Paris Peace Conf. 184.01102/91
As in the reports on a temporary boundary for Carinthia, (Enclosed
with my Despatch No. 73),59 the opinion of Prof. Kerner disagrees with
that of the other three gentlemen. Here again my own opinion
coincides with that of the majority. When all is said and done, the
differences between the two recommendations come down to simple
principles. The recommendation of Prof. Kerner, the frontier line of
the Drave River, is based on the principle of nationality as
expressed by language and is justified from that point of view. The
recommendations of the other three investigators are in accordance
with what they believe, and it seems to me with good reason, to be
the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants, that is to say the
principle of self-determination. We have thus a clear-cut issue. Of
course the Yugoslavs and their partisans will deny that there is a
pro-Austrian feeling among the Slovenes south of the Drave and will
make an outcry if a contrary view prevails, but that does not affect
the rights and wrongs of the case, if the evidence is sufficiently
conclusive.
In this as in other connections, the geographic and economic unity of
the Drave Valley, especially dwelt upon by Major Martin, a competent
professional geographer, should be taken into consideration. His
arguments appear to me irrefutable and a reference to the small
maps, “Distribution of Cultures in the Austrian Alps” and “Density
of Population in the Austrian Alps”, appended by him, Annexes 3 and
4,60
serves to strengthen the impression. The testimony of the people on
the spot corresponds with this. Even in these excited times, when
national sentiment is at white heat, evidently many of the
inhabitants of the Drave Valley of both nationalities wish above all
things to remain under one government, whatever that may be, rather
than to be separated in a way that they realize would be ruinous to
them. Their preference for Austrian rule may therefore be regarded
as being primarily due to a legitimate sense of their own interests
and not to national propaganda.
If the objects of the Commission are not to reverse the results of
the colonization, peaceful or otherwise, of centuries, but to
establish the future frontiers on the lines most satisfactory in
themselves and most in accordance with the wishes of the people
immediately concerned, I venture to think that the recommendations
of Lt. Col. Miles, Major Martin and Lt. LeRoy King should be
accepted as correct.
[Enclosure]
Lieutenant Colonel Sherman Miles, Major Lawrence Martin and Lieutenant Le
Roy King to Professor A.
C. Coolidge
Report No. 13
Vienna, February 12, 1919.
Subject: Study of the final frontier between
Austria and Jugoslavia in the provinces of Carinthia and
Styria.
1. By your direction we submit the following report on the above
question, based on our recent ten days investigation in
Carinthia, and on two days of study and observation in Styria,
made in connection with the provisional line of demarcation in
Carinthia. Our field work in Carinthia consisted largely in the
attempt to arrive at the real desires of the people in the
disputed districts of that province, and secondarily in a study
of the geography, both physical and economic. We believe that
this field work has given us a fairly good insight into the
questions which should affect the final frontier in Carinthia.
Our work in Styria, on the other hand, was so general in nature
and so short in duration that our conclusions on the question of
the final frontier of that province can only be made by analogy
from our work in Carinthia.
The general problem.
2. The following basic facts of the problem impressed themselves
upon us more and more strongly as our work continued.
- (a)
- The northern fringe of the Slovene population has been so
thoroughly Germanized that it does not wish to be separated
from Austria. This of course, is a general statement, and
refers only to the majority sentiment. The Jugoslavs contend
that this Germanization is artificial and has been effected
almost entirely by political and social oppression. The
Germans, on the other hand, contend that it is the natural
result of the benefits which German economics and education
have given the Slovenes. This raises the question of what
“self-determination” means when applied to a people who do
not want to join the nation of their blood-brothers, or else
are absolutely indifferent to all national questions,
however these effects may have been produced. Personally, we
feel that the factor of economics enters so largely into the
present and future happiness of these people that it should
be given the greatest consideration. It does not seem to us
that a people now enjoying the benefits of the more highly
developed Austrian commercial life, and consciously or
unconsciously clinging to that life when expressing their
desire to remain Austrian, should be forcibly joined to the
Jugoslav state.
- (b)
- The contention of the Jugoslavs that self-determination is
obscured in the Slovene population by terrorism, we found to
be utterly unfounded. We examined case after case of alleged
terrorism
[Page 516]
on the
part of the Austrians, because we wished to determine
whether or not the Slovenes were being bullied into saying
what they did not think. We found only the most ridiculously
tame foundation for their “atrocity stories”, and a great
deal of direct proof that the Slovenes had no fear in
declaring for Jugoslavia when they really thought that
way.
