Batschka

Serbian/Croatian: Bačka; Hungarian: Bácska; Slovak: Báčka

The Interfluve is bounded to the west and south by the Danube (Serbian: Dunav, Hungarian: Duna) and to the east by the Tisza (Serbian/Hungarian: Tisa). The north has no natural boundary; the Bačka region extends roughly south of the line between Baja and Szeged. Administratively, the region now belongs largely to the autonomous Serbian province of Vojvodina. Only a narrow strip of land in the north forms part of the Hungarian county of Bács-Kiskun, established in 1950 (known as Northern Bačka).

The Batschka region lies in the Pannonian Basin; the area of the Bács-Bodrog county, which existed until 1918, was 11,079 km². Three main morphological features characterise this area: in the north, there is a plateau cut by scattered valleys, which rises to a height of 140 to 160 metres in the north-west and slopes down to 110–120 metres towards the south. In the northern part of this plateau lie sandy areas which, in accordance with the direction of the wind after the Ice Age, run from north-west to south-east. These dune areas also mark the highest point, at 174 metres, near Sükösd in what is now Bács-Kiskun County in Hungary. This upland region drops off via a low but distinctive loess terrace, 10 to 15 metres high, at the elevation of Teletschka (Serbian: Telečka; Hungarian: Telecskai-dombság), down to the lower terrace of the Bácska lowlands. The subsoil here consists of reworked loess, fine alluvial deposits and sands. The elevation is around 90 metres. The lowlands are bordered to the west, south and east by the great alluvial plains of the Danube and the Tisza. The lowland rivers have formed numerous meanders, silted-up oxbow lakes, marshlands and pools with floodplain forests here. This marshy, amphibious floodplain, criss-crossed by river branches, consists of young alluvial material (alluvial deposits).

The hydrology distinguishes between the Oberland and the Unterland. Whilst the water table on the water-permeable loess and sandy soil in the Oberland is very deep and has fallen further as a result of drainage measures, in the Unterland it lies only a few metres deep. Before the regulation measures were implemented, large parts of the Lower Valley were regularly flooded at intervals, with only a few loess mounds protruding above the water. On the Teletschka terrace in particular, a ring of marshes formed due to seeping groundwater, which was drained away only slowly, if at all.

As part of the Pannonian Basin, the Batschka was repeatedly a transit route for various peoples. Before the Hungarian conquest, South Slavic groups settled here. Under Tsar Simeon I (864–927; reigned from 893), the Bács region was part of the First Bulgarian Empire. Following the Hungarian conquest of Syrmia in 1072, Bács became a bishopric in 1093; the region was converted to Catholicism and was eventually incorporated into the Archdiocese of Kalocsa in 1266. In the 11th century, the counties of Bács in the south and Bodrog in the north-west existed, whilst the north-east of the region belonged to Csongrád County. Bodrog Castle was destroyed during the Mongol invasion of 1241. The most important settlement was Bács Castle, which boasted a strong fortress. It served as both the bishop’s seat and the seat of the county.

The Hungarian peasant uprising of 1514 and its brutal suppression marked the beginning of a major turning point: following the fall of Peterwardein (Serbian: Petrovaradin, Hungarian: Pétervárad) had fallen on 27 July 1526, a predominantly Hungarian army was defeated by the Ottomans at Mohács on 29 August 1526. Thereafter, the Bačka region fell to the Ottoman Empire. From 1543, it belonged to the Pashalik [upper province] of Ofen (Hungarian: Buda) and the Sanjak [lower province] of Szeged.

Following the conquest by the Ottoman Empire and the displacement of the indigenous population, coupled with the influx of groups from the Balkans, an Ottoman cultural landscape emerged. This found its most obvious urban expression in the towns, particularly through mosques and bazaars; in Sombor (Hungarian: Zombor) alone, for example, there were 14 mosques. The rural cultural landscape was characterised by smaller market towns and clustered villages. Livestock farming dominated the economy. Raids by the Haiduks, for instance, as well as the double taxation of the subjects, led to an economic and demographic decline in the Bačka, particularly in the 17th century. However, unlike in Bosnia, for example, there was no Islamisation of the rural population.

