|
SERBIAN MEDIEVAL HISTORY
There were many factors that contributed to the forming of a Serb national identity by the dawn of the nation-building 19th century. These are all largely based on three key legacies that can be traced back to the Middle Ages. Original
Slavic tradition, customs and mindset, as were brought with Serbs from
their ancestral homeland. There is also an organic link between these three factors. The first bridge was largely provided by St. Sava early in the 13th c., when he managed to finally entrench Eastern rite Christianity and its values firmly on the Serbs, Thus, by establishing a nationally integrated Church, they provided a complement to, and a firm foundation for the State that adjoined it. The second bridge was secured by events at the twilight of that state, centered around the Battle of Kosovo, and their moral and spiritual legacy. Rooted in the second phase, these events created a basis for maintaining that legacy in the altered conditions of foreign yoke, while providing a lasting moral value system, and maintaining a note of understated Christian optimism. The history of Slavs in general, and their southern branch in partucular, is largely clouded in mystery until the dawn of the Middle Ages - specifically, the early 6th century A.D. - and partially obscure for yet some centuries thereafter. Incidentally, it was the Slavic tribes later labeled as Southern - and presumably the ancestors of today's Serbs and Croats - that have, by leaving an earlier collective homeland (generally assumed to be somewhere between today's southwest Ukraine and eastern Poland), actually precipitated this change. By moving south, during the great Eurasian peoples migrations, over the Carpathian mountain range and into the lower Danube region, they finally came into direct contact with the Greco-Roman Christian Empire - the leading Euromediterranean civilization of its day, which left us numerous lasting records of these historical events. To be sure, even in earlier times there are occasional references in ancient chronicles - starting with "the father of history" Herodotos (5th c. B.C.) - of various peoples at the edge of the "known world" or beyond, thought to be inhabiting areas between the Black and Baltic seas, and possibly representing or related to Slavs; but these accounts are usually vague or legendary, and typically use tribal denominations (e.g. Scythians and Sarmatians) very loosely. It is thus only in the 6th c. histories of Procopius and his immediate succesors, that Slavs emerge with that name and a definite historical identity. Indeed, studying these writers at times reveals fascinating facts about Slavs and their traits - some favorable and others less so, and many apparently persistent even to this day. For example, Procopius states how "these tribes are not ruled by one man, but from ancient times they live in democracy", and that they have public gatherings to decide on policy. They were not savage in any way, he describes, and did not keep prisoners long in slavery - preferring to either return them quickly home for ransom, or let them live freely amongst themselves. Emperor Maurice, on the other hand, in his famed military manualStrategikon, says how "they differ in opinion, so they either disagree, or even if they can agree, many soon breach the agreement, as they are all zealously against each other and unwilling to yield to others." Their love for freedom has been often noted - as in the legendary sarcasm in reply to the Avar khagan's envoys: "Who is the man under this sun that might make us bow or succumb?" - yet paradoxically, this was also a key factor in precluding them from organizing a state or other structure capable of securing resistance and collective interests. And so, having crossed the Danube-Sava frontier, they had entered the Byzantine Balkans for good. In the early 500s these crossings were more in the form of raids and thus temporary, but towards the end of the century the settling of various tribes becomes permanent. Ironically again, the lack of organizational structure proved to be also an advantage in the wars with the Byzantines, as there was no single tribe or leader to defeat, bribe or sign treaties with, to any lasting effect. This period is also marked with the initial incursions of the Asiatic warrior Avar tribe, interspersed with later Slavic ones; and indeed, here we see successive waves of arrivals, rather than just a single one. Thus, the main characteristics of this initial stage of South Slavic historical presence could be summarized as: permanent colonization of the Balkans, all the way to the Peloponnesus; loose tribal organization; often a subordinate position to the Avars; and shifting relations with the dwindiling but still present Byzantine authority. Early sources mention a formidable list of individual tribal names when referring to the arriving and settled South Slavs. Many of these seem obscure today, and many yet were merely based on the settled locale. However, some appear to predate the migrations; the most notable of these are those of Serbs and Croats, which over time were to encompass virtually all of the rest. The etymology of these names remains controversial; it is often claimed that they are not of Slavic, but Iranian origin, thus suggesting the hypothesis of the existence of separate Iranian tribes of these names, which in pre-migration times were pushed eastward into blending with the Slavs. Unfortunately, the first accounts that reliably mention these two names are only from the 10th c. AD on, and are often based on oral traditions of events long passed. The two key sources are De administrando imperio of emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitos, and the mid-12th c.Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea. According to Porphyrogenitos, Serbs originally used to live in what was called White Serbia (neighboring White Croatia) in present-day Poland; then, in the early 7th century, half the population migrated to the Balkans under the leadership of two brothers. There, after some indecision, they accepted emperor Heraclius' invitation to settle in a broad area of the central peninsula, called "Baptized Serbia" - probably in reference to early attempts to convert them to Christianity. Early on,
Serbs created several loose state entities: the region of Neretva (Pagania)
between rivers Neretva and Cetina, with the islands of Brac (pr. brahch)
and Korcula (KOR-chu-la); Zahumlje (ZAH-hoom-lye), between Neretva and
Dubrovnik, with the island of Mljet (pr. mlyet); Travunija (trah-VOO-nee-ya;
related to the town name Trebinje) and Konavle between Dubrovnik and Boka
Kotorska Bay; Duklja (DOO-klya; later called Zeta, then finally Montenegro),
between Boka and river Bojana (BO-ya-na); further inland, Raska (RAH-shka)
and later Bosnia (between the rivers Drina and Bosna). Vlastimir
(840s - ca. 860) Dynasty
of Duklja (Zeta) Jovan Vladimir
(ca. 990 - 1016) Grand
zupans of Raska (11 - 12th c.) Vukan (ca.
