The Treaty of Bukarest marked the predominance of Roumania in Balkan
affairs. And of course Roumania had her own reward. She had long
coveted the northeastern corner of Bulgaria, from Turtukai on the
Danube to Baltchik on the Black Sea. And this territory, even some
miles beyond that line, Bulgaria was now compelled to cede to her by
the treaty. It is a fertile area with a population of some 300,000
souls, many of whom are Turks.
The claim of Roumania to compensation for her neutrality during the
first Balkan war was severely criticized by the independent press of
western Europe. It was first put forward in the London Peace
Conference, but rejected by Dr. Daneff, the Bulgarian delegate. But
the Roumanian government persisted in pressing the claim, and the
Powers finally decided to {113} mediate, with the result that the city
of Silistria and the immediately adjoining territory were assigned to
Roumania. Neither state was satisfied with the award and the second
Balkan war broke out before the transfer had been effected. This gave
Roumania the opportunity to enforce her original claim, and, despite
the advice of Austria-Hungary, she used it, as we have already seen.
The Roumanian government justifies its position in this matter by two
considerations. In the first place, as Roumania was larger and more
populous than any of the Balkan states, the Roumanian nation could not
sit still with folded arms while Bulgaria wrested this pre-eminence
from her. And if Bulgaria had not precipitated a war among the Allies,
if she had been content with annexing the portion of European Turkey
which she held under military occupation, New Bulgaria would have
contained a greater area and a larger population than Roumania. The
Roumanians claim, {114} accordingly, that the course they pursued was
dictated by a legitimate and vital national interest. And, in the
second place, as Greeks, Servians, and Bulgarians based their
respective claims to Macedonian territory on the racial character of
the inhabitants, Roumania asserted that the presence of a large
Roumanian (or Vlach) population in that disputed region gave her an
equally valid claim to a share in the common estate.
In all Macedonia there may be some 100,000 Vlachs, though Roumanian
officials put the number much higher. Many of them are highland
shepherds; others engage in transportation with trains of horses or
mules; those in the lowlands are good farmers. They are found
especially in the mountains and valleys between Thessaly and Albania.
They are generally favorable to the Greek cause. Most of them speak
Greek as well as Roumanian; and they are all devoted members of the
Greek Orthodox Church. Yet there has been a Roumanian {115} propaganda
in Macedonia since 1886, and the government at Bukarest has devoted
large sums to the maintenance of Roumanian schools, of which the
maximum number at any time has perhaps not exceeded forty.
Now if every other nation--Greek, Servian, Bulgarian--which had
hitherto maintained its propaganda of schools and churches in
Macedonia, was to bring its now emancipated children under the benign
sway of the home government and also was to annex the Macedonian lands
which they occupied, why, Roumania asked, should she be excluded from
participation in the arrangement? She did not, it is true, join the
Allies in fighting the common Moslem oppressor. But she maintained a
benevolent neutrality. And since Macedonia is not conterminous with
Roumania, she was not seeking to annex any portion of it. Yet the
rights those Roumanians in Macedonia gave her should be satisfied. And
so arguing, the Roumanian government claimed as a _quid pro {116} quo_
the adjoining northeastern corner of Bulgaria, permitting Bulgaria to
recoup herself by the uncontested annexation of Thrace and Eastern
Macedonia.
Such was the Roumanian reasoning. Certainly it bore hard on Bulgaria.
But none of the belligerents showed any mercy on Bulgaria. War is a
game of ruthless self-interest. It was Bulgaria who appealed to arms
and she now had to pay the penalty. Her losses enriched all her
neighbors. What Lord Bacon says of individuals is still more true of
nations: the folly of one is the fortune of another, and none prospers
so suddenly as by others' errors.