During the ‘Great Turkish War’ (1683–1699), whilst the Habsburgs were reconquering Hungary, the Bačka became part of the Habsburg Empire from 1687 onwards. During this war and the subsequent ‘Kuruc War’, waged against the Habsburgs from 1703 to 1711 by the Hungarian magnate Franz II Rákóczi (1676–1735), the region suffered greatly and was depopulated. In the course of the hostilities, further south-to-north migrations of Serbian population groups took place. The ‘Great Migration’ under the Serbian Patriarch Arsenije III Čarnojević (1633–1706) – a flight from the Ottoman counter-offensive that struck Serbia in 1690 – became a national legend. On 14 October 1690, Belgrade (Serbian: Beograd), having been occupied for a short time by Habsburg troops, returned to Ottoman control.

From 1687 onwards, the Bačka region was initially administered by the Vienna Court Council of War. It was only after the Treaty of Sathmar (1711) that it was handed over to the Hungarian civil administration. The administrative centre became the Peterwardein Fortress (Neusatz). In 1729, Bodrog County was dissolved and incorporated into Bács County; the same applied in 1751 to the greater part of the ‘Tisza-Maros Military Frontier’ in the east. The Tschaikisten district remained under the direct authority of Vienna until 1872.

The state-owned estates in the Batschka were administered by the Hungarian Court Chamber (Camera Regia Hungarica or Camera Hungarica Aulica) in Pressburg (Slovak: Bratislava; Hungarian: Pozsony), and from 1784 in Ofen. The Cameral administration was subordinate to it. Only during the early Theresian period (1740–1755) were these estates administered directly by the Vienna Court Chamber. In any case, the dominant share of state-owned land formed the prerequisite for the comprehensive Cameral ‘colonisation’ of this area – a far-reaching transformation of the cultural landscape, particularly from the mid-18th century onwards, in the wake of agricultural modernisation processes, which continues to shape the region to this day despite several cultural-spatial transformations. This is reflected in the settlement morphology by the dominance of regular settlement patterns, extending as far as ‘highly colonial’ chequerboard layouts. On the one hand, new settlements were founded; on the other, existing irregular settlements were reorganised.

The towns, in particular those elevated to the status of royal free towns – Neusatz (1748), Sombor (1749) and Maria-Theresiopel – correspond to the Central European urban model. This was accompanied by the expansion of the transport network and the reclamation of land through the draining of (seasonal) marshes, as well as the construction of canals and flood defence measures. The first of these was the Franzens Canal (Serbian: Veliki bački kanal = Great Bačka Canal), completed in 1802.

The settlement of colonists from German territorial states, as well as from Alsace and Lorraine, acted as a catalyst for these processes. It was particularly in the villages shaped by these settlers that a ‘Germanisation’ of agriculture took place. Habsburg influence was also evident inSerbian Orthodox churches built in the Baroque style (Serbian Baroque), of which the Church of the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God (Serbian: Crkva Uspenje Presvete Bogorodice) in Neusatz is one of the best known.

The Josephine administrative reform of 1785, which lasted only a few years, once again curtailed county autonomy, as the Bačka region, together with the Banat, became part of the Timișoara district. At the same time, the reforms laid the foundations for the nobility’s growing influence through the sale of state-owned estates to private landowners. The following decades were characterised by the increasing Magyarisation of the multi-ethnic region, which found expression in the official introduction of the Hungarian language in administration and the courts (1832) and, increasingly, in schools as well.

Just a few weeks after the outbreak of the revolution in the Habsburg Empire in March 1848, the Serbs were already demanding territorial autonomy. The Hungarian Diet’s outright rejection of these demands sparked the Serbian–Hungarian War in June 1848. As early as the end of 1848, the Serbian forces were regarded by Vienna as allies against the Hungarian rebels. Many towns in the Bačka region became theatres of war; in April 1849, Klein-Ker (Serbian: today Bačko Dobro Polje, Hungarian: Kis-Kér) became the headquarters of Honvéd Major-General Maurus (Mór) Perczel (1811–1899); in June 1849, it was moved to Werbaß (Serbian: Vrbas, Hungarian: Verbász). At the end of June 1849, Schowe (Serbian: Šove, now Ravno Selo, Hungarian: Sóvé) became the headquarters of the commander of the Austro-Hungarian Southern Army, Joseph (Josip) Baron von Jellačić (1801–1859). The fortress of Peterwardein was also the scene of several battles. The German population – and, in the towns, the Jewish population as well – was subjected to widespread looting, requisitioning and the payment of tribute. In the eyes of the Hungarian and Serbian key players in this ethnic conflict, the Germans were regarded by both sides as suspects of collaboration with the opposing side.