- (c)
- The respective nationalistic claims of the two sides,
Austrian and Jugoslav, are made from such totally different
points of view that they cannot be considered to be on the
same plane. The Austrian claim is both more intelligent and
more conservative. It is that of a beaten people who see
clearly that they must give up a great deal, and that the
burden of proof in all cases rests heavily upon them. The
Jugoslav authorities, on the other hand, are men who have
had much less experience in government and whose reason has
been warped by long and very bitter political oppression.
They now suddenly find themselves in an infinitely better
political position than their Austrian antagonists, and do
not hesitate to make the most of it. Their maximum claim,
therefore, includes almost the last Slav in Austrian
territory. When confronted by the fact that these last Slavs
say they want to remain Austrian, the Jugoslav replies that
this is the effect either of terrorism or of forceful
Germanization, and therefore should not be considered. From
our study of the two contending claims, both on the spot and
from the official documents of the authorities, we are led
to the conclusion that there is, in general, more reason in
the maximum claims of the Austrians than in the minimum
claims of the Jugoslavs.
3. No conclusion as to the final frontier between Austria and
Jugoslavia can, we believe, be just unless it is based on these
three basic facts, i. e., that there are many Slovenes along the
border who really want to remain with Austria, that Slovene
self-determination is not obscured by Austrian terrorism, and
that the Austrian and Jugoslav nationalistic claims are not on
the same plane of reasoning.
4. The remaining considerations which affect the question of
final frontier, in addition to self-determination, are, we
believe, geographic and economic.
Self determination.
5. We append a map hereto (marked “A”)61 compiled from
the Austrian census of 1910, showing the racial distribution in
Carinthia on the basis of the umgangssprache (language of intercourse). We used this
map in Carinthia as a basis of study, but keeping always in mind
first, that it in no way shows the density of population, and,
second, that the umgangssprache (as we
found out for ourselves) is not a good indication of the desires
of the people.
[Page 517]
6. It is apparent from the map that, should the final frontier
run along the northern fringe of the Slovene population, the
basin of Klagenfurt, which is the heart of Carinthia, would be
cut, and the economic life of all Carinthians would suffer in
consequence. As a matter of fact, our investigations in
Carinthia convinced us beyond question that all of the people,
Slovenes as well as Germans, in the economic basin of Klagenfurt
and its two sub-markets, Villach and Völkermarkt, have the
strongest desire to remain together, and preferably under
Austrian rule. That part of Carinthia which lies south of the
Gail and the Drau is to a lesser extent economically dependent
on Klagenfurt and its subsidiary markets. The Slovene blood is
here more predominant (as shown on the map), and the desire of
the people is not so strongly pro-Carinthian or pro-Austrian as
it is north of the rivers. Nevertheless, we found by actual
field investigation (and very much to our astonishment) that the
majority sentiment of the people south of the rivers and north
of the Karawanken was for Austrian, rather than Jugoslav
nationality. We consider that we have very strong proof of this
fact (developed at length in our report No. 9,62 forwarded to Paris
by your despatch No. 73), and were much impressed by finding the
same sentiment in the territory occupied by the Jugoslav forces
as in that occupied by the Austrians.
7. Therefore, from the point of view of self-determination, and
taking self-determination in its literal meaning, we would
recommend that the final frontier in southeastern Carinthia
follow the watershed of the Karawanken. (A technical description
of the above line is to be found in our report No. 10,63 forwarded to
Paris under your despatch No. 73).
8. To the west of a north and south line through Tarvis (now
occupied by the Italians), there is a Slovene population in the
valley of the Gail, as shown on the accompanying map “A”.
Although our investigations did not take us up this valley, we
obtained clear indications that these Slovenes, economically
dependent on the German town Villach, have no strong
pro-Jugoslav feelings, but, on the contrary, have a strong
desire to remain under the same political administration as that
controlling their Austrian market. Hence we believe that the
Slovenes of the Gail valley should be considered, from the point
of view of self-determination, as Austrians. Without desiring to
go into any of the details of the complicated Italo-Austrian
frontier question, we would point out that the Karawanken
watershed, recommended above as the final frontier, has a
natural extension to the west in the watershed of the Karnische
Alps.
9. By analogy between Styria and Carinthia, on the question of
the difference between the blood and the desires of the people,
we would
[Page 518]
strongly
recommend that the frontier in Styria be not drawn along the
northern fringe of Slovene blood, but that it follow some such
natural line as that of the Bacher Mountains and thence across
to the Mur southeast of Radkersburg, thus making due allowance
not only for the German towns of Marburg, Mureck and
Radkersburg, but also for the Slovene population around those
centers, whom we believe really desire to remain Austrian.
Geographic
consideration.