1083 - 1122)
Stefan Nemanja,
Grand Zupan of Raska, (1168 - 1196), first with brothers Miroslav and
Stracimir
Kulin, with
title of Ban (ca. 1180 - ca. 1204)
Vlatko Vukovic
(? - 1392), with title of Vojvoda Macedonia Vukasin Mrnjavcevic
(1366 - 1371), with title of King Zeta Balsa I (ca.
1360) Kosovo Vuk Brankovic
(ca. 1371 - 1397) Pomoravlje (river Morava basin) Lazar Hrebeljanovic,
Prince (1371 - 1389), assumes royal name Stefan
Stefan Lazarevic
(1402 - 1427) Post-despotate Zeta Stefan Crnojevic
(1455 - 1465) Placed appropriately at the very twilight of the official Middle Ages, the Zeta/Montenegro of the last Crnojevic dynasts is also the final chapter of medieval Serbian statehood. As was the case with other Balkan Christian nations to varying extents, the Serbian state (along with its offshoots) was unable to maintain a continuity of its institutions, and consequently the viability, necessary to physically resist the onslaught of an organized and vibrant invader. It did, however, manage in many ways to sow the seeds of genuine national continuity and resilience that were eventually to bear fruit. In the centuries to come, some of the finest epic poetry and purest tradition were preserved in the isolated mountains of Montenegro, and invaluable Serbian literacy and historiography was cherished in the hybrid city-state of Dubrovnik. Still, the main activity in preserving ethnic identity and continuing the liberation struggle was to take place in Hungary (later Austro-Hungary) and the central Ottoman-occupied Serbian provinces, straddling and often right at the turbulent military frontier of the two empires, and leading eventually to the beginnings of modern Serbian statehood at the dawn of the 19th century. ---------------------------------------------------- THE
CENTURIES UNDER TURKISH RULE AND
WARS AND
MIGRATIONS The Turkish conquest of the Balkans and Danube basin were preceded
and followed by migrations of the Serbian people. As the Turks penetrated
into the land the Serbs withdrew. The Serbs migrated ahead of the invading
Turks because they did not want to live under the Turkish rule, and they
sought protection in the neighbouring Christian states who welcomed them
to settle along the deserted borderlands. Once they subjugated the Serbian
state, the Turks moved the Serbs into the abandoned boundary areas of
their new state, especially the herdsmen because they migrated the most
anyway. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Serbian population migrated in waves; one such migration is known as the Great Migration (1690). In the living memory of the people, one other migration of such magnitude is recalled, that of 1737, but it was not as intensive as the first. Apart from the fact that they were so massive, these migrations were different from the others in that the people were led by their patriarchs, first Arsenije III and then Arsenije IV. From the fifteenth to the end of the eighteenth centuries, the Turkish wars against Hungary, Austria and the Venetian Republic were quite numerous, and they were most often fought in the areas where the Serbs were living. The rivalry between Austria and Turkey, before Russia drew closer to the Balkans, had a great impact on the Serbs as well. They lived in territories belonging to both kingdoms, as well as in the territories of the other two above mentioned states (Hungary till 1526 and the Venetian Republic till 1797), and the Serbs participated in their wars - in every one of the mentioned armies. In the borderlands between Austria and Turkey, except in the easternmost sector, the Serbs made up the majority of the population and were organized into defense services. In Turkey it was called the serhat, in Austria it was called the Military Border. The Turks paid much less attention to the border troops, while the Austrians made a military institution of them. The Military Border lasted from the sixteenth century to the second half of the nineteenth, and it played a significant role in the history of the western and northern Serbs. The Serbs also lived outside the area of the Military Border, in the so-called Provincial Lands, but their obligations, rights and social status were different. The Serbs living between the rivers Sava and Drava had a kind of self-government, due to the Serbian Statute (Statuta Valachorum, 1630), and in southern Hungary due to a set of privileges they gained in the 1690s. In the great wars - the Long War (1591-1606), the Candian War (1645-1669), the War of Vienna (1683-1699), and in the wars for Serbia (1716-1718, 1737-1739, 1788-1791) - the Serbs ended up killing each other as they fought in the armies of both empires and of the Venetian Republic. The Serbs in the north believed they were fighting to defend Christendom, and that Christendom would help them to revive their state afterwards. The Serbs in the south were forced to fight with the Turkish troops. These wars left barrenness and anarchy in their wake, suitable conditions for the work of the haiduks, whose activity was constant during the entire period of Turkish rule in Serbian territories. There is a partial similarity between the activities of the haiduks and the uskoks living in the coastal lands: the uskoks living in areas under Austrian or Venetian rule would also make attacks into Turkish territory. The conversion to Islam was remarkably slow and was not a massive phenomenon, but it did not cease till the nineteenth century, or the beginning of the twentieth century in the south. In the lands bordering Serbia and Albania, especially after the migration of 1690, this phenomenon was replaced by the assimilation of the Serbs by the Albanians. In the west, especially in Dalmatia and along the coast, the Serbs were catholicized while in the north they were forced to accept ecclesiastical union with Catholics (Marca, Zumberak). In Dalmatia, this process was still going on in the first half of the nineteenth century. With the fall of the medieval Serbian state, the Serbian Orthodox church became the most significant institution of the Serbs. In caring for its people, the church came into conflict with the Turkish Porta. The patriarchs who sought help in the West were killed in Istanbul. Two patriarchs were forced to migrate with their people into the neighbouring Habsburg Empire. Apart from taking care of the religion and the customs of the people, the Serbian church kept the memory of former statehood alive among the people. When the Porta dissolved the Patriarchate of Pec by decree in 1766, church authority was reestablished in the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with the Greek archbishops, except for the Metropolis of Cetinje. In the territory of Austria, the Metropolis of Karlowitz worked under less unfavourable conditions, and