Historical Southern Hungary (Hungarian: Délvidék) lay on theIstanbul–Belgrade–Budapest–Vienna axis and thus on a historic ‘route of peoples’.

The agrarian migration of the 18th century involved both organised and individual immigration from neighbouring regions. This coincided with forced migrations of Serbs as a result of theHabsburg–Ottoman Wars (1716–1718, 1737–1739, 1788–1789).

The first systematic German (and Hungarian) settlement took place in the 1720s. Initially, the focus was on the north-west of the Bačka; in 1729, Tschatalia (Hungarian: Csátalja) was founded. Settlement received a significant boost from the redrawing of the border following the Treaty of Belgrade (18 September 1739), in which the Banat once again became a border region, thereby making the Bačka more attractive for colonisation.

The planned early Theresian settlement was shaped by Anton Grassalkovich (1694–1771), who became President of the Hungarian Court Chamber in 1748. Apatin served as the starting point for the Chamber’s settlement in the Bačka region as early as the 1740s. In 1749, Bukin (Serbian: now Mladenovo, Hungarian: Dunabökény); further villages (Hodschag [Serbian: Odžaci, Hungarian: Hódság]; Kollut [Serbian: Kolut, Hungarian: Küllőd] and others) followed. Under Grassalkovich, approximately 5,000 families were settled between 1748 and 1762. Around half of these were Hungarians, just over 1,000 families were Germans, and the rest were Slavic settlers.

The cameral settlement, which was also favoured by the conditions established following the Peace of Hubertusburg in 1763, received fresh impetus from the economic official Anton von Cothmann (1720–1768), who was appointed Chief Inspector of the Settlement in early 1763. In the very same year, he submitted a comprehensive plan for the settlement in the Batschka region, which made him one of the key figures in Habsburg colonisation in Hungary. He advocated a policy of protecting peasants and saw this, in particular, as a means of increasing tax efficiency. His experiences and insights provided important impetus for the Theresian Urbarium. He also drew up a plan for the village of Gakowa (Serbian: Gakovo, Hungarian: Gádor), a quintessentially contemporary cross-shaped layout. In 1765, he found a capable colleague in Wolfgang von Kempelen (1734–1804), a Councillor of the Court Chamber. During the late Theresian settlement period, just under 1,300 German families were settled by the Chamber.

The ‘peak’ period of Josephine settlement spanned the years 1784–1786, when Protestant families were also specifically settled in the area. During this period, over 3,000 families flocked from Germany to the Batschka, a figure that even exceeded immigration to the Banat. However, it is important to note that during this phase, by no means were only German (Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed) settlers recruited. A characteristic feature of Josephine settlement policy was the resettlement of Germans, particularly in Serbian villages, which ultimately led to conflicts and efforts to separate the communities due to differing farming practices.

Following the initial demographic crisis in all settlement periods, the subsequent decades were characterised by demographic dynamism, increased settlement density, rising economic prosperity, and – after 1849 – the capitalisation of agriculture and processes of social differentiation. Added to this were ethno-demographic displacement processes resulting from differing levels of economic performance, which were further intensified following the land reform. German settlers bought into Serbian villages in particular. Here, the knowledge transfer from the settlers—who came from regions with more modern farming methods and had a higher literacy rate than the local population—had a significant impact. Furthermore, internal colonisation processes took place, with settlers moving to secondary settlement areas (Slavonia, Syrmia). In the early 19th century, some families had also moved further east (toRussia). From the late 19th century onwards, however, emigration of landless peasants to America intensified.

Population in the Batschka region by mother tongue and nationality:^[5]

The agricultural reforms of the 20th century became an instrument and an outlet for nation-state thinking and action. After the First World War, the Yugoslav state divided ‘foreign’ large estates into smallholdings ranging in size from two to five hectares; around 50,000 farms were thus created in Vojvodina. This led to the intended strengthening of the Serbian ethnic group. Approximately 33,000 Hungarian civil servants, large landowners and intellectuals left Vojvodina. Those who benefited included Yugoslav war volunteers (Dobrovoljci, Dobrowolzen), refugees, optants (optanti) and self-settlers (autokolonisti). In addition, Serbian officials arrived fromOld Serbia. Many German farm labourers lost their livelihoods. Consequently, a disproportionately large number of Germans were involved in emigration to America. Nevertheless, many ‘Swabians’ managed to consolidate their holdings by 1941 through their high level of capital accumulation. Many older Germans found it difficult to come to terms with their new nationality. Despite their above-average level of education and training, they were scarcely represented in senior administrative posts. Nevertheless, a prosperous and well-educated Swabian middle class established itself during the interwar period.

