1918 protest in Zagreb

Last updated

1918 protest in Zagreb
Ilustrovane Novosti 15-12-1918.png
Contemporary newspaper coverage
Date5 December 1918
Location
Zagreb, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes

45°48′47″N15°58′38″E / 45.81306°N 15.97722°E / 45.81306; 15.97722
Caused byMethod of unification of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with the Kingdom of Serbia or the unification itself
GoalsEstablishment of a republic
Resulted inProtest suppressed
Parties
Parts of:
  • National Guards of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs
  • Sokol volunteers
Lead figures

Rudolf Sentmartoni

Number
≈ 400
160
Casualties and losses
15 dead (incl. 2 civilians), 10 wounded
2 dead
1 Royal Serbian Army soldier killed

On 5 December 1918, the National Guards (an armed force of the National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs) and Sokol volunteers suppressed a protest and engaged in an armed clash against the soldiers of the 25th Regiment of the Royal Croatian Home Guard and the 53rd Regiment of the former Austro-Hungarian Common Army on 5 December 1918, four days after the proclamation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. National Guardsmen stopped the soldiers at the Ban Jelačić Square in Zagreb.

Contents

Reasons for the protest and the conflict are not very well documented, but the soldiers who marched down Ilica Street from the Rudolf barracks towards the central city square shouted slogans against the King Peter I of Serbia and in support of republicanism and the Croatian People's Peasant Party leader Stjepan Radić. Once the soldiers reached the Ban Jelačić Square, brief negotiations took place, and then an armed clash afterwards. Most of the eighteen people killed in the clash were soldiers, and the dead protesters were dubbed December Victims (Croatian : Prosinačke žrtve). Perceiving them unreliable, the National Council first disbanded the two regiments and later all former Austro-Hungarian units based in the new state. The National Council then relied on the Royal Serbian Army to establish units to replace the recently disbanded ones.

The Frankist faction of the Party of Rights used the event to portray creation of a common South Slavic kingdom and other events of 1918 as national humiliation claiming it fostered "culture of defeat" among Croats. The Frankists claimed that the "culture of defeat" was the result of a series of political failures and that the Frankists would give the disenchanted people and ignored former Austro-Hungarian officers a chance to redeem themselves for their defeats. Thus the "culture of defeat" contributed to the rise of Ustaše as far-right paramilitaries and later Nazi collaborators during the World War II occupation of Yugoslavia.

Background

Collapse of Austria-Hungary and civil disorder

In the final days of the World War I, on 5–6 October 1918, political parties representing Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs living in Austria-Hungary organised the Zagreb-based National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to achieve independence from the empire. The National Council proclaimed the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs encompassing the Slovene Lands, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, [1] and authorised the Yugoslav Committee, an interest group advocating unification of previously Habsburg South Slavic areas with the Kingdom of Serbia, to represent the council abroad. [2] National Council president Anton Korošec left Zagreb for a conference in Geneva with Serbian representatives to discuss the method of unification. [3]

At the time, Austro–Hungarian deserters termed Green Cadres were causing a crime wave in the countryside. [4] By September 1918, there were about 50,000 Green Cadres among the Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks. Most of them were active in Croatia-Slavonia, [5] where violence peaked between 24 October and 4 November. [6] The period also saw a mutiny in Požega. In nearby Orahovica, two Austro-Hungarian regiments, one Bohemian and one Dalmatian fought against each other. [7] Officials in the town reported that some of the soldiers sided with the Bolsheviks. [8] The violence quickly spread and elements of the 23rd Regiment and the 28th Regiment of the Royal Croatian Home Guard joined in looting Osijek. [7] Mutineers also led looting in Petrovaradin, Pakrac, Daruvar, and Županja, although peasants and the (mostly peasant) Green Cadres were responsible for most of the pillaging and looting. [7]

The National Council hesitated to condemn the violence, [6] and its attempts to stop the looters by deploying ad-hoc, locally raised militia were ineffective since many militiamen were also looting. [9] Therefore, the National Council relied on Serbian prisoners of war (captured by the Austro-Hungarian Army during the war), and sent a delegation to the Royal Serbian Army command on 5 November to request its troops to restore order in Croatia-Slavonia. [10] The National Council, by then dominated by the Croat-Serb Coalition led by Svetozar Pribičević, [11] blamed the unrest partly on Bolsheviks and the Croatian People's Peasant Party (HPSS) led by Stjepan Radić. The association of the HPSS with the popular discontent later helped propel the HPSS to the position of the most successful political party among the Croats in the interwar period. [12] The peasants actively involved in the October–November unrest, misidentifying republicanism as the abolition of military service and taxes, cited it as their ultimate political objective. [13]