it was elevated to the rank of a Patriarchate in 1848. When the Serbian state was revived in modern times, the church shared its international position, becoming autonomous in 1832. The Metropolis of Belgrade became autocephalous in 1879. Only after the unification of the Serbs into a state was completed was it possible for the church to unify into a Serbian patriarchate (1920). Near the end of the War of Vienna, the Montenegrins chose Danilo Petrovic as Bishop in 1697, and he introduced the custom that the bishop names his successor while he is still alive. Thus, the house of Petrovic Njegos was insured the bishop's mitre, and later the titles of prince and king. The bishops of Cetinje also bore the authority of the church, but they were gradually struggling to gain secular authority as well (theocracy), grappling until 1830 with the "governors" (the secular rulers) supported by the Venetians. A long religious tradition, the church's deep roots in the people, the support of Russia and the prestige of the house of Petrovic Njegos all worked in favour of the bishops having precedence over the governors. Yet, in the end it was decided that having a monarch at the head of the state and not churchman was more appropriate. Montenegro was made up of four nahias at that time - Katun, Rijeka, Crmnica, and Ljesanska. Bishop Danilo had to withstand several Turkish attacks, and he sought protection from Russia; this would become a tradition in the foreign policy of Montenegro. In the second half of the eighteenth century, one character of interest made an appearance: Scepan Mali presented himself as the Russian Emperor Peter III, and thus managed to suppress the bishop of Montenegro for a time. The first important steps in founding state institutions, thus fighting against tribal anarchy, were made by Petar I (1784-1830). He tried to make peace among the tribes by forcing them to take oaths. Through a decision made by the Council of Cetinje (1796) known as the "Stega", he unified the tribes in the battle against the Turks. Unified and at peace, they not only offered strong resistance to the vizier of Scutari, Mohammed-pasha Busatlija, they even defeated him at the battles of Martinici and Krusi. Afterward, the Assembly at Stanjevici adopted the The General Code of Montenegro and the Mountains (1798, appended in 1803), and founded the Office of Justice of Montenegro and the Mountains, the so-called Kuluk. Apart from cooperating with Serbian rebels, they also unified for a short time with the people of Boka Kotorska (1814). His successor, Petar II (1830-1851), is more famous as a poet than as the bishop or lord of Montenegro. With the removal of the governors, ambiguity in government was removed. This made it possible for the bishop to found the Administrative Senate of Montenegro and the Mountains, and to establish the armed forces of the government. After the elimination of the Patriarchate of Pec, the pashalik of Belgrade became the centre of all that was Serbian, and Austria and Turkey fought their three last wars around it. In the second half of the eighteenth century, a unique system of local autonomies was created. Although it was founded on the authority of the Porta, it was not uniform at the level of the pashaliks because of the anarchy which raged throughout the land. Led by Djordje Petrovic (1762-1817), better known as Karadjordje, the rebels quickly ousted and killed the Turkish governors, janissaries and Turkish landowners, thus liberating the whole pashalik. Up till the liberation of Belgrade (early in 1807), they defeated the janissaries and sultan's army several times - Ivankovac (1805), Misar (1806), Deligrad, Loznica and Varvarin. They organized a system of government and structured it, including a strong military branch. The organization of the state was represented by the leader (Karadjordje), the National Assembly, the Governing Council, and the military and local officers. The legal structure of the state was determined by the constitutional acts of 1805, 1808, and 1811. The Serbs crossed the border of the pashalik of Belgrade with the intention of liberating their brethren in Turkey and of unifying with Old Serbia, Montenegro, Herzegovina and Bosnia. Their goal was to revive the medieval Serbian empire, and they counted on unifying with the Serbs in Austria if the opportunity presented itself. This idea was too far-fetched at the time, and it was only realized a century later. Simultaneously with the efforts to create a state, the rebels were trying to elevate its cultural level. Many educated Serbs from Austria moved into Serbia, among them the famous writer Dositej Obradovic; he helped Ivan Jugovic open the Great School (1808) and took care of the education of Karadjordje's successor, his son Aleksa. Russian aid to the rebels was great, and the uprising fell on hard times when Russia, under attack by Napoleon, made peace with Turkey in Bucharest (1812). In 1813, an enormous Turkish army shattered the rebels and set up its own government in the pashalik of Belgrade. Yet the war between Serbia and Turkey did not end there. It flared up again the following year with the unsuccessful rebellion of Hadzi-Prodan, and in 1815 with a new uprising. The latter was led by a new Serbian leader, Milos Obrenovic (1783-1860, prince from 1815 to 1839 and again from 1858 to 1860), who made a peace treaty with Grand Vizier Marashli Ali-pasha, after waging several successful battles. That brought an end to the warring period of the Serbian revolution (1804-1815). In the peacetime period of the revolution, the Serbs finally built and organized a state which attained complete autonomy by the Sultan's edicts of 1830 and 1833, thus entering a dependent relationship to Turkey as a vassal or tributary state. Then Prince Milos distributed feudal lands to the peasants (1835), a significant decision for future generations of Serbs because it was pivotal in guiding Serbian society towards democracy. The principality of Serbia took in six so-called nahias in 1831-1832, which had already been liberated by Karadjordje. Thus, Serbia spread over an area of 37,511 square kilometres, Thereafter it obtained the right to have dynastic rulers, and it was organized under a constitution (1835 and 1838). The period from 1835 to 1878 was a time in which the society of Serbian peasants fought for an independent state. At the same time, state management, culture and education became institutionalized, and in economy the beginnings of industrialization and banking began to appear, not to mention trades and handicrafts. At the time of the constitutionalist rule, the principality got its Civil Code (1844) and The Plan (1844), the national and state programme which was drawn up by one of the great Serbian statesmen, Ilija