The German minority felt represented by the ‘Swabian-German Cultural Association’, founded in 1920, which was supported by a network of cooperatives (e.g. Agraria), the ‘Party of Germans in Yugoslavia’ or the newspaper *Deutsches Volksblatt *. By 1941, the Cultural Association had achieved an exceptionally high level of organisation, exceeding 90 per cent. In this context, the members of parliament from the ‘Party of the Germans’ mostly cooperated with the governments in Belgrade. However, this period was characterised by growing contacts with Germany. The Cultural Association received financial, political and ideological support, with the ‘Association for German Culture Abroad’ playing an important role. The Protestant Church received support through the Gustav-Adolf-Werk. Hitler’s seizure of power in 1933 also had immediate consequences for the German minority. Young intellectuals in particular proved susceptible to National Socialist ideology. Identification with the ‘motherland’ grew. This process was supported by targeted exchange and further education programmes in Germany. At the same time, between 1934 and 1938, there were growing conflicts between the so-called ‘renewers’, who openly espoused radical National Socialist ideology, and the leadership of the Kulturbund. Ultimately, partly due to the influence of the SS’s Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle (VoMi), the ‘renewers’ took control in 1938. Under the organisational leader Josef Beer (1912–2000), the Kulturbund was transformed into a National Socialist ethnic group organisation.

Following Yugoslavia’s military defeat and the Hungarian ‘reintegration’ of the Bačka in 1941, measures similar to those taken after the First World War were applied in reverse, with approximately 20,000 Hungarian civil servants and law enforcement officers being sent to this area. Initially, 12,000 Serbs, Jews and politically ‘unreliable’ individuals were interned; around 25,000 people fled to Serbia or were deported, whilst thousands were murdered. Their places were taken by over 13,000 Hungarians from Bukovina and Moldavia, joined by 2,500 Hungarians from other regions (Bosnia). In April 1944, approximately 16,000 Jews were deported; a large proportion were murdered in the Nazi death camps.

Between 1944 and 1947, tens of thousands of Hungarians again left the Bačka region – which was now once more part of Yugoslavia – either by fleeing or resettling elsewhere. By the autumn of 1944, a considerable proportion of the Yugoslav Germans had already fled or been evacuated. Just over 75,000 Germans are thought to have remained in the Bačka region. This population fell victim to massive and arbitrary violence at the hands of the Partisan regime. The Germans were collectively accused of collaborating with the German occupying forces. The ‘Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia’ (Antifašističko vijeće narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije, AVNOJ) under Josip Broz, known as Tito (1892–1980), therefore decided as early as 21 November 1944 to expropriate their property and strip them of their civil rights. In August 1945, the Law on Agrarian Reform and Colonisation was passed. As a result, all the assets of the German Reich and of persons of German ethnicity were transferred to the Yugoslav state (agriculture and forestry, power stations, hemp and sugar factories, mills and breweries, commercial enterprises, shops, town houses, libraries, etc.). Yugoslavia took a different path from other communist states in this regard, in that a large proportion of the land, which was primarily owned by ethnic Germans, was not collectivised but distributed to smallholders, often former partisans. However, quite a few of the Serbian settlers returned to their regions of origin.

By the end of 1944, some 30,000 Germans had already been deported from Yugoslavia to the Soviet Union for forced labour, including over 5,600 from the Bačka region. A transfer of the remaining German population to Germany, as provided for in the Potsdam Agreement, was rejected by the USA. Consequently, those who had survived the numerous massacres were herded into camps or put to work as forced labourers. Many did not survive the privations, abuse, epidemics and poor working conditions until the camps were dissolved at the end of 1948.

In terms of settlement geography, the Bačka region during the communist era was shaped by spatial planning measures such as socialist housing and urban development, as well as by kolkhozes and sovkhozes.