Federation vs centralised union with Serbia

Map of lands forming the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes Scs kingdom provinces 1920 1922 en.png
Map of lands forming the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes

There were two main approaches to the unification of the South Slavs. While Ante Trumbić's Yugoslav Committee advocated a federal system of government, the Prime Minister of Serbia Nikola Pašić wanted a centralised state. [14] Pašić threatened to conquer and annex the Serb-inhabited territories of Austria-Hungary to create a Greater Serbia unless Trumbić accepted a centralised state. [15] Under pressure from the Triple Entente, Pašić agreed to support a federal South Slavic state during the November 1918 conference in Geneva, [16] but Serbia repudiated the agreement either because of Prince Regent Alexander's opposition, [17] or in a scheme devised by Pašić to deflect Entente pressure and undermine Korošec's authority. [18]

Shortly after the conclusion of the Geneva conference, the National Council announced it had thwarted an attempted coup d'état for which it arrested General of the Infantry Anton Lipošćak. [19] The Italian Army seized Rijeka and approached Ljubljana. [20] Without means to stop the Italian advance, the National Council feared that the Italian presence on the eastern shores of the Adriatic would become permanent. [21] The National Council dispatched a delegation to Prince Regent Alexander to quickly arrange unification of Yugoslavia on a federal basis. The delegation ignored the National Council's instructions to demand constitutional safeguards when it addressed the Prince Regent on 1 December. The Prince Regent accepted the unification offer on behalf of Peter I of Serbia, [22] and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was established without any agreement on the nature of the union. [23]

Armed forces in Zagreb

Photograph of a Royal Serbian Army unit arriving to the Ban Jelacic Square in Zagreb in late 1918. Serbian Army enters Zagreb.jpg
Photograph of a Royal Serbian Army unit arriving to the Ban Jelačić Square in Zagreb in late 1918.

The National Council established the National Guard on 27 October 1918 in preparation for the Croatian Sabor meeting that declared secession from Austria-Hungary two days later. The National Guard consisted of volunteers from university guard organisations and Croatian and Serb Sokol associations, subordinated to the Commission for Public Order and Security in Zagreb headed by Budislav Grga Angjelinović and directly commanded by Lav Mazzura. The force was augmented by a detachment of former Austro-Hungarian Navy sailors. [24] Attempts to organise the National Guards in the countryside to combat civil disorder proved ineffective. [9]

The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs formally established its military on 1 November, three days after the declaration of independence, from Austro-Hungarian units based in the territory of the new state. On 6 November, the 25th Regiment of the Royal Croatian Home Guard and the 53rd Regiment of the Common Army based in Zagreb swore an oath of allegiance to the National Council. The council deemed the soldiers returning from the war after that date also bound by the same oath. [25] The 25th Regiment had just returned from fighting in to capture Međimurje on behalf of the National Council, and both regiments maintained security in Zagreb without incident. Nonetheless, many soldiers based in Zagreb supported a republic; republican ideas spread under the influence of Radić and returnees from Russia in the aftermath of the October Revolution. [26] In early December 1918, the 25th Regiment commanded by Colonel Milivoj Kućak [27] had 210 officers and 578 soldiers stationed in Zagreb barracks of the Royal Home Guard in the Ilica Street, while the 53rd Regiment had 442 troops stationed in the city, in the Rudolf barracks. [28] The 53rd Regiment, commanded by Colonel Mirko Petrović, [29] the 37th Field Artillery Regiment of the former Common Army, and the 6th Field Artillery Regiment of the Home Guard were also stationed in the city. [30] The 37th Field Artillery Regiment had 22 officers and 142 soldiers, while the 6th Field Artillery Regiment had 46 officers and 21 soldiers in Zagreb. [31] The National Council-established National Guard had about 500 armed members in Zagreb at the time, [32] augmented by a 1254-strong regiment composed of former Serbian Army prisoners-of-war. [33] In November, Lieutenant Colonel Dušan Simović was assigned to Zagreb as the envoy of the Serbian Army, [34] and the 3rd Battalion of the 7th Regiment of the Serbian Army arrived in Zagreb by the end of the month. [35]

Prelude

Ban Jelacic Square (pictured in 1880) is the central square in Zagreb. Staritrg.jpg
Ban Jelačić Square (pictured in 1880) is the central square in Zagreb.

