Yugoslavia between the World Wars

16 580 38
Yugoslavia between the World Wars
Formed in 1918 as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, then renamed Yugoslavia in 1929, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia lasted until 1941. Initially uniting the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires into the Kingdom of Serbia, it faced problems such as ethnic tensions, political instability and, eventually, invasion and occupation by the Axis powers during World War II.


Introduction


No other European country was as colorful, multifaceted and complex as Yugoslavia, and its turbulent story made it the personification of chaos, confusion and hostility in the Balkans. The end of World War I radically changed the political map of Europe. Four empires disappeared overnight: the Russian, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and German, and on their ruins a number of independent national states arose, among which a new state entity appeared - the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (KSCS), which included the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, based on the idea of ​​unifying the southern Slavs.




King Peter I of Serbia. 1918. In the cauldron of Balkan politics, King Peter I of Serbia (1844–1921) was considered a national hero for ending the rivalry between two warring dynasties, the Karadjordjevics and Obrenovic. King Peter was fifty-eight years old when he returned to Belgrade in triumph and was crowned in 1904, beginning a reign that many remember as Serbia’s Golden Age. The king supported a benevolent constitutional monarchy governed by a democratic parliament and was an ardent supporter of Yugoslav unification.

But these peoples, who suddenly found themselves together in a new state formation, lived in different empires and civilizations, they professed different religions and were strangers to each other...

Retrospective


Even when the First World War was raging in 1914, a South Slavic committee was created in Rome by Balkan emigrants, which decided the key question – which states and within what borders would be created in the Balkans, in the event of the victory of the Entente and the collapse of Austria-Hungary. On December 7, 1914, the Serbian National Assembly adopted the Niš Declaration, in which it defined the final goals of the war – "to fight for the liberation of the still unliberated Yugoslav territories of Austria-Hungary".


Serbian soldiers near an airplane. During the first period of the war (1914/1915), the Serbian army increased to 13 infantry and one cavalry division. During this period, up to 500 people were mobilized, and in November 000, another 1915 people were called up to the army.

Note. Declaration – a document adopted on December 7, 1914 by the National Assembly of Serbia in the temporary capital of Niš (southern Serbia), which declared the struggle for the liberation and unification of the "unfree brothers" and the unification of all southern Slavs living in the Habsburg Empire into a single state. It should be noted here that the Entente, although an ally of Serbia in this war, still supported the preservation of Austria-Hungary and did not accept the ideas of the National Assembly for the post-war structure in the Balkans, as set out in the Niš Declaration.


The Orient Hotel in Niš, where the Niš Declaration was adopted. The Niš Declaration was a document adopted by the Kingdom of Serbia on 7 December 1914 during World War I, outlining Serbia's wartime goals, including the unification of all South Slavs into a single state "on the ruins of Austria-Hungary". The declaration was a strategic move to gain support from the South Slavs of Austria-Hungary and to present Serbia's war aims as liberation rather than mere self-defense.

In 1915, this committee moved to London, where its influence on the Allied politicians was much greater than its size. Although this committee, financed by the Serbian government, consisted mainly of Slovenes and Croats, it was still against Greater Serbia and advocated an equal union of nations, although it recognized that since Serbia was already an established state and had an apparatus of state administration, the new South Slavic state should unite around it. In addition, after the two Balkan Wars (1912-1913), Serbia had significantly increased its territory and population, which, combined with greater sympathy for it on the part of the South Slavic peoples, further increased its self-confidence.


Belgrade during the Austro-Hungarian occupation of 1915-1918. In December 1914, the Austro-Hungarian troops captured Belgrade, but its occupation was short-lived, as the Serbian army repelled the aggressors after the Battle of Kolubara in late 1914, but the second occupation lasted from autumn 1915 until the end of World War I. During the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Belgrade from 1915 to 1918, the city was administered by the Serbian Military General Government, established by the Austro-Hungarian Supreme Command, and the territory of Serbia was divided into occupation zones, including Belgrade and the surrounding areas. The Austro-Hungarian occupation was accompanied by both repression and attempts to somehow normalize life - the occupiers tried to control the situation through the military and intelligence services, as well as through the construction of new schools and entertainment venues

The idea of uniting the Slavic peoples around Serbia, proclaimed by the Skupština (parliament) as a war aim in 1914, was deeply rooted not only among the Serbian political and intellectual elite, but also among the broad masses of the people, and this idea was in the air long before the outbreak of World War I. Thus, the leader of the People's Radical Party of Serbia, Nikola Pašić* (1845–1926) already claimed in 1894 that:

Serbia, cut off from other Serbian countries, has no reason to exist.

