Croats of the interior came under the control of the crown of Hungary and the Serbs, after a valiant resistance finally in the middle of the fifteenth century, fell under the dominion of the Turks.

In the meantime a continued contest for the possession of the cities of the coast and the narrow strip of land connecting them was being waged by Venice successively with the Byzantine Empire, the Kings of Hungary and various Slavic princes, with varying fortunes until by 1420 she finally secured definite control over all save Ragusa and its dependencies. From that time on Venice successfully resisted the advance of the Turks up the Adriatic. The Dalmatian cities, with the exceptions just mentioned, remained under the sway of the Lion of St. Mark until the conquest and dismemberment of Venice by Napoleon. Hence the imprint of Venetian culture, which is so apparent in the coast towns to-day. Dalmatia was apportioned to Austria by the Treaty of Campo Formio in 1797 and was confirmed to her by the Treaty of Vienna in 1815, when the Emperor of Austria added to his titles that of King of Dalmatia. Since that time it has remained among the Hapsburg possessions until the close of the recent war. While Dalmatia was attached to Austria, Croatia in 1867 was incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary. After the RussoTurkish War Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkish Provinces, were entrusted by the Congress of Berlin in 1878 to the adminstration of Austria-Hungary. After holding them in trust for twenty years in 1908, the European situation being favorable, the Dual Monarchy formally annexed them, without seeking the sanction of the European powers. This nearly precipitated a war, but Russia had not recovered sufficiently from her war with Japan to effectively champion the cause of Serbia, which had looked forward to adding these lands to a greater Serbia.

This region of the Balkans previously so unfamiliar to the average American has been thrust upon our attention during the past year or more by the almost daily reports of the dramatic developments relating to the territorial issues connected

with its various lands and peoples. No question gave the Peace Conference more trouble from first to last, or, was more productive of intense feeling and friction, both within and without the Paris Conference, than those relating to the boundaries of the new Jugo-Slav State and a satisfactory solution of the Adriatic problem. The efforts to reconcile the territorial claims and aspirations of the Southern Slavs and the Italians have so far been unsuccessful.'

By the Treaty of London, April 25, 1915, which remained secret until published by Trotsky, the Allies, to secure the entrance of Italy into the war on their side, conceded to her not only Goritzia, the peninsula of Istria-including Trieste, the chief commercial port of Austria, but also the northern half of Dalmatia and the numerous islands that hem in the main land nearly as far South as the City of Spalato. Southern Dalmatia with the islands not given to Italy was to be neutralized, and Valona in Albania was also to be granted to Italy to enable her to dominate the Adriatic. Thes econcessions run directly counter to the aspirations of the Jugo-Slavs, who assert that the inclusion of any of the territory of the former province of Dalmatia is contrary to the racial, cultural and economic needs of the overwhelming majority of the population. For they claim that there are over 290,000 Jugo-Slavs in Northern Dalmatia as against some 16,000 Italians, or less than three per cent.

By the Treaty of London, Fiume was not included in the territory guaranteed to Italy, as in 1915 it was not anticipated that Austria Hungary would be so completely crushed. But with the signing of the Armistice, Italy advanced its claims and insisted upon the possession of Fiume also. The JugoSlavs have strenuously opposed this new demand to their chief and only first-class commercial port.

Italy bases its claims to Fiume as well as to the northern part of Dalmatia on racial, cultural, economic and strategic grounds. The majority of the inhabitants of the city of Fiume, apart from the smaller and older Slav city of Sussek, is undoubtedly Italian, although the figures given are con1 See post, p. 414, note 1.

flicting. Major Powell states that three-fourths of the city's 40,000 population is Italian, while Professor Seymour of Yale cites the Hungarian official statistics for Fiume and suburbs as showing the races nearly equally divided. It is safe to conclude that the life, architecture, prevailing language, and other cultural aspects of the city are Italian, although it is surrounded on all sides by a Slav population. Italy's historic claim to Fiume is weak. While the city has been subject to Italian influence and culture, it had not been under Italian rule prior to d'Annunzio's seizure of it, save for a few days under the Republic of Venice.

The economic basis for Italy's demand for Fiume is to insure her commercial supremacy in the Adriatic. Should the city pass into Jugo-Slav or neutral control, Italy believes that the trade of Trieste with the interior would be diverted to Fiume, and the former city's commercial ruin would follow.