On 3 December, the National Council promulgated the Unification Act. [36] In cooperation with Zagreb's local authorities, it sponsored several public celebrations of unification to match the mass celebrations of declaration of independence of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs from Austria-Hungary from late October. According to historian Rudolf Horvat, the festivities were organised carelessly and some behaviour offended "everything held dear and sacred by the Croatian people". The same day, there were reports from the nearby town of Bjelovar that the army troops stationed there were mutinous after the unification was announced. A National Council representative in the town reported that the soldiers were shouting slogans against the King and cheering on republicanism. [37] Kućak and Petrović informed the deputy defence commissioner of the National Council Nikola Winterhalter of the pro-republican mood in the troops stationed in Zagreb barracks. [38]

Seizing on widespread disenchantment, the Party of Rights drew up and distributed a proclamation condemning the process of unification as undemocratic on 2 December. [36] The party daily Hrvatska (Croatia) published it two days later, stating the Party of Rights would continue to advocate unification of free and independent states of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs in a federal republic. In response, the authorities confiscated the issue and banned Hrvatska. The party distributed the manifest as a leaflet instead. [39] In the morning of 5 December, Zagreb Cathedral held a Te Deum service as a part of celebration of establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. [28]

Protest

From the barracks to Ban Jelačić Square

In the afternoon of 5 December, some soldiers of the 53rd Regiment left the Rudolf barracks in western Zagreb and set out towards Ban Jelačić Square. [28] En route, they stopped before the Home Guard Barracks in Ilica Street where some soldiers of the 25th Regiment joined the march. [40] Civilians also joined the soldiers. [25] The soldiers brought rifles and two machine guns from each barracks [41] and were accompanied by the twelve-strong military band of the 25th Regiment. [28] The marchers intended to declare a free Croatian republic, spurred on by perceived provocative behaviour at celebrations of unification. [37] The subsequent indictment for the act of mutiny specified 250 soldiers participating, but the actual number is likely to be about 400, 200 from each regiment. [42]

Protesting the unification with Serbia, [36] the soldiers walked down Ilica Street carrying a flag of Croatia and shouting "Long live the republic!", "Long live Radić!", "Down with King Peter!", "Down with the dynasty!", "Long live the peasant party!", "Down with militarism!", [43] [37] "Long live Croatian republic!", and "Long live Bolshevik republic!". Authorities later also reported that the demonstrators called out for release of General Lipošćak. [44] According to Croatian historian Mislav Gabelica, it is unclear if the soldiers were protesting against the unification itself or the method by which it was carried out. Gabelica also argues that the protest was in part spurred on by various causes for discontent such as widespread poverty and anarchy in the country as well as by external actors such as by Italian intelligence services. [45]

Most sources agree that the protesting soldiers reached Ban Jelačić Square at 2 p.m. [46] Some troops loyal to the government were deployed at the end of Ilica to prevent people from entering the square, but they quickly gave way. [27] Upon reaching the square, the soldiers of the 25th and the 53rd regiments set up two machine guns at the centre of the square, and two at the start of Ilica – near the Gajeva Street and Oktogon respectively. [47] The military band took position at the square near the Duga Street (Radićeva Street today) and played Lijepa naša domovino . [48]

Armed clash on the square

Sketch of approximate positions of machine guns at the Ban Jelacic Square in Zagreb on 5 December 1918: 1 - House Popovic, 2 - House No. 6 (Rosia-Fonsier), 3 - House Feller, 4 - Oktogon, 5 - Jelacic monument; Erroneous reports: 6 - House No. 27, 7 - Foundation Hospital, 8 - House Gnezda Zagreb Jelacic Square 5 December 1918 sketch.png
Sketch of approximate positions of machine guns at the Ban Jelačić Square in Zagreb on 5 December 1918: 1 - House Popović, 2 - House No. 6 (Rosia-Fonsier), 3 - House Feller, 4 - Oktogon, 5 - Jelačić monument; Erroneous reports: 6 - House No. 27, 7 - Foundation Hospital, 8 - House Gnezda

The authorities were informed about the planned protest at the latest at 11:30 a.m. on the day of the protest, [49] and cleared the square of people before the soldiers arrived. [50] Armed National Guardsmen and Sokol volunteers were waiting for the soldiers and civilians who joined the protest, taking cover in the surrounding buildings. [46] According to contemporary government reports, 60 National Guardsmen were deployed on the north side of the square, in House Popović (then at number 4, the numbers have changed since) and at house number 6 – with a machine gun set up in each building. According to that report, 20 troops were at the House Popović, while the rest, together with Angjelinović, took up positions at the other building. [51] According to the 1926 testimony of Sergeant Dragutin Mačuka, the government deployed 160 troops (National Guards and Sokol volunteers) to the square. The headquarters were set up in the house at number 6 with additional troops at the House Popović and the House Feller (at number 21, at the corner of the Jurišićeva Street) on the east side of the square. [52] Mačuka's estimate of the government strength is supported by testimony of a Sokol volunteer, Branko Kojić, who said 60 Sokol volunteers and 100 National Guardsmen were deployed. [53] First there were brief negotiations. [46] According to witness statements, Kućak and Lieutenant Colonel Slavko Kvaternik went to House Popović and attempted to calm the situation down. According to Kvaternik, they persuaded Mazzura to tell the National Guardsmen in that house not to fire. Kvaternik's statement is contradicted by others who identified civilian Zdravko Lenac as commander of the National Guardsmen at the House Popović. [54]