In 1878, after Serbia gained independence, its army became very influential, and under Russian patronage, Serbia became the center of the South Slav movement, and the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Ottoman Empire by Austria-Hungary in 1908 only strengthened Serbian nationalism.


Sarajevo residents read a poster announcing the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1908. In 1908, Austria-Hungary formally annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, territories it had ruled since the Congress of Berlin in 1878. The event, known as the Bosnian Crisis, was strongly resisted by Serbia and other Slavic groups, who saw it as a threat to their aspirations.

Researchers studying this period write about a real war psychosis – in Serbia everything happened under the sign of preparation for the liberation war and further unification: the Church, education, the press and literature, all of this prepared public opinion for the upcoming liberation war. And Serbian scientist Jovan Cvijić* categorically stated:

The Serbian problem must be solved by force.

Note. At the turn of the century, about twelve million people lived in the territory of the future Yugoslavia, most of whom were southern Slavs. But there were also other ethnic, linguistic and religious groups - Turks, Albanians, Germans, Magyars, Jews, Gypsies, Vlachs and others, professing various religions: Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Islam.

Simply put, the majority of the population living at the turn of the century in what would later be called Yugoslavia were southern Slavs, related to each other by language and culture, that is, according to today's categories, they were Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, Montenegrins and Macedonians. And even despite the extreme differences between religious denominations - Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims - the southern Slavs still intuitively felt a cultural affinity - they could communicate freely with each other, because Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins and Bosnians speak the same language.


Formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes


So, the World War was coming to an end, and before the Entente decided to wipe Austria-Hungary off the map of Europe, 33 Balkan deputies in the Vienna Parliament called for the unification of the southern Slavs, and on October 6, 1918, the People's Committee of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was formed in Zagreb with the aim of taking over the reins of power at the moment of the collapse of Austria-Hungary.


The Balkan States before World War I. Before World War I, the Balkan Peninsula was a region of intense political instability and nationalism, with various ethnic groups fighting for independence and influence from the weakened Ottoman Empire. This unstable situation, often referred to as the "Balkan Powder Keg," was one of the major factors that contributed to the outbreak of the war.

This Committee advocated the unification of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on the condition that the Constitutional Assembly decides on the form of government (republic or monarchy) by a two-thirds majority, and during the interregnum two governments are temporarily formed: the government of the Kingdom of Serbia and the People's Committee of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs.

Note. In 1917, another rival South Slav group was formed, consisting of members of the Austro-Hungarian parliament and government, who also advocated a union of Croats, Slovenes and Serbs, but under Austrian leadership – the Habsburgs had long seen themselves in some role as protectors of the Slavic peoples and “gatherers” of the Slavic lands. The Serbs and the South Slav Committee then went further, signing an agreement to create an independent Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes under Serbian kings, including those lands currently under Austria-Hungary. When the Habsburg monarchy collapsed under the pressure of war, the Committee of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes declared itself the ruler of the Slavs of the collapsed Austria-Hungary, which pushed it toward union with Serbia. It should be noted here that the newly created state was seen as a “reward” for Serbia’s own war of liberation, or, in common parlance, as its “war booty.” Such a centralized and unitary state guaranteed Serbia’s dominance..


Then Prince Regent Alexander I and French President Raymond Poincaré. In 1916, Serbian Prince Regent Alexander I and French President Raymond Poincaré visited the Verdun front. The visit was aimed at strengthening morale and demonstrating solidarity between Serbia and France. Alexander I was the Prince Regent of Serbia and acted on behalf of his ailing father, King Peter I. He served as Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Serbian Army during World War I.