10. The best geographic frontier being that which runs along the
least inhabited and accessible regions, there is no question in
our minds but that, in the case of southeastern Carinthia, the
rugged and forbidding Karawanken Mountains would make the best
frontier. The line of the Gail and the Drau is, of course, a
possible line, as are several other conceivable ones further to
the north. But the Gail and Drau have the disadvantage of all
rivers, from the point of view of a frontier, that intercourse
flows down to and crosses them from both sides. From the town of
Unterdrauburg to the small city of Marburg this disadvantage of
the Drau is less marked, since the river flows through a deep
valley with fairly precipitious and wooded slopes. Nevertheless,
even in this region the Drau is by no means an ideal frontier,
especially since it becomes involved in the difficult question
of waterpower. As the larger tributaries of the Drau and the
Gail all flow down into them from the north, no really good
frontier, from the geographical point of view, could be fixed
north of these rivers without going deeply into a population
which is German by blood as well as Austrian by sentiment.
11. The geographic consideration therefore leads us to the same
conclusion as that reached in considering self-determination—i.
e., that the watershed of the Karawanken forms the ideal
boundary of southeastern Carinthia. And, by analogy, the west
and east extensions of the Karawanken, the Karnische Alps and
the Bacher Mountains, we believe to be the best frontier.
Economic
considerations.
12. The economic unity of Carinthia is indisputable, especially
after a study of the question on the spot. Economically, the
whole province centers in the Klagenfurt Basin, marked out by
the German towns of Villach, Klagenfurt, Völkermarkt, Bleiburg
and Lavamünd. This unity is, of course, brought about by the
geographical configuration of the province. A more detailed
discussion of the economic conditions as they should affect the
final frontier, will be found in the report on this subject of
Major Lawrence Martin, Chief, Geographical Section, Military
Intelligence, General Staff. As the above mentioned report is
written by a student of economic geography, it is not thought
necessary to go into great detail on this line of reasoning
[Page 519]
in the present report.
We may sum up our study by the recommendation that, from the
point of view of economics, it is highly undesirable that the
province of Carinthia be divided by a political frontier. If the
political unity of Carinthia is respected, the evidence we
obtained from the Slovenes themselves shows that
self-determination will unquestionably give it to Austria rather
than to Jugoslavia or to Italy.
13. Extending our recommendation as to the final frontier
eastward through the province of Styria, by analogy from our
studies in Carinthia, we recommend that the frontier, from the
point of view of economics, run along the Bacher Gebirge, across
the Drau south and east of Marburg and thence across the
Windisch Bühlen to some point on the Mur River southeast of
Radkersburg (as shown on attached maps).64 It will
undoubtedly be objected that this proposed frontier would cut
straight across the Pettauer Feld (Basin of Pettau). This might
operate to the detriment of the city of Marburg. But on the
other hand, Marburg (as we have seen) is so essentially
Austrian, and the Pettau Basin (we believe) so essentially
Slovene, that no economic injustice would be done either side.
Marburg would still be what it is now, the Austrian center of a
winegrowing district largely owned by Austrians. Its being cut
off from the Pettau Basin would probably not greatly affect
either it or the basin, since the natural effect of the frontier
would simply be to build up the town of Pettau as the basin
center, while Marburg would still continue to feed to the north
and to the west.
Summary.
14. Reasoning in the light of the three facts which our studies
have convinced us are true and essential—that there are many
Slovenes who do not wish to join Jugoslavia, that this
self-determination is not the result of Austrian terrorism, and
that the Jugoslav and Austrian territorial claims are not made
on the same plane of logic or expediency—we strongly recommend
that the final frontier between Austria and Jugoslavia in the
province of Carinthia be drawn along the watershed of the
Karawanken Mountains. By analogy, we further recommend that this
frontier be extended to the west and to the east by lines
described above and drawn in ink on the maps attached
hereto.
15. It is only fair to say that we began the study of this
frontier with very different impressions, and that facts alone
have changed them and have led us to believe that the line
described above is the best from each of the three points of
view of self-determination, geography, and economics.
[Page 520]
16. The Germans in 1871 took Alsace-Lorraine on the grounds that
most of the people spoke German, were economically dependent on
Germany, and would in a few years become thorough Germans. It
seems to us that the Jugoslavs are now making an analogous claim
in regard to the Slovenes in Carinthia and Styria, but with less
basis of fact, both ethnically and economically, and
consequently with even less chance of ultimate success. The
difference between the potential powers of national absorption
of the Germany of ’71 and the Jugoslavia of today are, of
course, obvious.
Note.
In this report we have not attempted to describe in detail our
methods of investigation, nor the resultant information obtained
in the various geographical districts into which, for
convenience, we divided southeastern Carinthia. These details
will be found in our reports forwarded to Paris by your despatch
No. 73 on February 10th.
- Sherman Miles
- Lawrence Martin
- Le Roy King