According to trial testimony, the soldiers of the 25th and the 53rd regiments captured House Popović and the machine gun placed there. Various testimonies disagreed as to whether the second machine gun was placed at a balcony of the adjacent house (number 5) or at the house number 6 [lower-alpha 1] as indicated in official contemporary reports. The witnesses agree that the soldiers left the House Popović to capture another machine gun, that a gunfight erupted inside that building, and the machine gun fired on soldiers in the square. [56] A later inspection of bullet pockmarks left on facades revealed that the house number 6 was the main target of the soldiers' fire, and other testimonies placed Angjelinović in that house, commanding the machine gun crew to fire on the soldiers. [57] Kvaternik and other witnesses indicated that a third machine gun fired from the House Feller and killed a soldier manning a machine gun set up by the mutineers at the foot of the Josip Jelačić monument on the square. [58] [59] In his 1947 testimony, Kvaternik said the National Guards had a machine gun on the south side of the square at the house number 27 at the corner of present-day Praška Street, but no other source supports that claim. [58]

The skirmish ended at about 3 p.m. [46] Most of the protesters scattered and fled, but some survivors were captured. [28] Eighteen people died in the gunfight or of their wounds. The deaths included two National Guardsmen (both Sokol members), an unidentified Serbian soldier whom Simović says was not an active participant in the clash, [60] and two civilians. [61] On 7 December, Simović requested his superiors to deploy the rest of the 7th Infantry Regiment to Zagreb for security reasons. [62] Military prosecutor's and forensic experts' reports of 6 December indicated 15 killed and 13 wounded. Three of the injured died of their wounds after the report was published. [63] A subsequent trial identified Lance Corporal Rudolf Sentmartoni as the ringleader of the soldiers' protest, together with Sergeant Ivan Perčić, Corporal Martin Murk, an unnamed lance corporal in the 6th Field Artillery Regiment and an unidentified civilian. None of them were apprehended except Perčić, who was convicted for mutiny and sentenced to six years in prison. [64] In 1941, Horvat wrote about the clash. Unlike other sources, Horvat stated that there were two machine guns – one firing from the roof of House Gnezda nextdoor to the House Feller and one from the top floor of a hospital (since replaced by 1 Ilica Street building). Reports on the direction of machine gun fire given by surviving soldiers contradict Horvat. [65]

Legacy

The commemorative plaque has been placed at the Ban Jelacic Square as a memorial in 2003. Spomen ploca Prosinacke zrtve Trg 020809.jpg
The commemorative plaque has been placed at the Ban Jelačić Square as a memorial in 2003.

The National Council disbanded the 25th and the 53rd regiments on the evening of 5 December, [26] and cited the clash and the Lipošćak affair as grounds to restrict the inclusion of Croatian officers who previously served in the Austro-Hungarian armed forces in new army as unreliable. [44] On 10 December, the National Council disbanded all armed units formally under its command including all former Croat units within the Austro-Hungarian Army and Navy. On 10 December, it authorised a Serbian Army mission to establish new units to replace the disbanded ones. [66] The mission proceeded to establish new structures integrated with the rest of the new kingdom. [67]

On 5 December, the National Council imposed censorship and banned the last remaining opposition newspaper, the HPSS-published Dom. [68] The authorities also arrested Ivo Elegović  [ hr ] and Vladimir Sachs-Petrović as the leaders of the Frankist pro-republican faction of the Party of Rights. The Frankists cited the events of 5 December as evidence of Croat refusal to form a common state with Serbia and portrayed the soldiers' revolt as vindication of Frankists' political opposition to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The anniversary of the protest was commemorated by the opposition in dissent to the official celebrations of unification held every 1 December. The soldiers of the 25th and the 53rd regiments who died on the Ban Jelačić Square became referred to as the December Victims, and portrayed as martyrs for independence of Croatia. [26] Attempting to capitalise on perceived widespread opposition to the new union, the Frankists went on to establish the émigré Croatian Committee with the aim of having free elections in Croatian lands, [69] and emphasised that the Party of Rights, specifically Frankists, are championing the cause for which the December Victims fell. [70] The 5 December protest and killings contributed to the Frankists' efforts to develop a "Culture of Defeat" depicting the events of 1918 as a humiliation which must be avenged. This allowed the Frankist leaders in 1920s, notably Ante Pavelić, to offer disgruntled people and forgotten former Austro-Hungarian officers a chance to "redeem" themselves as far-right Ustaše paramilitaries (and later Nazi collaborators). [71]