The break-up of the Yugoslav state after 1991, and above all the civil war (1991–1995), led once again to forced migration. Following the Dayton Accords (1995), the flow of refugees swelled once more; Vojvodina alone received 258,000 people, accounting for 42 per cent of all refugees. Following the Croatian recapture of (Croatian) Baranja, Eastern Slavonia and Western Syrmia in late 1997 and 1998, further waves of refugees reached Bačka. Finally, further refugees arrived from Kosovo in 1999 and 2000 (a total of approximately 190,000 people). Overall, these developments led to greater ethnic homogeneity in favour of the Serbs, as, at the same time, the exodus of ethnic minorities – particularly Croats (approximately 30,000 to 40,000) and Hungarians (approximately 30,000 to 50,000) – continued.

Despite differing baseline parameters and thus only limited comparability, the various censuses reflect the multi-ethnic character of the region. Added to this are processes of assimilation and dissimilation, which confirm these findings, as does the census carried out in 1850 in the ‘Voivodeship of Serbia and the Temesch Banat’. Out of a total population of 1,447,783, the following were recorded: 404,909 Romanians, 354,431 Germans, 295,922 Serbs and 258,419 Hungarians. In addition, there were 38,341 ‘Dalmatians or Bunjevci’, 28,048 Slovaks, 22,433 Bulgarians, 13,782 ‘other Slavs’ and 13,467 ‘Gypsies’, as well as other smaller ethno-confessional groups. Consequently, the Serbian population constituted only the third-largest ethnic group. For the district of Sombor in northern Bačka, comprising the sub-districts of Sombor, Apatin, Kula, Baja, Subotica and Senta, the 1857 census recorded the following percentage distribution of ethnic groups: Hungarians 42.0 per cent, Germans 31.9 per cent, Serbs 9.2 per cent, Jews 2.2 per cent, others 14.7 per cent. In the district of Apatin, Germans accounted for 60.7 per cent of the population. As late as 1931,‘Serbs’(native speakers of Serbo-Croatian of the Orthodox faith) still made up just under a quarter of the population in the Bačka region.

Migration in the 18th century was predominantly agricultural in nature, and the establishment of new settlements was facilitated by the emerging boom in the grain trade. Nevertheless, Anton Grassalkovich, President of the Hungarian Court Chamber in Vienna, had reservations about excessive German settlement and the resulting grain production, partly because of the restrictions this would place on pastoral farming, which was attractive to large landowners.

Particularly in the course of the Josephine settlement programme, not only the settlements but also the cultivated land within the municipal boundaries were subject to spatial planning measures. The municipal districts were organised in accordance with the requirements of a three-field system, with meadows, pastures, arable land and allodial land designated. Alongside checkerboard villages, this gave rise to the characteristic single- or multi-row street villages, which were gradually expanded as the population grew. The establishment of market towns was also an expression of the growing market orientation for agricultural produce.

The drainage of seasonal marshes and the construction of canals to regulate river courses and serve as trade routes provided significant impetus for agricultural production. Crucial to the economic development of the region was the completion of the Franz Canal, along which, as early as 1815, 1,277,082 Pressburg Metzen (around 960,000 centner) of grain, amongst other goods, were transported. Csaplovics (1780–1847) reports that, in the first 16 years, 10,723 laden vessels and 4,937 unladen vessels passed through the canal. This brought the Batchka granary closer to its markets.

Even in the first decades of the 20th century, the vast majority of the population was employed in agriculture. Before the First World War, only 4,578 workers were employed in industry in the Bačka region. The dominant focus on agriculture, together with the land ownership structures, initially encouraged, at best, the emergence of agrarian-oriented manufactories and, from the late 19th century onwards, industrial enterprises. These primarily produced larger mills; from around 1860, these were steam mills, which were the most modern in the Kingdom of Hungary at the time. In addition, there were breweries in Apatin and Kula; by 1898, there were eleven breweries in the region. In 1855, oil production began in Werbaß with the manufacture of machine oils, and later also edible oils. This gave rise to ‘Vital’, today one of the region’s leading oil producers.^[11] From the mid-19th century onwards, Neusatz was home to a tobacco factory, a silk factory and a spirits distillery.

