[ad_1]
On the day the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was created in 1918, historians agree that it was a forced solution, but also a salvation for the small South Slavic peoples after the First World War. Historian Predrag Markovic also points out that a great country strong in this area, which would resist pressures from the West and the East, suited the great powers, especially France.
He even claimed that at the time, Serbs, Croats and Slovenes believed that they were one people. The historian Milan Ristović, on the other hand, believes that not all nations, but part of the political and cultural elite, understood the issue that way.
Although it is a historical event that later significantly influenced the entire 20th century, the day that the heir to the throne Aleksandar Karađorđević proclaimed the Kingdom of SCS is not formally celebrated in our country and is not given much importance.
Analyzing that topic for H1, Markovic recalls that Belgrade was so destroyed after the war that the only house where the ceremony of creating a new state could take place was the Krsmanovic family house in the center of the city.
He says that the creation of a new state was proclaimed under improvised conditions and that everything was done quickly.
He pointed out that at that time, Serbs, Croats and Slovenes believed that they were one people and that the only problem was whether the new state should be federal or centralist, so in the end centralization began.
The creation of the country was, he emphasizes, an extortion movement, because the situation was on the brink of war with Italy, Bulgaria supported the Macedonian committees and the Croats, especially the Dalmatians, were eager to enter a common state to protect the Serbian army of Italian ambitions.
He says that then the dramatic issue was the issue of borders and that the only non-problematic issue was that between Serbia and Romania, which, he says, is the only border in the last 100 years that no one has disputed.
When asked if the unitary state was a good solution, he said that Serbian politicians had no experience with federation, that they only knew Austria-Hungary as such, that it worked poorly, and that Croats were very much in favor of autonomy. .
He also notes that in 1929, King Alexander proclaimed a new name and a new people – the Yugoslavs, who were created by merging Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, leading to the idea that ordinary ethnic people failed.
The communists later, he says, renewed the idea, but it was no longer an ethnic community, but an ideological one.
Markovic also emphasizes that the victorious countries, especially France, adapted to a large and strong country that would be an obstacle to the renewal of the Habsburgs, an obstacle to German protection, but also to Russian influence, as a “buffer state” .
The United States was also a decisive influence when Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the idea that all nations have the right to choose which country to live in.
That is why, according to Markovic, Serbs, Croats and Slovenes declared themselves a single people to separate from Austria-Hungary.
He considers that today, from a historical distance, Slovenians have the best attitude towards Yugoslavia, that they are grateful because “there are only Slovenians where a Serbian soldier stepped on their shoe.”
It concludes that the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes did not last long and did not leave a deeper mark, and that when we say Yugoslavia, we still mean the Republic of Yugoslavia.
Historian Milan Ristović says that, unlike Marković, he would reduce the idea of the belief of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes that a nation is part of the political and cultural elite, especially the younger generation who understood the subject in a way that reminds of a circle. Serbian intellectuals around Skerlic.
“As far as the people are concerned, I would distance myself from that, what did the Šumadija peasants know about the Zagorje people?” Said Ristović and appreciated that the own position of all the peoples was an incentive to accept such a solution as the only realistic one.
“From today’s perspective, we can think this way and that, but the situation was such that it was not known what would happen to that territory. Serbia was the winner of the war, but it was exhausted with great sacrifices, as well as material sacrifices. “. says Ristović.
He adds that the situation at the Peace Conference was not favorable for solving the Yugoslav problem, that the border issue was a big problem and it was not known where the lines would be drawn.
He also points out that there was no realistic option for Karadjordjevic except this one, nor any proposal from politicians to turn a part of the surrounding territories into a Greater Serbia.
It says that Nikola Pasic, at the head of the Serbian delegation, who later became Yugoslav, fought fiercely to move the border to where the Slovenians border Austria-Hungary and the Italians in the same way that he represented the interests of Serbia towards the borders .
“This idea was imposed as a pragmatic but idealistic solution, improvisation brought many problems”, says Ristović, noting that “the clash with political reality and the ignorance of different political mentalities led to the illness of a child – the split of the State”.
“But we see that it was a kind of ship to rescue small South Slavic peoples, who were exposed to dangers from various sides,” says the historian.
“The Slovenians were pressured by the Italian influence, on the other hand with the Germanization of the Croats, the Hungarianization was worse … We will see that the Yugoslav peoples clung to that idea as a lifeline in the turbulent times after the First World War “, said.
[ad_2]