Serbia's Entente allies, given the material losses and enormous human sacrifices the country had suffered in World War I, agreed to the creation of a united South Slav state and allowed the rival groups to form it. Negotiations followed, in which the National Committee gave in to Serbia and the Yugoslav Committee, allowing Prince Regent Alexander I Karadjordjevic to proclaim the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and SlovenesAt this stage, the devastated and war-torn region was held only by the army, which suppressed bitter rivalries between ethnic groups until borders were established.


Map of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes after World War I. After the war and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Kingdom of Serbia more than doubled in size to become the Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia. While the kingdom was known by that name in its early years, it became widely known as Yugoslavia (or variations such as "Yugo-Slavia") in 1922, officially changing its name to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929. With the unification of the South Slavic lands into a single kingdom, the capital remained in Belgrade and most of the power was in Serbia, with King Alexander earning the nickname "the Unifier." But here's the interesting thing: all of the united nations denied the existence of the Bosnians, considering them "Serbs and Croats who converted to Islam."

The state thus created was larger than an enlarged Serbia – it was an authoritarian monarchy, in which all powers belonged to the monarch, where absolutism was reflected in centralism at the state level and in the unitary, “Yugoslavism» at the national level.


King Alexander I meets King Ferdinand I of Romania as part of the Little Entente, which faded into political irrelevance in April 1937. The monarchs were prominent figures in their countries during an important period in European history. Prince Regent Alexander I of Yugoslavia, also known as Alexander I Karadjordjevic, reigned from 1921 to 1934. King Ferdinand I of Romania reigned from 1914 to 1927. Both kings played key roles in the complex political landscape of the Balkans, and their countries faced similar challenges of nationalism, ethnic tensions, and regional power dynamics.

The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was distinguished by its extreme heterogeneity. The state with a population of 11 people, according to the 984 census, was deeply divided, and not only along ethnic and religious lines – the subjects of this new state had experienced various forms of government with various state institutions throughout its history, and the populations of the regions differed sharply from each other in economic and cultural development, so against this background, centralism and absolutism of power became the only alternative for the state...


Sarajevo. In the 20s and 30s, Sarajevo underwent significant changes following World War I and the subsequent establishment of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The city, previously under Austro-Hungarian rule, came under Yugoslav rule, which brought about changes in political, social and cultural life. But this period also saw an increase in nationalist tensions, especially between Serbs and Croats, which later contributed to instability throughout the region. The Belgrade regime became increasingly centralized with each passing year, causing resentment among the non-Serb population, which had initially welcomed the creation of the new state. Sarajevo in the 20s and 30s was essentially a city in transition, dealing with the aftermath of World War I, the establishment of the new state and rising nationalist sentiments, while maintaining a dynamic, if complex, multicultural environment. And even despite the growing tensions, a certain level of multiculturalism remained in Sarajevo, where different ethnic and religious groups coexisted and interacted.

When entering the union state, each side had its own interests, political parties began to form on the basis of ethnic communities, and at the everyday level, friction between nationalities was expressed in statements such as “Serbs want everything" and only "the croats will ruin everything».


Streets of Zagreb. In the 20s and 30s, Zagreb experienced significant changes and developments, especially in architecture and national identity. It was a period of vibrant cultural and artistic life and political changes, and the city itself became a center of modern architecture, with a vibrant social scene, elegant hotels, cafes, and places to “see and be seen.” But this period also saw tensions between supporters of Croatian autonomy and supporters of Serbian centralization, which later led to the formation of a Croatian puppet state under Axis rule during World War II.

In 1919, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia was formed, which received a large number of votes (58 mandates), but refused to join the parliament and was soon banned (according to the Law on the Protection of the State), and in 1921 a new government was formed and a new constitution was adopted, which defined the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as a "constitutional, parliamentary and hereditary monarchy", the ideological basis of which was "Yugoslavism".


Ljubljana. In the 20s and 30s, Ljubljana underwent significant changes, especially under the influence of the architect Jože Plečnik (1872–1957), who had a significant impact on the urban landscape of Ljubljana in this period. In 1929, after the formation of Yugoslavia, Ljubljana became the capital of the Drava Banovina (which existed between 1929 and 1941 and was named after the Drava River), a region within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia corresponding to areas with a Slovene majority. After the end of World War I, the University of Ljubljana, founded in 1919, further strengthened the city’s role as an educational centre. Other institutions, such as the National University Library and the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, also contributed to the city’s intellectual life.