Garasanin. The state paid ever greater attention to education, although elementary education did not become obligatory until 1882. In parallel to the elementary and secondary schools, the Lyceum was also founded (1838), which later became the Great School (1863), and finally the University (1905). Apart from several cultural institutions, such as the National Museum, the Serbs also laid the foundations for the future Academy of Arts and Sciences by founding the Serbian Association of Scholars. Serbian statesmen were convinced that they could not easily and quickly overcome the country's backwardness caused by centuries of slavery under the Turks, and from the 1830s onward they regularly sent talented young people to do their studies in famous university centres of Europe. In that way, Serbia, and also Montenegro, got well-versed experts in all fields of science, culture and politics. The very top scholars financed by the state, mostly children from villages, returned to the country with the knowledge and manners of educated Europeans, which became increasingly evident. The Serbian government put great stock in scientific and scholarly advancement, and world class scholars and scientists were spawned in Serbia and later in Yugoslavia; examples include Jovan Cvijic, Milutin Milankovic and Slobodan Jovanovic. Scientists who needed expensive laboratories stayed abroad and made some of the greatest advances in their fields of expertise - Nikola Tesla, Mihailo Pupin and others. Throughout this period, rulers from both the dynasties (from the Obrenovic family and Karadjordjevic family) kept deposing and replacing each other on the throne. During the second rule of Prince Mihailo (1860- 1868), Serbia greatly expanded its influence beyond the area where ethnic Serbs were living, and it became the centre of the First Balkan Union, concluded with Montenegro, Greece, and Rumania; it also included political organizations of the Bulgarians and Croats. Serbia thus gained affirmation as the leader in the struggle against Turkey, becoming a country of high repute among the peoples of the Balkans. The reign of Milan Obrenovic (Prince 1868-1882, King 1882-1889) is the link between this period and the one following (1878-1918), that is, the period of the existence of the independent democratic state which fought for Serbian and Yugoslav unification. The uprising in Bosnia not only drew Serbia and Montenegro into the war with Turkey, it also caused a great crisis in the East; the great powers got involved as a solution was sought for. With the Congress of Berlin, Serbia's independence was recognized along with its territorial expansion in the southeast which included the four districts. The Principality stretched out over 48,303 square kilometres at that time. Disappointed in Russia, Prince Milan turned to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, signing the Secret Convention with them (1881), and the empire was the first to recognize him when he was proclaimed king (1882). During his reign, railway lines through Serbia were laid which connected Austro-Hungary with Turkey, that is Europe with Asia. However, Serbia also got involved in a losing war with Bulgaria (1885). With the formal founding of three political parties (the Radical Party, the Progressive Party, and the Liberal Party), the political life of Serbia was constrained by the Constitution of 1869, so a new constitution was adopted in 1888. It was one of the best in Europe and it made parliamentary rule possible. The reign of King Aleksandar (1889-1903) was accompanied by numerous constitutional and parliamentary crises, as well as crises in the royal court. In the period of transition from the nineteenth to the twentieth century, Serbia had just over two million inhabitants, and it recovered militarily and economically. The ruler's autocratic regime, and especially his marriage to Draga Masin, a courtier of his mother (Queen Natalija), resulted in great unpopularity which ended in the murder of the king and queen. Serbian rulers in the last two centuries came to the throne relatively young, except for King Petar Karadjordjevic (1903-1921), who took the crown when he was already advanced in years. He waited abroad for the reinstatement of the Constitution of 1888, with slight changes, and then gave his pledge to it. Throughout his rule he held to its principles. His reign was marked by parliamentary democracy. Having withstood a difficult customs war with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which forced it to reorient itself from trading in livestock to meat processing and its export, Serbia once again gathered the Balkan states into an alliance and started a war with Turkey, with the tacit support of Russia. In the First Balkan War (1912), Turkey was defeated by Serbia at Kumanovo and Bitolj. The Montenegrins took Scutari, the Bulgarians Edirne, both with the help of the Serbian army. Serbia liberated the Vardar region of Macedonia from the Turks and annexed it, thus expanding its territories to an area of 87,800 square kilometres. As the accord between Serbia and Bulgaria (as allies and neighbours) was broken by this action, they now went to war with each other. In the Second Balkan War (1913), Serbia defeated Bulgaria, thus causing lasting difficulties in their relations. Montenegro put great effort into creating an organized and orderly state, though it was tiny, sparsely populated, economically under-developed, lacking a system of roads and depending on the trade of livestock as its economic basis. One of the most important factors in its development was the decision of Danilo, the successor to the bishop-poet Njegos, to refuse the bishop's sceptre and proclaim himself to be prince (1852). In place of a bishop and lord, Montenegro got a secular ruler, who reigned for a short time and who endured two wars with Turkey (1852, 1858). In the meantime, he adopted the General Law Code of the Country. The government of Montenegro was finally set up during the reign of Prince and King Nikola (1860-1918). The early period of his reign was more significant in this regard. Montenegro was initially defeated in the war against Turkey in 1862, but it had great success in the war of 1876-1878. The Congress of Berlin recognized its independence, and it was expanded to include significant amounts of territory (Niksic, Kolasin, Zabljak, Spuz, Podgorica, and Bar, while Plav and Gusinje were exchanged for Ulcinj). The absolute rule of Prince and King Nikola was not weakened by the adoption of the General Property Code (1888), or of the Constitution (1905) which introduced a parliamentary government. When political parties began to appear, the ruler responded by proclaiming Montenegro a kingdom (1910). In the First Balkan