friendly and efficient cooperation, was only possible owing to the capability and professionalism of both Yugoslavian and Romanian diplomatic agencies. Regent Aleksandar of Yugoslavia and his advisors thought it was very important to keep the highest possible standard of their homeland’s diplomatic missions in Romania. The diplomatic agencies of Yugoslavia functioned on two levels, as was common in European diplomatic practice: on a high political level (diplomatic mission) and on practical and economic levels (consulates) (Zec 2011, p. 141).

Both in the 19th century and today, the work of consular offices involves not only citizen protection within their area of representation but also promoting the commercial interests of sending states. In this context, the incipient forms of Serbian consular representation in Romanian cities were linked to the interest in the commercial potential of Romanian ports in the Danube, which were institutionalized in the year 1859. Consequently, in October 1859, the Serbian Commercial Agency was established in Braila. Constantin Karcea was appointed head of the organization and received the title of “praetor,” a similar rank to consul in the sense of political representation of an analogous entity (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17, Note 283/1859, Agentul diplomatic al Serbiei în Principatele Unite). In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bucharest Archive, there are no notes regarding the year in which the agency ceased its operations.

In 1906, the Serbian authorities requested the approval of the Bucharest branch regarding the establishment of a new commercial agency in Braila under the leadership of Eftimie Popovitch, representative of the Sava Bank in Belgrade. This agency operated under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Trade, and Industry in Belgrade (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/P7, Note 107/1906, Legația Serbiei).

In 1907, following the resignation of Eftimiu Popovitch, the leadership of the Serbian Commercial Agency in Braila was undertaken by Georges Nikolitch (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/P6, Note 432/1907, Legația Serbiei).

Two years later, in 1909, the Commercial Agency of Serbia in Braila was transformed into a consulate. This change sought to significantly grow the volume of Serbian commercial activity in the ports in Galati, Braila, and Constanta. Georges Nikolitch thus acted as consul of the novel office, a former commercial agent of Serbia in Braila. The jurisdiction of the new Serbian office included Braila, Covurlui, Putna, Tecuci, Tulcea, and Constanta counties (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. N1/S4, Note 53/1909, Legația Serbiei).

In 1914, this jurisdiction was extended over Silistra and Durostor counties (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 1/S8, Note 12/1914, Legația Serbiei). Georges Nikolitch received the “exequatur” for the Royal House of Romania in August 1909. He maintained this position until October 1924, when he was relieved of his duties due to significant health problems (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/N1, Note 1312/1909, Legația Serbiei; Nota 52707/1924, Legația Regatului Sârbilor, Croaților și Slovenilor).

In November 1914, M. Milankovitch was named consul general of Serbia in Bucharest (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/M15, Note 2330/1914, Legația Serbiei la București).

In the following years, the dynamic of consular representation of Serbia in Romania bore the following evolution:

• On 1 March 1920, Mirko Petchar was appointed viceconsul at the Consulate-General of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in Bucharest. He kept his position until August 1922, when he was transferred to Marseille in a similar position (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/P8, Nota 283/1920; file no. 17/K6, Nota 501/1922, Legația Serbiei).
• On 18 August 1922, Dobrivoie Svilokositch concluded his term as Consul-General in Bucharest, having been appointed to a similar position in Cairo (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/K6, Nota 523/1922, Legația Serbiei).
• Djuro (Georges) Kolombatovitch, former Vice Consul in Düsseldorf, undertook Mirko Petchar’s duties in August 1922. His mission concluded in September 1923 (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/K6, Nota 544/1923, Legația Serbiei).
• In August 1922, Raiko Vintrovitch was appointed as the new Consul-General of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in Bucharest (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/K6, Nota 523/1922, Legația Serbiei). Prior to his naming in this position, he was a director of the Consular and Commercial Section at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/V2, Note 599/1922).
• In September 1923, Dragutin Kulmer was appointed vice-consul in Bucharest, having previously carried out specific duties at the Serbian office in Düsseldorf (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/K6, Nota 544/1923, Legația Serbiei).
• Dimitryevitch Janitchije was names Consul-General in Braila in May 1926. His naming coincided with the opening of a Consulate-General of the Yugoslav Kingdom in the Danubian port. Previous to his naming in Braila, the Serbian official had been a Consul-General at Constantinople (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/D2, Nota 385/1926). He fulfilled his duties until May 1927.
• Antitch Milan was named Consul-General in Bucharest in October 1927 after his previous position as Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/A9, Nota 536/1927).
• Sava Spasojevitch, former Sercetary I at the Serbian Legate in Sofia, was named consul in Braila in May 1927, taking over the duties of the former Consul-General, Janitchije Dimitryevitch (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/S12, Note 254/1927). In this context, most probably, the consular office in Braila had changed its rank from Consulate-General to consulate.
• In March 1927 in Bucharest, a new Consul-General was named: Scetozar Rachitch, who previously occupied a similar position in Prague. He replaced Raiko Vintrovitch, who was appointed at the head of the administrative and legal section within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/R4, Nota 98/1927).
• Ivan Voukotitch was appointed Consul-General in Bucharest in May 1928. He had previously served as a counsellor at the Legation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Budapest. He completed his mission in July 1929, having been appointed to a similar post in Genoa (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/V4, Nota 138/1928, Nota 3209/1929).
• Anton Novacan was appointed consul in Braila in October 1930, replacing Sava Spasojetvitch, the latter having been transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/N6, Nota 420/1930, Legația Serbiei).
• Ivan Bozic was appointed consul of Yugoslavia in Braila in March 1932, taking over the duties of Anton Novacan. During that time, the jurisdiction of the consular office in Braila included the following counties: Braila, Constanta, Tulcea, Ismail, Covurlui, Cahul, Tighina, Cetatea Albă, Lăpușna, Orhei, Fălciu, Tutova, Tecuci, and Râmnicu-Sărat (AMFAR, Reprezentanți, file no. 17/B4, Notele 110 și 116/1932, Legația Serbiei).