However, by all provisions the king had power and control over the people's representation - he was the one who convened the National Assembly and authorized its dissolution. The king sanctioned all laws and was the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He represented the state abroad, appointed ministers who were fully accountable to him and the National Assembly. In a word, the declared parliamentarism was nothing more than decoration.


Skopje is a city with a rich history, located in the Vardar River Valley. In the 1920s and 1930s, Skopje underwent significant changes as part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It was the capital of the Vardar Banovina (named after the Vardar River), one of the nine provinces of Yugoslavia, and experienced a period of modernization and development. As part of the KSKS, and later Yugoslavia, the city was the center of the formation of Macedonian national identity, through the standardization of the Macedonian language and the establishment of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. In the 20s and 30s, a university, media, and an academy of sciences were founded in Skopje, contributing to the intellectual and cultural life of the city. Skopje was also of strategic importance to Yugoslavia, due to its location on the border with Greece, Bulgaria, and Albania, making it important for the country's regional interests. By 1931, Skopje's population had increased to 64, indicating the city's growth and development, but the region nevertheless remained relatively poor and heavily dependent on royal investment from Belgrade, where the king, at the suggestion of the Council of Ministers, imposed a ban for four years.

Note. Yugoslavism is an ideology that emerged in the 30s in Croatia, which was part of the Habsburg Monarchy at the time. Yugoslavism is based on the idea that the southern Slavs – Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Bosnians and Bulgarians – belong to a single Yugoslav nation, historically divided by different circumstances, religions and dialects, which provided the basis for their cooperation and eventual political unification. The idea of Yugoslavism was very popular during the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires, as several ethnic groups and confessions of the southern Slavs began to consider themselves victims of foreign imperialism. The leaders of Yugoslavism even published the following declaration:

Since we, Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, constitute a small linguistic and national group with similar economic conditions; since we are inextricably linked by a single destiny on a single land, so that none of the three of us can exist separately; since among Slovenes, Croats and Serbs the idea of Yugoslavism is popular even today, we extend our national feelings beyond our borders to the Croats and Serbs. Therefore we all become members of a single Yugoslav nation.


This is how some "Yugoslavists" saw Yugoslavia. Albania and Bulgaria are included in this state

With the exception of Serbia, the newly formed state had no tradition of parliamentarism – none of the political parties were ready for dialogue, compromise or agreement, and due to serious dissatisfaction with the policies of the state-forming Serbian circles, nationalism began to spread widely among the South Slavic peoples. There were a great many political parties in the country, and all of them were nationalist, and also had their own paramilitary organizations, which were the main subjects of political violence.


Belgrade in the 20s. In record time, the capital acquired new boulevards, apartment buildings, prestigious government buildings, and the lifestyle of Belgraders began to resemble that of their European counterparts. Many educational and scientific institutions, sports associations and civil societies that existed before the war resumed their activities, and many new ones were created. It was a decade in which regular urban transport was established, and public peace and safety were occasionally disturbed by reckless drivers.

The confrontation between the political parties reached its climax on June 20, 1928, when the National Assembly became the scene of bloodshed, where in the middle of parliament, Radical Party MP Puniša Račić fired at Croatian MPs, killing Pavle Radić and Djuro Basariček and seriously wounding Ivan Pernar, Ivan Granda and Stjepan Radić.*, the last undisputed Croatian leader, who died a few days later.


Puniš Račić shoots a member of parliament, June 20, 1928 Serbian MP from Montenegro Puriša Račić opened fire on Croat MPs sitting on the front benches of the Yugoslav parliament building. Immediately after the shooting of the Croatian MPs, Yugoslav parliamentarism collapsed, giving way to the open dictatorship of Prince Regent Alexander

These deaths in parliament at the hands of an assassin turned Croatian MPs into martyrs, and the Croatian Ustasha began to use the deaths of Radić and his fellow party members as proof of Serbian hegemony and as justification for their terrorist activities against the Serbs.