Alongside the expansion of settlements in the 18th century, a specific Christian religious infrastructure also became established. On the one hand, this was a key concern for the settlers; on the other, the Church in particular took on an important role in maintaining social order. The parish priest played a vital and direct role in the local community. However, until a fully-fledged infrastructure was established, it was often members of religious orders – such as the Jesuits, the Paulines or the Franciscans – who were responsible for pastoral care. The geographical impact of pastoral care’s significant role on the settlement landscape is evident in the Catholic and Protestant church buildings, designed in accordance with Vienna’s specifications, with their characteristic colours of white and ochre yellow. This process of Baroqueisation is also reflected in theSerbian Orthodox churches of this period.^[13]

In the political debates of the interwar period, representatives of the ‘Conservatives’ and the Catholic Church in particular distanced themselves from National Socialist ideology. The most prominent example is Father Adam Berenz (1898–1968), who spoke out openly against the renewal movement and the ‘neo-pagan worldview’ in the magazine *Die Donau*. In doing so, he – like almost all priests in the Catholic Church – leaned towards the Hungarian nation state.

• Mathias Beer: The Flight and Expulsion of the Germans. Background, Course, Consequences. Munich 2011.
• Carl Bethke: The Germans in Vojvodina, 1918 to 1941. In: At Home on the Danube. Germans and Serbs Living Together in Vojvodina. Novi Sad 2009.
• Johann Böhm: The German Ethnic Group in Yugoslavia 1918–1941. Domestic and Foreign Policy as Indicators of the Relationship between the German Minority and the Yugoslav Government. Frankfurt am Main 2009.
• Konrad Clewing: The Dual Founding of the Serbian Vojvodina 1848–1851. Ethnopolitics in the Habsburg Empire. In: South-Eastern Europe. On Pre-modern Diversity and Nation-State Standardisation. Festschrift for Edgar Hösch. Munich 2005, pp. 253–302.
• Andreas Dammang: German Agriculture in the Banat and the Bačka. Munich 1931.
• Documentation of the Expulsion of Germans from East-Central Europe. Vol. V: The Fate of the Germans in Yugoslavia. Reprint of the 1961 edition, text unchanged. Munich 2004.
• Oskar Feldtänzer: Joseph II and the Danube Swabian Settlement. Documentation of the Colonisation in the Batschka Region 1784–1787. Linz 1990.
• Antal Hegediš; Katarina Čobanović: Demografska i agrarna statistika Vojvodine 1767–1867 [Demographic and Agricultural Statistics of Vojvodina]. Novi Sad 1991.
• Róbert Hermann; Thomas Kletečka; Elisabeth Gmoser et al. (eds.): From Revolution to Reaction. Sources on the Military History of the Hungarian Revolution 1848–49. Edited by Christoph Tepperberg and Jolán Szijj. Budapest, Vienna 2005.
• Nikola L. Gaćeša: Agrarna reforma i kolonizacija u Bačkoj 1918–1941 [Agrarian Reforms in Bačka 1918–1941]. Novi Sad 1968.
• Slavko Gavrilović; Iván Jaksić: Građa za privrednu i društvenu istorju Bačke u XVIII veku [Material on the Economic and Social History of Bačka in the 18th Century]. Belgrade 1986
• Zoran Janjetović: Between Hitler and Tito. The Disappearance of the Vojvodina Germans. Belgrade 2000.
• Karl-Peter Krauss (ed.): Agrarian Reforms and Ethnodemographic Changes. South-Eastern Europe from the Late 18th Century to the Present. Stuttgart 2009.
• Karl-Peter Krauss: A Region in Transition: Agricultural Modernisation and Changes to the Cultural Landscape up to the Mid-19th Century. In: At Home on the Danube. Germans and Serbs Living Together in Vojvodina. Novi Sad 2009, pp. 108–117.
• Veselinka Marković: Industrial Development in Vojvodina up to the First World War. In: At Home on the Danube. Germans and Serbs Living Together in Vojvodina. Novi Sad 2009, pp. 180–185.
• Anton Peter Petri: The Germans in Bačka also submitted petitions to the Emperor in 1849. Mühldorf/Inn 1992.
• Hermann Rüdiger: The Danube Swabians in Southern Bačka. Stuttgart 1931.
• Josef Schramm: Bačka. The Fertile Land between the Danube and the Tisza. Freilassing 1960.
• Gerhard Seewann: History of the Germans in Hungary. 2 vols. Marburg 2012.
• Norbert Spannenberger: Churches and Denominations in the Bačka and the Banat in the 18th and 19th Centuries. In: At Home on the Danube. Germans and Serbs Living Together in Vojvodina. Novi Sad 2009, pp. 142–149.
• Holm Sundhaussen: History of Yugoslavia 1918–1980. Stuttgart et al. 1982.
• Holm Sundhaussen: Vojvodina: ‘a miniature Austria’. In: At Home on the Danube. Germans and Serbs Living Together in Vojvodina. Novi Sad 2009, pp. 98–107.
• Doris Wastl-Walter; Milan Cvetanović; Ágnes Erőss et al.: Transnational Migration and Cross-Border Mobility as Factors Influencing Regional Development in the Hungarian-Serbian Border Region. In: Graz Papers on Geography and Spatial Research, Vol. 46 (2011), pp. 247–262.
• Sebastian Werni: Vojvodina 1848–1860 as a national and constitutional problem. On the history of the Serbs and the Germans in former Southern Hungary. Vienna 1981.