The two killed National Guardsmen were buried with honours at the Mirogoj Cemetery in Zagreb. [72] In 1932, the Croatian Woman Society launched an initiative to transfer bodies of the killed soldiers and civilians (not the National Guardsmen) from their individual graves at the Mirogoj to a common crypt. [73] The society built a monument to the killed at the cemetery, [74] The Yugoslav state did not allow the transfer of remains, which was carried out in December 1941, after the establishment of the Ustaše-ruled Independent State of Croatia (NDH) as a Nazi puppet state during World War II. [73] On 26 August 1941, Pavelić declared "600 revolutionaries" involved in the 5 December 1918 protest a Reserve Battalion of the Ustaše Militia, originally a ceremonial unit. [75] The unit, commanded by Ivan Perečić, [76] was subsequently renamed the Honor Battalion. [75] The NDH wanted to portray the December Victims as a symbol of resistance to the union with Serbia, but Nazi Plenipotentiary-General to the NDH Edmund Glaise-Horstenau complained that the event was essentially a communist affair. [77] In 1942, commemorative medals were authorised for participants of the protest and the right to wear them was awarded to 402 people (25 posthumously). [78] In 1943, a monument was erected at the Ban Jelačić Square to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the protest. [79] By 1947, Communist authorities removed all the monuments from the Ban Jelačić Square, including the equestrian monument to Josip Jelačić. [80] A plaque was placed by Croatian World War II veterans association Hrvatski domobran  [ hr ] on the former House Feller (now number 11) in 2003 to commemorate the 1918 protest. [81]

Notes

  1. ↑ The house at number 6 is also variously referred to using names of its contemporary owners as the House Rosia-Fonsier, or former owners as House Gavella. [55]

Related Research Articles

The Treaty of Rapallo was an agreement between the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in the aftermath of the First World War. It was intended to settle the Adriatic question, i.e. Italian claims over territories promised to the country, in return for its entry into the war, against Austria-Hungary; claims that were made on the basis of the 1915 Treaty of London. The wartime pact promised Italy large areas of the eastern Adriatic. The treaty, signed on 12 November 1920 in Rapallo, Italy, generally redeemed the promises of territorial gains in the former Austrian Littoral by awarding Italy territories generally corresponding to the peninsula of Istria and the former Princely County of Gorizia and Gradisca, with the addition of the Snežnik Plateau, in addition to what was promised by the London treaty. The articles regarding Dalmatia were largely ignored. There Italy received the city of Zadar and several islands. Other provisions of the treaty contained safeguards for the rights of Italian nationals remaining in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and provisions for commissions to demarcate the new border, and facilitate economic and educational cooperation. The treaty also established the Free State of Fiume, the city-state consisting of the former Austro-Hungarian Corpus Separatum that consisted of Rijeka and a strip of coast giving the new state a land border with Italy at Istria.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs</span> 1918 unrecognised pan-Slavic state in Southeast Europe

The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was a political entity that was constituted in October 1918, at the end of World War I, by Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (Prečani) residing in what were the southernmost parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Although internationally unrecognised, this was the first incarnation of a Yugoslav state founded on the Pan-Slavic ideology. Thirty-three days after it was proclaimed, the state joined the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Montenegro to form the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corfu Declaration</span> 1917 manifesto on unification of South Slavs

The Corfu Declaration was an agreement between the prime minister of Serbia, Nikola Pašić, and the president of the Yugoslav Committee, Ante Trumbić, concluded on the Greek island of Corfu on 20 July 1917. Its purpose was to establish the method of unifying a future common state of the South Slavs living in Serbia, Montenegro and Austria-Hungary after the First World War. Russia's decision to withdraw diplomatic support for Serbia following the February Revolution, as well as the Yugoslav Committee's sidelining by the trialist reform initiatives launched in Austria-Hungary, motivated both sides to attempt to reach an agreement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yugoslav Committee</span> South Slavic unification ad-hoc body