Belgrade in the 20s. After the First World War, Belgrade underwent a major reconstruction, becoming the capital of the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes - in the 1920s, Belgrade's population increased dramatically, making it the most dynamic urban center of the new state, and this period was marked by both progress and difficulties, including rapid urbanization, reconstruction works and the influence of foreign capital, while the high demand for housing due to the population growth contributed to a boom in civil construction. It should be noted here that the newly formed Kingdom faced such serious problems as high inflation, a large budget deficit and a debt burden resulting from the war

Note. It was precisely during this period, after the murder of Stjepan Radić and a number of members of the Assembly and the further centralization of power in the hands of the Serbs and the king, that the separatist movement of the Ustaše (rebels) began to emerge in Croatia, led by Ante Pavelic, the future head of the Independent State of Croatia during World War II. This movement quickly gained strength, and was viewed with sympathy by Croatia's official political circles..

The King's Coup d'Etat


On January 6, 1929, six months after the murder of the Croatian deputies in the National Assembly, King Alexander I Karadjordjevic staged a coup d'état. After the First World War, dictatorial rule was not uncommon in Europe, so a state of emergency was declared in Belgrade, the country's parliament was easily dissolved, and a government headed by the commander of the palace guard, General Petar Zivkovic, came to power. In addition, the country received its new official name: "The Kingdom of Yugoslavia".


In 1933, a meeting between Yugoslavia's King Alexander I and Turkish President Mustafa Kemal Ataturk took place, symbolizing the strong diplomatic and political ties between the two countries at the time. The meeting took place against the backdrop of growing cooperation and friendship between Yugoslavia and Turkey. Both leaders were key figures in their countries, and their interaction marked a period of growing diplomatic and political rapprochement. The Serbian press of the time also gave wide coverage to the events in Turkey, reflecting the close friendship between King Alexander and Ataturk.

Unlike other European dictatorships, the king's dictatorship was caused by a sharp conflict between two ethnic groups - the Serbs and the Croats in the National Assembly, and, having worsened to the point of impossibility, not to mention the murder of deputies, this conflict formed the basis for the proclamation of his own dictatorship by King Alexander I on January 6.

Royal Manifesto to my dear people:

The hour has come when there must be no more intermediaries between the people and the king... But blind political passions have abused the parliamentary system to such an extent that it has become an obstacle to all useful national activity. Harmony and even ordinary relations between parties and individuals have become completely impossible. Instead of developing and realizing the idea of national unity, the parliamentary leaders have begun to provoke clashes and national disunity... It is my sacred duty to preserve the national unity of the state at any cost... This obligation is imposed on me by my responsibility to the people and to history, by my love for my country and by the sacred memory of the countless and priceless victims who have fallen for this ideal. To resort, as before, to a parliamentary change of government or to new elections to the legislative assembly would mean wasting precious time in futile attempts that have taken up the last few years. We must seek new methods of work and blaze new trails...

Well, the final stage of the state reorganization, which began with the king’s coup d’état, was September 3, 1931, when Alexander I granted the country a new constitution, which described Yugoslavia as a “constitutional monarchy with popular representation,” with the king exercising its legislative power.


A Jewish shop in Belgrade. The 30s. In the 20s and 30s, Yugoslavia was home to some 78 Jews, including some 000 foreign refugees fleeing persecution in other countries. They were a diverse group, with both Sephardic (4000%) and Ashkenazi (40%) communities, with varying degrees of integration into Yugoslav society. Most lived in cities and constituted about 60 percent of the population. The Sephardim living in Bosnia were considered an indigenous element, given special rights by four centuries of living in the region. In Serbia, the loyalty of the Jews, many of whom had fought bravely in the Serbian army in World War I, was also never questioned – they were considered “one of our own” and spoke Serbian (Ladino had largely been forgotten). Ashkenazi Jews from Croatia, Slovenia and Vojvodina spoke German and Hungarian and were considered more alien than Sephardic Jews

But, unfortunately, the king's good intentions to unite the Yugoslav society, torn apart by ethnic and religious conflicts, remained unfulfilled due to the onset of the global economic crisis that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia faced.