• www.arhivsombor.org.rs/ Istorijski Arhiv Sombor [Sombor Historical Archive].
• http://www.arhivns.rs/ Historical Archive of the City of Novi Sad.
• http://www.maticasrpska.org.rs/ Matica Srpska, Novi Sad.
• www.muzejvojvodine.org.rs/ Muzej Vojvodine [Museum of Vojvodina], Novi Sad.
• www.difmoe.eu/d/periodical/uuid:4951eaf7-0a51-4388-8862-6dac7d14e12c/ The Danube. Weekly newspaper for the Catholic German community in Hungary. Apatin, Berenc 1940–44.

[1] The ‘Tchaikists’ were naval soldiers or river sailors. The term derives from the name given to the boats commonly used in this region, the ‘Tschaiken’ (from the Serbian ‘Šajka’). These were manoeuvrable, shallow-draught vessels equipped with cannons.

[2] Zoltán Fallenbüchl: Anton Cothmann, Settlement Officer under Empress Maria Theresa. In: Communications from the Austrian State Archives 44. Vienna 1996, pp. 109–122, here p. 118.

[3] For details on the biography and life’s work of Anton Cothmann, including further references, see Fallenbüchl: Anton Cothmann (note 2).

[4] Oskar Feldtänzer: Joseph II and the Danube Swabian Settlement. Documentation of the Colonisation in the Batscherland 1784–1787. Linz 1990, p. 108.

[5] Andrija Bognar: The Status of Hungarians in Vojvodina from 1918 to 1995. In: Aleksander Ravlić (ed.): Southeastern Europe 1918–1995. Zagreb 1996, p. 90, quoted from Carl Bethke: German and Hungarian Minorities in Croatia and Vojvodina 1918–1941. Concepts of Identity and Ethnopolitical Mobilisation. Wiesbaden 2009, p. 647.

[6] Determined on the basis of native speakers of Serbo-Croatian of the Orthodox faith.

[7] Carl Bethke: The Germans in Vojvodina, 1918 to 1941. In: At Home on the Danube. Coexistence of Germans and Serbs in Vojvodina. Novi Sad 2009, pp. 196–208, here p. 196.

[8] Documentation of the Expulsion of Germans from East-Central Europe. Vol. V: The Fate of the Germans in Yugoslavia. Reprint of the 1961 edition, text unchanged. Munich 2004, pp. 180E–184E.

[9] On the debate concerning the reliability of the census, see: Konrad Clewing: ‘The Dual Rationale for the Serbian Voivodeship 1848–1851. Ethnopolitics in the Habsburg Empire’. In: South-Eastern Europe. On Pre-modern Diversity and Nation-State Standardisation. Festschrift for Edgar Hösch. Munich 2005, pp. 253–302, here: pp. 270–272.

[10] Antal Hegediš, Katarina Čobanović: Demografska i agrarna statistika Vojvodine 1767–1867 [Demographic and Agricultural Statistics of Vojvodina 1767–1867]. Novi Sad 1991, p. 128.

[11] vital.rs/o-nama/istorijat-fabrike/ (23 October 2015).

[12] Arnold Suppan: Hitler–Beneš–Tito. Conflict, War and Genocide in East-Central and South-Eastern Europe. Vienna 2014, p. 1054.

[13] See Norbert Spannenberger: Churches and Denominations in the Bačka and Banat Regions in the 18th and 19th Centuries. In: At Home on the Danube. Germans and Serbs Living Together in Vojvodina. Novi Sad 2009, pp. 142–149.