See Appendix A.

Note: The names of consular officials of the Kingdom of Serbia (Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes/Kingdom of Yugoslavia), who worked in Romanian cities, were indicated with transliterations specific to the Romanian and French languages, used in the diplomatic correspondence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bucharest, for the period to which the study refers.

5. Conclusions

The beginning of the 20th century marked the emergence of common strategic interests of the Kingdom of Serbia (Yugoslavia) and Romania, as well as a significant increase in the trade volume between the two states. In this context, the consolidation of the common strategic presence of Belgrade in the Romanian geopolitical space became noticeable, both through the Danubian navigation-commerce binomial factor and from a political standpoint, as proven by increased consular representation.

During the time periods discussed in the article, the Yugoslav Kingdom was an important factor in Danubian navigation and an active presence in Romanian ports. The main vector in promoting its economic interests in the region was the Serbian Navigation Company, which successively and subsequently became the Serbian Service for Navigation and the Yugoslav Service for Navigation. This service operated in the majority of the Romanian ports and successfully competed against long-standing companies.

The shipping capabilities range of Yugoslavia had steadily diversified during the years 1920–1930, resulting in the following transformations: the emergence of a Syndicate of Serbian Navigation; the transformation of the Yugoslav Navigation Service into the Royal Yugoslav Navigation Society (1926); the emergence of new routes on the Danube and the Black Sea by the Jadranska Plovidha Company (1926); and the emergence of the Yugoslav Navigation Company (1930).

The growth of trade volume on the Danube entailed the establishment of a consular network driven by Belgrade, which included the Braila port and the capital city, Bucharest. The incipient forms of Serbian consular representation in the Romanian geopolitical space materialized through the establishment of the Commercial Agency of Braila (1906), which subsequently became a consular office. Thus, the interest in the potential commercial prowess of the Romanian ports of the Danube became apparent. The direct connection between the economic and political interest segments, given by consular representation, was also highlighted by the fact that the first consul of Belgrade in Braila was Georges Nikolitch (1909), who, since 1907, had headed the Serbian Commercial Agency in this port city.

For the reference period, consular representation of Belgrade in Romania involved the following significant milestones:

• The establishment of the Consulate in Braila in 1909, based on the former structure of the Serbian Commercial Agency in the same port city;
• The emergence of the Consulate-General of Serbia in Bucharest (1914);
• The conversion of the Braila Consulate to a Consulate-General (1926);

Between 1906 and 1932, the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bucharest record the presence of 14 Serbian (Yugoslav) consular officials: five in Braila and nine in Bucharest.

My article takes a two-pronged approach to Yugoslav interests in Romania: shipping/trade and consular representation. The substantial development of these two components during the same historical period clearly confirms a direct link between them. Thus, the Kingdom of Serbs (Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Yugoslavia) sought to establish a greater economic presence in Romania. This strategic intention also materialized in a consolidated consular network in the Romanian capital and in the port of Braila, a hub for trade in various commodities, particularly cereals. Until the beginning of the 20th century, Belgrade had no operational consular representation in Romania, a mechanism directly linked to promoting the sending state’s commercial interests in the receiving state. Based on the documents analyzed and presented in the text, the direct link between the two strands of this approach is also highlighted by the fact that the consular office in Braila, established in 1909, grew out of the former Serbian Commercial Agency in this port city, which had been operating there since 1906. As we mentioned above, in 1926, the Jadranska Plovidba company proposed regular monthly sailings between Dalmatian ports and Sulina, Galați and Braila. The Romanian Legation in Belgrade conveyed to Bucharest the assessment of the Romanian consul in Zagreb, who held that the initiative would be “of real benefit to the development of economic relations, as well as to closer political ties”. This is a particularly clear example of the role a consular post plays in promoting shipping links.

Given the regional scope of the Serbian (Yugoslav) Kingdom, during the time period covered by this study, Belgrade had a consistent economic and political presence in Romania. There were strategic relationships that were reached, constituting an efficient state of collaboration that temporarily contributed to the consolidation of regional stability.