Streets of Belgrade in the 20s and 30s. This period was also one of political instability with frequent changes of government, and Belgrade was a combination of traditional and modern elements, with the so-called "golden twenties" had a profound impact on the city, while a significant portion of the population still lived in poverty

The socially and economically poor country, exhausted by two Balkan wars and then the World War that followed, was in a dire economic situation – almost half a million of its citizens were standing in lines for free bread. Here is how the British Ambassador to Yugoslavia Howard William Kennard described the impact of economic difficulties on the political situation that had developed in the country:

In 1931-32, the situation in Yugoslavia, as in the rest of the world, economically, financially, and therefore socially, was going from bad to worse. The economic crisis was one of the causes of widespread political discontent, especially in Croatia, and the blame for all the ills from which Yugoslavia suffered was placed on the regime of King Alexander.


In addition to the economy, the 1920s were also marked by significant changes in the cultural and social life of Belgrade. To sum up, the 1920s in Belgrade were a period of significant economic and urban transformation, but were also marked by problems related to post-war reconstruction, political instability and social inequality. Although the 20s in Belgrade were a period of significant economic and urban transformation, they were also marked by problems related to post-war reconstruction, political instability and social inequality. The transformation of the new capital was largely due to mass immigration during the city’s reconstruction – during this period, the population more than doubled, and by the end of the decade, Belgrade had almost 240 permanent residents.

The Killing of the King


National tensions in Yugoslavia began to take on increasingly threatening proportions, and in 1934, Alexander I, while on a state visit to France, where he tried to enlist the support of the Little Entente against the encroachments of Hungary and Italy on the South Slavic lands, was assassinated by a certain Vlado Chernozemsky, a member of the Macedonian revolutionary organization, behind which stood the Croatian Ustasha. The French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou also died along with the king.


On October 9, 1934, Yugoslavia's King Alexander I and French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou were assassinated while on a state visit in Marseille. The assassination attempt, carried out by a member of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), also resulted in Barthou's death, wounded by a bullet during the attempt. The assassination attempt was organized by Ante Pavelić, the leader of the Croatian Ustaše. The terrorist attacked as the king's motorcade moved slowly toward the city center, to the sound of thousands of cheers from onlookers. Lieutenant Colonel Jules Piollet, who was part of the king's French entourage, struck the assassin over the head with a sabre, after which the angry crowd threw him to the floor. The man later died of his wounds, so disfigured that only his passport and a skull and crossbones tattoo provided clues to his identity.

This vile murder caused another redistribution of political forces in the country - fearing the disintegration of Yugoslavia under the pressure of ever-increasing Croatian separatism, the Yugoslav government gives in to the demands of the Ustasha, after which Croatia receives autonomy, which leads to an even stronger growth of mutual national intolerance in the kingdom.


A petrol seller on a Belgrade street. Trade in Belgrade was the first sector of the economy to recover from the war and adapt to the new conditions.

After the assassination of King Alexander I, in accordance with his will, a regency regime was established for the minority of the 11-year-old heir to the throne, Peter II, where the regent was the cousin of the murdered king, Pavel Karageorgevich, who led Yugoslavia towards rapprochement with National Socialist Germany and fascist Italy, turning away from traditional friendship with France.


In the photo on the left: the minor Peter II Karadjordjevic. In the photo on the right: the eighteen-year-old Peter II Karadjordjevic. Son of Alexander I. In 1934, he succeeded to the throne under the regency of Prince Paul, after the assassination of his father King Alexander I in Marseille. In March 1941, Peter II took over the throne after the revolution that began due to the pro-fascist orientation of Prince Regent Paul. However, a few weeks later, Hitler conquered Yugoslavia, and Peter was forced to seek refuge in Greece, and after Marshal Tito came to power, he was in exile in England and France.

Regency


Unlike the murdered King Alexander I, who was considered a conservative, Prince Regent Paul appointed Milan Stojadinović (1935-1939) as Prime Minister, who acted as a modernist and reformer, but was still committed to the policy of strict centralism and integral “Yugoslavism”, however, the peoples that were part of the Yugoslav state were becoming more and more disillusioned with the “Yugoslavism” imposed on them in any of its forms.