War, Montenegro extended its territory, which now encompassed 14,443 square kilometres, including the fertile regions of Metohia. In those territories there were about 350,000 inhabitants, mostly of Serbian nationality. Montenegro kept this area during the period of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), with the exception of Metohia. Further activity of the Serbs in the Habsburg monarchy aimed to regain political autonomy for the areas where the Serbs lived in compact groups, especially in the territories of southern Hungary, which later became Vojvodina. Even in this period the Serbs had become a significant political factor in the rivalry between Vienna and Pest. Under those conditions the Serbian Council met in Timisoara (1790), where they elected Stevan Stratimirovic to be the Metropolitan and demanded territorial autonomy. The Serbs in southern Hungary had two other electoral-congressional councils, both held in Sremski Karlovci (Karlowitz), in 1848 (known as the May Assembly) and 1861 (known as the Annunciation Council). Apart from territory - the Vojvodovina Srbska (Serbian Duchy) - they also sought internal self-government and the appropriate authority for it: a patriarch, a duke, a parliament (council), legislation, jurisprudence, a coat of arms, flag and language. Vienna was forced to acquiesce to the Serbs after the struggle with Hungarians in the Revolution of 1848-49 and they proclaimed the Duchy of Serbia under a special decree, along with the Banate of Temis as a territory independent from Hungary. The Duchy, which included parts of Backa, Banat and eastern Srem, was directly subordinated to Vienna. However, it did not last long (1849-1860) nor did it satisfy the demands of the Serbs, especially because it was set up so that they were not a majority in it. The reconstruction of the Habsburg monarchy along dynastic lines (1867 - Austro-Hungary), which was accompanied by the Croatian- Hungarian Pact (1868), did not even include a solution to the problem of the Croats, much the less to the question of the Serbs or of the Slavs in general. The United Serbian Youth and the Serbian National Liberal party, which were created at that time, kept their distance from the policy of agreement-making, and they cherished the idea of common Serbian interests and unification. The spirit and heart of that movement was Svetozar Miletic. In the 1870s, the Serbs living in Croatia first realized that such a policy was not advantageous, and they accepted the reconstruction of the monarchy and thereafter advancement was made in the fields of politics and economy. Zagreb took over the role of Novi Sad as the centre of Serb politics in Austro-Hungary. The attempt of so-called notable Serbs in southern Hungary to direct Serbian policy towards dualism was not very successful. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Serb and Croatian democratic parties drew closer in their views through the Resolutions of Rijeka and Zadar (1905). Thus, the so-called Serb-Croat coalition was formed. This laid a solid foundation for a Yugoslav ("south Slav") policy, and for the common state they would soon form. Disagreement between the Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks about Macedonia was at the centre of Balkan politics in the latter half of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century. Although greater care was taken of Christians living in Turkey (Serbia and Montenegro watched after Serbs in Turkey) - a consulate was opened, aid was sent to schools and monasteries and so on - their status did not improve greatly. The migration of Serbs from Old Serbia into the Kingdom of Serbia did not cease. When the Young Turks returned constitutional order to the Empire, the Serbian people began to organize themselves nationally and politically (1908), and they chose Skopje as their hub since it had once been the capital of the Serbian Empire. In order to be active politically, they allowed themselves to be called Ottoman Serbs. To protect the Serb population, besides helping them to have Serbs as their bishops, Serbia had to send armed guerillas and weapons to the population there. This was done to protect the Serbs from the Albanians and from the activities of Bulgarian irregular military formations. Those Serbs were liberated by the Serbian army in 1912, after its victory in the First Balkan War. The conservatism of the Bosnian beys was evident from their constant resistance to reforms which were slowly and reluctantly, carried out by the Turkish Empire. The elimination of the janissaries and of the districts under the rule of local feudal lords left weaker traces than the break up of the beys' power in the mid-ninetenth century, which was done by the Serbian apostate Turk Omer-pasha Latas. However, this did not improve the status of the Christian population, the Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. Riots and uprisings occurred more often in the nineteenth century and they were led by the Serb population, which was supported by both Serb states. The most important uprising was the one that began in 1875 and lasted up to 1878. The result was most unexpected for the instigators of the uprising, the Serbs; instead of unification with the Serbian principalities, this province of Turkey was placed under Austro-Hungarian rule by the decisions of the Berlin Congress. Austro-Hungary first occupied it (1878) and then annexed it (1908), against the great resistance of the Serb and Moslem population, accompanied by that of the Serbian states. The Serbs, both Orthodox and Moslem, fought long and hard to attain ecclesiastical and educational autonomy which they were only given at the beginning of the twentieth century, after which they started to establish their own national and party organizations. The agrarian question, the source underlying almost all unrest, was not solved by Austro-Hungary either. The victories of the Serbian army in the Balkan Wars aroused the Serbian spirit and pride among their compatriots in the Habsburg monarchy in a way not caused by any event before that. The government in Vienna responded by dissolving the ecclesiastical-educational autonomy of Serbs in southern Hungary. The arrival of the Austro-Hungarian successor to the throne in Sarajevo for maneuvers scheduled on the greatest Serb holy day (St. Vitus' Day) was taken to be a provocative gesture directed at Serbian national interests. Instead of a welcome, the heir to the throne and his wife were met by the bullets of a devoted national fighter, a member of the organization known as Mlada Bosna, Gavrilo Princip (1914). This brought the already tense relationship between the Serbs and Austro-Hungarians into even greater friction. The Austro-Hungarians then placed demands on Serbia which deeply violated its sovereign rights. When they refused, Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia. The Austro-Hungarian attack was repulsed by the Serbian army which defeated its enemies in several battles, the most significant being those of Cer and Kolubara (1914). When the Austro-Hungarian army was reinforced by German troops, and when Bulgaria attacked Serbia from the East, Serbia and Montenegro buckled under the attacks of their more powerful enemies. Not willing to sign a capitulation, King Petar, the parliament, government, army and some of the population retreated under difficult, even tragic, conditions, over the Albanian mountains to the Adriatic and Ionic seas (1915). King Nikola also left Montenegro which was then forced to capitulate. With the support of the western allies, the Serbian army managed to reorganize itself, to fill its ranks with volunteers and to open up a front at Salonica. ALBANIAN PRELUDE