The Yugoslav Committee was a World War I-era unelected, ad-hoc committee largely consisting of émigré Croat, Slovene, and Bosnian Serb politicians and political activists, whose aim was the detachment of Austro-Hungarian lands inhabited by the South Slavs and unification of those lands with the Kingdom of Serbia. The group was formally established in 1915, and it last met in 1919, shortly after the breakup of Austria-Hungary and the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Yugoslav Committee was led by the Croat lawyer Ante Trumbić as the committee president, and Croat politician Frano Supilo as its vice president.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Royal Yugoslav Army</span> 1918–1941 land warfare force

The Yugoslav Army, commonly the Royal Yugoslav Army, was the land warfare military service branch of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It existed from the Kingdom's formation in December 1918, until its surrender to the Axis powers on 17 April 1941. Aside from fighting along the Austrian border in 1919 and 1920 related to territorial disputes, and some border skirmishes on its southern borders in the 1920s, the JV was not involved in fighting until April 1941 when it was quickly overcome by the German-led invasion of Yugoslavia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creation of Yugoslavia</span> Overview of the creation of Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia was a state concept among the South Slavic intelligentsia and later popular masses from the 19th to early 20th centuries that culminated in its realization after the 1918 collapse of Austria-Hungary at the end of World War I and the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. However, the kingdom was better known colloquially as Yugoslavia ; in 1929 it was formally renamed the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yugoslavism</span> South Slavic unification ideology

Yugoslavism, Yugoslavdom, or Yugoslav nationalism is an ideology supporting the notion that the South Slavs, namely the Bosniaks, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs and Slovenes, but also Bulgarians, belong to a single Yugoslav nation separated by diverging historical circumstances, forms of speech, and religious divides. During the interwar period, Yugoslavism became predominant in, and then the official ideology of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. There were two major forms of Yugoslavism in the period: the regime favoured integral Yugoslavism promoting unitarism, centralisation, and unification of the country's ethnic groups into a single Yugoslav nation, by coercion if necessary. The approach was also applied to languages spoken in the Kingdom. The main alternative was federalist Yugoslavism which advocated the autonomy of the historical lands in the form of a federation and gradual unification without outside pressure. Both agreed on the concept of National Oneness developed as an expression of the strategic alliance of South Slavs in Austria-Hungary in the early 20th century. The concept was meant as a notion that the South Slavs belong to a single "race", were of "one blood", and had shared language. It was considered neutral regarding the choice of centralism or federalism.

The Green Cadres, or sometimes referred to as; Green Brigades or Green Guards, were originally groups of Austro-Hungarian Army deserters in the First World War. They were later joined by peasants discontented with wartime requisitioning, taxation, and poverty. A substantial number of desertions to the Green Cadres occurred as early as 1914, with their numbers peaking in the summer of 1918. They were present in nearly all areas of Austria-Hungary, but particularly large numbers were found in Croatia-Slavonia, Bosnia, Western Slovakia and Moravia, as well as in Galicia. The Green Cadres had no centralised structure and relied on peasants and banditry for food and shelter. As Austria-Hungary fell apart in October 1918, violent outbreaks associated with the Green Cadres peaked. These occurrences were particularly severe in Croatia-Slavonia, Slovakia and Galicia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">May Declaration</span> Proposal for administrative reform of Austria-Hungary

The May Declaration was a manifesto of political demands for unification of South Slav-inhabited territories within Austria-Hungary put forward to the Imperial Council in Vienna on 30 May 1917. It was authored by Anton Korošec, the leader of the Slovene People's Party. The document was signed by Korošec and thirty-two other council delegates representing South-Slavic lands within the Cisleithanian part of the dual monarchy – the Slovene Lands, the Dalmatia, Istria, and the Condominium of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The delegates who signed the declaration were known as the Yugoslav Club.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs</span>

The National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was a group of political representatives of South Slavs living in Austria-Hungary and subsequently in the short-lived State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs formed in the wake of dissolution of Austria-Hungary. It was established in Zagreb on 8 October 1918, largely composed of members of various representative bodies operating in Habsburg crown lands inhabited by South Slavs. Founding of the National Council was fulfilment of the Zagreb Resolution on concentration of South Slavic political forces adopted earlier that year on the initiative of the Yugoslav Club. The council elected its central committee and the presidency led by Anton Korošec as the president and by Svetozar Pribičević and Ante Pavelić as vice-presidents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Croatia during World War I</span>

The Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia was part of Austria-Hungary during World War I. Its territory was administratively divided between the Austrian and Hungarian parts of the empire; Međimurje and Baranja were in the Hungarian part (Transleithania), the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was a separate entity associated with the Hungarian Kingdom, Dalmatia and Istria were in the Austrian part (Cisleithania), while the town of Rijeka had semi-autonomous status.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lipošćak affair</span> Alleged coup détat conspiracy in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in 1918