But the strongest of the reasons urged in support of Italy's claims to Fiume as well as to parts of Dalmatia and the adjacent islands is based on the necessity of military protection. The fundamental question at issue between the Italians and the Jugo-Slavs is due to the strategic importance of the Adriatic and the contrasting nature of its two shores. The Italian coast is low and singularly devoid of good natural ports, while the Eastern shore, on the other hand, possesses a number of excellent harbors, and in addition the greater portion of this coast is flanked and protected by a series of islands, thus providing ample opportunity for the shelter of a hostile navy. The naval menace of the Eastern shore of the Adriatic, within four or five hours steaming distance of the Italian coast is an alarming one and it is natural that Italy should seek protection, not so much against the new JugoSlav State, but against the possible menace of a united and aggressive Panslavic power of the future which may threaten her security. She therefore demands strategic points on the coast like Fiume, Zara, Valona, and several of the important islands.

The Slavs meet each of these claims by counter arguments.

They maintain that on ethnic and geographical grounds Fiume belonged to Croatia and Croatia is now a part of the Jugo-Slav State and that the population of the surrounding territory is purely Slav. The Slavs' claim to Fiume on commercial ground, however, seems the weightiest of all, inasmuch as it is not only the natural but also almost the only feasible port of the new state. As an answer to the suggestion that she should utilize some one or more of the good harbors along the coast, the statement of a United States naval officer, reported by Major Powell, may be quoted. "It is not," he states, "a question of finding a good harbor. It is a question rather of finding a practicable route for a standard gage railway over or through the mile high range of the Dinaric Alps. Until such a railway is built the peoples of the interior have no means of getting their products down to the coast save through Fiume. Italy already has the great port of Trieste. Were she also to be awarded Fiume, she would have a strangle-hold on the trade of Jugoslavia which would probably mean that country's commercial ruin."

To one who has travelled over the narrow gage mountain line from Gravosa to Sarajevo, the above opinion seems conclusive.

In reply to Italy's demand for strategic frontiers and ports and for the occupation of the Dalmatian archipelago it is pointed out that such a solution of the problem would be unwise and unjust as an additional cession to Italy of territory largely inhabited by a Slavic population. The islands, it is claimed, have a Slav population of over 116,000 to an Italian one of only about 1,500. Further, such an occupation would be a menace to the Dalmatian Slav ports, placing them and their approaches directly under the command of Italian guns. Finally they urge the consideration that militarism on the part of Italy toward Jugo-Slavia will beget militarism in return: that the proposed acquisition of a strategic boundary will in fact in the long run be a source of weakness rather than strength by creating a bitter antagonism and arousing a

sense of injustice on the part of the Slavic peoples so annexed, that it is likely to breed trouble.

From this analysis of the underlying factors in the situation, we turn to a review of the diplomatic developments and of the dramatic events which followed each other in rapid succession during the past year.

At the Peace Conference, President Wilson insisted that an adherence to the principles of "self-determination" and of "no bartering of peoples" would exclude Italy from the acquisition of either Fiume or Dalmatia, and he refused to recognize the secret Treaty of London. The public announcement of his views last spring created a sensation and led to the temporary withdrawal of Italy's representatives, Signor Orlando and Signor Sonnino, from Paris. Their subsequent loss of power and the formation of the new ministry of Signor Nitti led to no abatement in Italy's claims. There followed the sanguinary encounter between the French and Italian soldiers stationed in Fiume, and the coup d'etat of the Italian poet-aviator, Gabriele d'Annunzio, resulting in the seizure of the city by Italian troops and naval contingents that had placed themselves under his unauthorized leadership. The popularity of his act with Italians embarrassed the ministry and led it to pursue a temporizing policy toward d'Annunzio and his supporters, which cast suspicion on its sincerity. In the meantime, d'Annunzio continued to defy the government and seized Italian ships and war vessels with impunity, confiscated their cargoes and two million lire in money, directed a raid upon Zara, threatened other ports, and conscripted the inhabitants of Fiume for the defense of the city. The middle of last January he sent an airplane over Paris, which scattered over the city a cloud of papers which declared that "if the injustice against Italian Fiume and the Italian towns of Dalmatia is consumated, a combat is inevitable and blood must be shed."

While the Poet-Aviator was playing his spectacular role, the Powers continued to deliberate and to resort to the arts of diplomacy. The gravity of the situation, however, was