STRANGE TO REMEMBER NOW how nearly I missed it all. In February 1938 I was planning a trip round the world to study youth questions -always my greatest interest-when I was offered a good fee to go to Albania to photograph the wedding of its King Zog. I went-very grudgingly. "Ten days-that will be enough, quite enough," I told the editor of the London weekly Illustrated. "I'm not interested in the Balkans. The East is what draws me-first the Near East, then the Far East; by boat to Constantinople, then Syria, Persia, Afghanistan, India. But ten days-yes, I'll take ten days out and no more, for the Balkans, if you insist." This was a year before Albania became news with the Italian occupation. Except that it was "somewhere in the Balkans," no one seemed to know where the little country lay. Even Cook's, the tourist agency, was quite uncertain as to how one could get there. It is curious how much stranger the Balkans appeared to us than even the least-known parts of Asia. This is still true. We take the strangeness of Asia for granted, but the Balkans tease us with their mystery. They are just across a little sea, no larger than one of our American Great Lakes, from tourist-haunted Italy. They constitute the narrow land bridge from Europe to the Near East, and so to Africa and Asia, which has been fought over by uncounted races and powers. They are closely bound to us by trade. Yet to most of us the Balkans still remain unreal as a mirage. And of all the Balkan countries, Albania was the most unknown of all. Even how to get there was a problem. At last over the telephone the cultivated voice of the First Secretary of the Albanian Legation in London provided the answer. So off I went, with an irreducible minimum of luggage and a maximum of light photographic equipment: train to Rome and Bari, by boat across the narrow sea to Durazzo. Well I remember the rosy dawn when I came up on the deck of that fussy little tub that had bounced me across the stormy Adriatic. Perhaps it is a good thing that we can't foresee the future. If I had known then what was coming, if I had had an inkling of the mad world, the outrageously absurd, the thrillingly splendid world I was stepping into, if I had guessed the discomforts and the miseries, the meannesses and the incredible cruelties that were lying in wait for me-would I have turned back? Would I have run down again into my "royal cabin" and sailed away, far away, to safer, saner, cleaner, quieter, more comfortable lands? The answer is a completely certain: No! For with the discomforts were to come unforgettable beauty; with the absurdities, Homeric laughter; and despite the horrors, a splendid satisfaction. If I had not seen with my own eyes and myself experienced the cruelties, I might never have known the simple glory to which men's hearts and women's strength can rise. For that experience almost no price could be too heavy. The tall minaret of Durazzo Harbor was the first note of that swelling symphony, with all its delicate and its grand motifs, its clashing discords, its rumbling undertones and laughing trebles, that was soon to catch me up and sweep me away to-well, to brotherhood with the toughest men in Europe and then to eleven agonizing prisons; to that and to so much more. The minaret, slim as a lady's finger against the rose-red dawn-why did not that white finger shake in solemn warning? To me it seemed, that morning, only to beckon in welcoming beauty. Close at hand, Durazzo looked like almost any other small Mediterranean harbor. But over toward the far eastern horizon lay what I thought at first was a bank of heavy white clouds flushed by the rising sun. But they were not clouds. There, suspended as by invisible chains from heaven, hung the fabled mountains of Albania. I felt a momentary pang of regret. Too bad, I thought, that I would not have time in my ten days to make their close acquaintance. Ten days! How funny that sounds now! I stayed in the Balkans for three and a half years. And I came to know those mountains as perhaps no foreign woman has known them before. I seem to have inherited my American pioneer grandmother's zest for simple, primitive living. To me sleeping on a sheepskin on the floor, washing in a snow-fed brook, eating with fingers from a central dish, trailing for days on horseback across almost pathless mountains are not hardship. That is my idea of a good way to live. I like heroic songs and minds fed on ancestral deeds of glory. Tenacious love of old tradition, of custom and dress handed down by forebears arouse my respect and admiration. I believe, as these people do-as my own ancestors believed-that liberty and personal and national honor are worth all one's possessions and one's life: that the life of a slave is not worth living. Better, far better, to fight even a hopeless battle and, if one must, to die. Everywhere among these mountain peoples I found these values to be the unconscious mainsprings of action, motivating men, women, and children of all classes. The more I saw of them the more they filled me with affection and admiration . . . I forgot the Far East. I never got to Constantinople -------------------------------------------------------------
"His speech, which lasted till nearly midnight, was delivered with simple dignity. When he finished, the courtroom was silent." (Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, July 12, 1946) THE MIHAILOVICH STORY: A RETELLING To those who are familiar with the story, General Draja Mihailovich ranks as perhaps the noblest, the most heroic and the most tragic and the most misunderstood figure of World War II. A Short Biography of Draza Mihailovich