The Lipošćak affair was an alleged conspiracy led by the former Austro-Hungarian Army General of the Infantry Anton Lipošćak to seize power in the recently proclaimed State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs at the end of the First World War. The majority view of the allegations is that they were fabricated by allies of the Croat-Serb Coalition leader Svetozar Pribičević. Lipošćak was arrested on 22 November 1918 under suspicion of treason. He was accused of plotting to establish councils composed of workers, peasants and soldiers in place of the existing authorities with the aim of reviving the Habsburg monarchy, or working on behalf of foreign powers or the Bolsheviks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Geneva Declaration (1918)</span> Abandoned agreement on the creation of Yugoslavia

The Geneva Declaration, Geneva Agreement, or Geneva Pact was a statement of political agreement on the provisional political system in the future union of the South Slavs living in the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and Kingdom of Serbia. It was agreed by Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pašić on behalf of Serbia, representatives of Serbian parliamentary opposition, representatives of the National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs which recently seceded from Austria-Hungary, and representatives of the Yugoslav Committee. The talks held in Geneva, Switzerland on 6–9 November 1918 built upon and were intended to supersede the 1917 Corfu Declaration agreed by Pašić and Yugoslav Committee president Ante Trumbić. The basis for the talks was provided by the Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos on behalf of the Supreme War Council of the Triple Entente. The talks were necessary in the process of creation of Yugoslavia as a means to demonstrate to the Entente powers that various governments and interests groups could cooperate on the project to establish a viable state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anton Lipošćak</span> Austro-Hungarian World War I General

Anton Lipošćak, was an Austro-Hungarian Army General of the Infantry of Croatian descent who served as the Governor-General of the Military Government of Lublin during the World War I. After the war, Lipošćak returned to Zagreb where the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs declared independence from Austria-Hungary. He was accused of plotting a coup d'état and arrested. Most present-day sources consider the charges false. The charges were dropped and Lipošćak released in two months, in early 1919.

The Zagreb Resolution was a political declaration on the need for political unification of the Croats, the Slovenes and the Serbs living in Austria-Hungary. It was adopted by representatives of opposition political parties in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia presided by Ante Pavelić in a meeting held in Zagreb on 2–3 March 1918. The declaration relied on the right of self-determination and called for establishment of an independent democratic state respecting rights of individuals and historically established polities joining the political union. It also called for ensuring cultural and religious equality in such a union. The Zagreb Resolution established a preparatory committee tasked with establishment of the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs intended to implement the resolution. The National Council was established on 5 October in proceedings described by Pavelić as a continuation of the Zagreb conference that March.

Lav Mazzura was a politician and lawyer born in Zagreb. After studying law in Zagreb and Prague, he became one of leaders of the Croatian Progressive Youth. He was the editor of the Hrvatski pokret and the Hrvatska misao journals. In 1910–1913, Mazzura was a member of the Sabor of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia as a member of the Croat-Serb Coalition led by Frano Supilo and Svetozar Pribičević. He was also a member of the joint Hungarian-Croatian Parliament in Budapest. In November–December 1918, Mazzura was in command of Zagreb-based forces assigned to the Commission for Public Order and Security of the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs – a body composed of political representatives of the South Slavs living in Austria-Hungary tasked with achieving independence of South Slavic lands from the empire. According to testimony of Slavko Kvaternik, Mazzura was involved in unsuccessful negotiations to peacefully resolve a standoff during the 1918 protest in Zagreb. In 1919, Mazzura was appointed to the post of the prosecutor for the city of Zagreb. He died in Zagreb in 1930.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1918 occupation of Međimurje</span> Conflict between the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Hungary

In the immediate aftermath of World War I, the region of Međimurje was occupied by forces loyal to the National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, one of the predecessor states to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, in November and December 1918. Predominantly inhabited by Croats, this territory was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary until it was captured by Yugoslav forces. The region was annexed by Yugoslavia, which was awarded it at the Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1920 Croatian Peasant Rebellion</span> Croatian peasant uprising against branding of draft animals

The 1920 Croatian Peasant Rebellion, which is also known as the Križ Republic occurred from 4 to 12 September 1920 in the countryside north-west and west of Zagreb in the recently established Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The rebellion, which centred around the town of Križ, was the result of predominantly economic grievances and resistance to conscription in Croatia-Slavonia. The immediate cause of the revolt was a campaign by the Royal Yugoslav Army, which was tasked with maintenance of public order in the area after the end of World War I, to register and brand draft animals for military use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frankists (Croatia)</span>

Frankists were followers of a political ideology that bases positions and lines around the thought of Josip Frank, a Croatian nationalist leader at the end of the 19th century who broke away from the Party of Rights to create his own movement.