Draza Mihailovich was born in 1893 in the small town of Ivanytza near Chachak, Serbia, Yugoslavia, where his father was a schoolmaster. In 1910 Mihailovich entered the Military Academy, but his studies were interrupted in 1912 when he took part in the SerboTurkish War as a Cadet-Corporal. Twice decorated for acts of bravery, he was promoted to Cadet- Sergeant and later to Second-Lieutenant in the Serbo- Bulgarian War, and participated in all operations. When the First World War broke out in 1914, Mihailovich served with his regiment and was decorated several times. He particularly distinguished himself in an action in September, 1918 near Shtip and was promoted to First-Lieutenant and decorated with the White Eagle. After the armistice, Mihailovich resumed his military studies. In 1929 he took a six months' course in the French Army. Promoted to Staff Offficer, then professor of tactics at the Higher College of the Military Academy, he was appointed Military Attache first in Soffa and subsequently in Prague. On the eve of the present war, Mihailovich submitted a report to the Yugoslav General Staff in which he forecast almost everything that took place in April, 1941. He was of the opinion that the idea of defending practically indefensible Northern frontiers should be abandoned and proposed concentrating all forces in mountainous regions where the overwhelming superiority of the German tanks would be ineffectual. Hewroteabook on guerrilla warfare which secured him a considerable following. At the time that war broke out Colonel Mihailovich was Chief of Staff of a motorised division in Doboy, a small town in Bosnia. When capitulation was ordered by General Simovich without the knowledge of the Yugoslav Government, he refused to accept it and resolved to try to break through with chosen troops in the direction of Eastern Bosnia and Serbia, where he hoped to find an established front, and to join up with the regular army. On the way there he and his men were attacked by strong German formations, which, after fierce fighting, routed the troops; the commander of the small tank formation was taken prisoner, while Mihailovich was forced to withdraw into the hills. Asked whether he had heard anything about the capitulation, Mihailovich answered: "Capitulation ? I do not know what capitulation is. l have served in the army for many years, but I have never heard this word." HE SAVED RUSSIA There has been widespread recognition of the fact that the Yugoslav Revolution on March 27 and the Mihailovich resistance during the early months of the occupation - there was no Tito resistance at that time ! - saved the Soviet Union from being crushed by the Nazi legions. The pages that follow contain some excerpts from articles and editorials which appeared in major American newspapers, and a few paragraphs from David Martin's classic book: "Ally Betrayed: the Uncensored Story of Tito and Mihailovich". Ravna Gora Colonel Mihailovich arrived at Ravna Gora on May 8th, 1941, and there the first guerilla force was organised, not only the first in Yugoslavia, but the first in Europe; and for the first time on record in the countries of enslaved Europe a new way of opposing the conqueror was brought into effect. Mihailovich was appointed Major-General on December 7th, 1941; Minister of War on January 11th, 1942; and Lieutenant- General on January 19th, 1942. Finally on June 17th, 1942 he was appointed General and Deputy Commander-in-Chief. Germany became alarmed. General Dankelmann, Military Governor of Serbia, asked for reinforcements; but the German Army was too deeply involved in Russia, and it was impossible to deplete the Russian front. The German General attempted to arrange an armistice with Mihailovich, but the latter laid down certain conditions. He agreed to receive the German envoys, nevertheless his terms proved unacceptable to the Germans. "I demand", he said, "that the German troops evacuate my country and then peace will be restored. As long as a single enemy soldier remains on our soil we shall continue to fight." Throughout Yugoslavia Mihailovich and his men were concealed everywhere: in the hollow recesses of the plains of the Srem and Backa regions, in the mountains of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, amid the granite boulders of Montenegro; some were found scattered in villages which had been razed to the ground; others lurked behind the rocks of the Southern Adriatic coast; while sometimes they lived underground, hidden in secret munition dumps and caves. They lay in ambush in the ruins of bombed houses from which they would suddenly dart out and wreak vengeance on the enemy, whether German, Bulgar, Mihailovich's men hovered like vultures over enemy camps ever ready to pounce upon their prey. Whereas the Germans succeeded in recruiting legionaries and volunteers for service with the Wehrmacht amongst almost every conquered and satellite people in the world, yet the Serbs and the Poles never contributed a single military unit in support of the enemy. The Germans would no longer tolerate this kind of resistance. They sent their well-known Strafexpeditionen, and the fight began again. The reprisals were appalling. They will remain for all time a symbol of German barbarism, for the Germans killed for the sake of killing. On January 19th, 1943, a new proclamation from General Bader the Commander of me German Forces, was issued against General Mihailovich. "A group of rebels, under the leadership of the former Colonel Drazha Mihailovich, is continuing to fight," said General Bader. "These rebels give themselves out to be the regular Yugoslav Army and they are endeavouring to prolong the war, which was brought to a conclusion by the armistice that has been duly signed...." Warfare went on unabated and General Mihailovich sent the following message to General Bader: "A year and half has elapsed since I undertook this life-and- death struggle to exterminate the invaders on Yugoslav soil... Our fighting spirit is based on our traditional love of liberty and on our unflinching faith in the victory of our Allies... For every German soldier killed or missing, you ordered the shooting of 50 to 100 innocent and defenceless Serbian people. l wish to draw attention to the fact that the day of judgment is not far off. I warn you that if you continue to use savage reprisals I will use the same measures against German soldiers... " 1,000,000 Dollars Dead or alive On July 20th, 1943, the Axis-controlled Press published a proclamation offering a reward of 100.000 gold marks for the capture of Mihailovich, dead or alive. His men were being killed, seized or arrested. His followers were being questioned, tortured and imprisoned; they were also being sent to work in the mines. In spite of me extremely precarious situation, in spite of German reprisals, in spite of lack of arms and ammunition, General Mihailovich continued to exert his organized military resistance. For military intervention supporting the Allied cause, especially at the most critical moment when Rommel's Afrikakorps stood before El-Alamein, General Mihailovich received congratulations and thanks from the Allied Commanders. General Eisenhower, General Auchinleck, Air- Marshal Tedder, Admiral Harwood and General de Gaulle emphasized the importance of his help. Once again the Yugoslav David defied a Goliath; and this time successfully. We owe that military success to the Yugoslav people and their leader, Mihailovich. After the Teheran Conference, General Mihailovich was sacrificed for reasons of high political expediency. In the Autumn of 1944, he was abandoned by the Great Allies and as his attempts at cooperation with the advancing Red Army had been rejected, General Mihailovich demobilized the greater part of his forces. In September, 1944, when his position was becoming precarious, the Americans offered to get him out of the country. General Mihailovich replied: "I must stay with my people. My strength is in the peopk." And he stayed with his people. The Red Army entered Belgrade on October 20th, 1944, to enthrone Tito, a Russian emissary, against the will of the great majority of the Yugoslav people. General Mihailovich remained with his people who guarded him and provided for his needs. Last Known Letter of Draza Mihailovich After five long years spent in the mountains the state of General Mihailovich's health caused anxiety to those around him. He was begged to leave the country for a while. He categorically refused to consider taking such a step, and, in a letter - the last one written by him - he says: "Under no conceivable circumstances will l leave my country and my people... The Communists are devoting all their efforts to capture me... On several occasions I have been in desperate straits... You know my strategic purpose - to maintain myself at all costs for the great task which lies ahead. It may be that I shall fall in our sacred cause. But you all know well that this would not mean that the righteous cause for which our nation is fighting would fall with me...'." General Mihailovich fell seventeen months after the so-called "liberation" of Yugoslavia. Reports from Belgrade on March 24th, 1946, announced his capture under puzzling circumstances on March 13th, 1946. His trial before a Communist military court began on June 10th, 1946. He was "sentenced" to death on July 15th, 1946, and murdered on July 17th, 1946. Draza Mihailovich - A Legend General Mihailovich is no more. He has departed this world convinced that he was abandoned by the Allies. The voices that were raised abroad in his defense were not allowed to reach him and he died without the satisfaction of knowing that in the opinion of many he died an innocent man and a great soldier. General Mihailovich is no more, but the legends of his heroic deeds are becoming more and more popular and they live in the hearts of the people. General Mihailovich is no more. He has departed this world. Those who murdered him have not only perpetrated a crime, they have also committed a grave mistake, for democratic public opinion is well aware of General Mihailovich's merits. General Mihailovich is no more. The last words of this great patriot were concise and poignant. He said: "I strove for much, l undertook much, but the gales of the world have carried away both me and my work." STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT H. McDOWELL Mihailovich was particularly active against the Axis during I941 and I942, when he made a very real confirmed, contribution to the Anglo-American campaigns in Africa through harassing of German lines of communication. During I943 and the first half of I944, the strength of German reprisals led him to adopt a more cautious policy, similar to that ordered by the Allies for other resistance groups in Europe. At the same time the Nationalists suffered constant attacks on the part of the Communist-led bands. A Tribute to General Mihailovich On June 3rd, 1946, the following letter was published in The Times: Sir, We are yours truly, Bernard, Cardinal Griffin George Cicestr. M.E. Aubrey, Secretary Baptist Union. Birdwood, F.M. Caldecote. LKM. Caldecote. Lindsay. Arthur Longmore, Air Chief Marshal John McKenzie, Moderator, Church of Scotland. Milne, F.M. Gilbert Murray. Rebecca West. In a letter published in Reynolds News on May 19th, 1946, Mr Churchill said amongst other things that he has
MIHAILOVICH'S CLOSING SPEECH Mihailovich closed his defense with a calm and dignified speech which ran for four and a half hours. Remarkably, the full text of this historic speech has not been published anywhere. The State Printing House in Belgrade, in its 556 page book on the Mihailovich trial, devoted less than 1,000 words, all told, to the entire Mihailovich defense, with even more cursory treatment of his closing speech. The Deeds of Draza Mihailovich When General Mihailovich first organized his resistance against the invader in the Summer of 1941, he carried out extensive operations. His task was complicated from the first by the necessity of defending the Serbs against the Ustashis who were attempting to massacre them out of all existence. The appalling reprisals carried out by the Germans together with the small likelihood of receiving much help from abroad, obliged the General to alter his tactics. He adopted guerrilla tactics. His troops were active everywhere carrying out sabotage and well-thought out operations. At the same time he set out a widespread and powerful military organization in the greater part of the country to prepare for large scale operations when the Allies should land. General Mihailovich undertook major operations at four periods: At the time
when the Germans broke off their friendly relations with the U.S.S.R.
towards the end of June 1941, and as Russia was therefore obliged to enter
the war on the side of the Allies, he organized uprisings in Serbia and
Montenegro. Apart from guerrilla warfare against the enemy, General Mihailovich's troops protected the civilian population from German reprisals and requisitions and also from the terroristic methods of the Partisans. The Central National Committee, on which Croats and Slovenes were represented as well as Serbs, has repeatedly made it clear in messages endorsed by General Mihailovich that its movement was purely democratic and aimed only at the liberation of Yugoslavia by such methods which did not involve the physical annihilation of its population nor their enslavement by a dictatorship, whatever its colour or foreign sympathies. The National Assembly held in the mountains in January 1944 once again gave clear and unequivocal expression to these aimed, though their resolutions were given little publicity in the outside world.
|