Nikola Stojanović was a lawyer and Bosnian Serb and Yugoslavian politician. As a student, he wrote the article Serbs and Croats, printed in the Serbian Literary Herald, applying Social Darwinism and claiming that Serbs as 'superior people' would eventually assimilate the Croats. In the text, Stojanović announced war to extermination of either Serbs or Croats and the text has been cited as the blueprint for ethnic cleansing by Croatian writers. Following a politically-motivated reprint of the article in Srbobran, the newspaper of the Serb Independent Party in Zagreb, it led to 1902 riots targeting Serb businesses and homes in the city, involving a crowd of about 20,000.

References

  1. ↑ Ramet 2006, pp. 42–43.
  2. ↑ Matijević 2008a, p. 50.
  3. ↑ Matijević 2008a, pp. 56–59.
  4. ↑ Beneš 2017, p. 220.
  5. ↑ Beneš 2017, p. 217.
  6. 1 2 Banac 1992, pp. 289–290.
  7. 1 2 3 Banac 1992, pp. 296–297.
  8. ↑ Štambuk-Škalić & Matijević 2008, p. 108.
  9. 1 2 Banac 1992, pp. 297–298.
  10. ↑ Banac 1984, p. 131.
  11. ↑ Janković 1964, pp. 251–252.
  12. ↑ Banac 1992, pp. 303–304.
  13. ↑ Banac 1992, p. 300.
  14. ↑ Pavlowitch 2003, pp. 33–34.
  15. ↑ Šepić 1968, p. 38.
  16. ↑ Janković 1964, pp. 246–247.
  17. ↑ Ramet 2006, p. 43.
  18. ↑ Banac 1984, pp. 134–135.
  19. ↑ Zorko 2003, pp. 892–895.
  20. ↑ Ramet 2006, p. 44.
  21. ↑ Pavlović 2019, p. 275.
  22. ↑ Ramet 2006, pp. 44–45.
  23. ↑ Pavlović 2019, p. 276.
  24. ↑ Gabelica 2005, p. 468.
  25. 1 2 Gabelica 2005, p. 469.
  26. 1 2 3 Newman 2015, p. 132.
  27. 1 2 Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 180–181.
  28. 1 2 3 4 5 Huzjan 2005, pp. 455–456.
  29. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 121–122.
  30. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 245–248.
  31. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 250.
  32. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 255.
  33. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 252.
  34. ↑ Zorko 2003, p. 893.
  35. ↑ Gabelica 2005, n. 11.
  36. 1 2 3 Banac 1992, pp. 215–216.
  37. 1 2 3 Martan 2016, pp. 23–24.
  38. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 122–123.
  39. ↑ Matijević 2008b, p. 1116.
  40. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 137.
  41. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 190.
  42. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 186.
  43. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 139.
  44. 1 2 Zorko 2003, p. 900.
  45. ↑ Gabelica 2005, pp. 469–470.
  46. 1 2 3 4 Gabelica 2005, p. 470.
  47. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 192–193.
  48. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 196.
  49. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 220.
  50. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 187.
  51. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 156–159.
  52. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 171–173.
  53. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 178.
  54. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 166–167.
  55. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, n. 423.
  56. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 159–161.
  57. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 170–171.
  58. 1 2 Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 169–170.
  59. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 177.
  60. ↑ Gabelica 2005, pp. 475–476.
  61. ↑ Gabelica 2005, pp. 470–472.
  62. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, p. 251.
  63. ↑ Gabelica 2005, pp. 474–475.
  64. ↑ Gabelica 2005, p. 474.
  65. ↑ Gabelica & Matković 2018, pp. 177–182.
  66. ↑ Banac 1984, p. 216.
  67. ↑ Ramet 2006, p. 49.
  68. ↑ Gabelica 2005, p. 472.
  69. ↑ Newman 2015, pp. 132–133.
  70. ↑ Newman 2018, p. 167.
  71. ↑ Newman 2018, p. 170.
  72. ↑ Gabelica 2005, p. 475.
  73. 1 2 Gabelica 2005, p. 476.
  74. ↑ Newman 2015, p. 174.
  75. 1 2 Geiger & Barić 2002, pp. 835–836.
  76. ↑ Geiger & Barić 2002, p. 837.
  77. ↑ Geiger & Barić 2002, p. 838.
  78. ↑ Geiger & Barić 2002, p. 842.
  79. ↑ Geiger & Barić 2002, p. 844.
  80. ↑ Mataušić 2001, p. 128.
  81. ↑ Plančić 2003.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.