Prince Regent Paul Karadjordjevic. Born in 1893, Prince Paul was the elder brother of the assassinated King Alexander I, and according to the assassinated king's will, he and two other regents were to act as tutors to the young Prince Peter, then aged 11 and who would come of age at 18 in September 1941. The regent's mother was Russian, of the House of Demidov, and his cousin was the Crown Prince of Serbia. Prince Paul was educated in Switzerland and Belgrade, and in 1910 went to study philosophy and literature at Oxford University in London. However, his studies were interrupted four times by the three Balkan Wars that preceded and then by World War I itself. He is fluent in French and English. His only son was born in 1924. Throughout his regency he played a careful double game between the British and French allies, whom he secretly admired, and the Nazis and Italian fascists, whom he openly feared.

Even Prime Minister Stojadinovic's attempt to reach an agreement between the Vatican and the Serbian Orthodox Church for the sake of religious harmony in the country did not help.


Milan Stojadinović (1888–1961) – Prime Minister of Yugoslavia. After the assassination of King Alexander Karađorđević, Prince Regent Paul and his Prime Minister Milan Stojadinović took on the difficult task of calming the country’s internal crisis caused by Croatian separatism and ensuring external security against revisionist neighbors. In that international situation, Stojadinović adhered to a friendship treaty with Italy, whose Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano had a strong sympathy for Stojadinović and believed that he was a fascist at heart. He died in Argentina in 1961

The Cvetkovic Government


On 5 February 1939, Prince Regent Paul dismissed Milan Stojadinović's cabinet and entrusted the post of Prime Minister to an obscure politician, Dragiša Cvetković, whose main task was to conclude an agreement with the Croats. The Prince Regent was concerned that, with the assistance of the increasingly powerful Nazi Germany, the independence of Slovakia, achieved with German assistance in 1938, could affect Croatia, where the desire for autonomy had generated a strong national movement, ignoring which threatened the greatest problem for the state.


Prime Minister of Yugoslavia Dragiša Cvetković (1893–1969). Cvetković was the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia from 1939 to 1941. In this position, he was relatively successful in controlling the various warring ethnic groups in the kingdom. However, after he signed the treaty aligning Yugoslavia with the Axis alliance on 25 March 1941, the gulf between the Serbs (who were pro-British) and the Croats (who were pro-German) became even more acute. On 4 September 1944, with the Soviets approaching, he fled to Bulgaria and then Turkey. Branded a traitor, he spent the rest of his life in Paris, France. On 25 September 2009, the District Court of his hometown of Niš acquitted him. Pictured right: Yugoslav Prime Minister Dragiša Cvetković talks with Third Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, 25.03.1941 March XNUMX.

Agreement between Prime Minister Dragisa Cvetkovic and Croatian political leader Vlatko Maček* was achieved almost immediately, but time for its implementation was quickly running out. The agreement was signed on August 26, 1939, just a couple of days before the outbreak of World War II. The agreement created the first autonomous administration in Yugoslavia, with its seat in Zagreb. One can only guess what course it would have taken if World War II had not occurred...


The newspaper "Jutarnji list" reporting on the signing of the agreement

But the creation of the Croatian Autonomy did not resolve acute national issues, primarily between the Serbs and the Croats. As a result of the Cvetkovic-Maček agreement, large territories with a Serbian population of over 800 people became part of the Croatian Autonomous Region, which led to a new round of tension between the Serbs and the Croats.


The share of foreign capital in the regions of Yugoslavia. Although agriculture in the country remained important, new industries and the service sector were actively developing in the city, and the influence of foreign financial institutions increased in the banking sector. The government made efforts to stabilize the dinar, including the introduction of the gold standard, which again required foreign borrowing

Territory of Croatian Autonomy (banovinas) included modern Croatia, except for some areas of the Adriatic coast that were then part of Fascist Italy, and about 40% of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Having pacified Croatia somewhat, the Cvetkovic-Maček agreement triggered a chain reaction in other ethnic regions – Serbia, Slovenia and Bosnian Muslims began demanding exactly the same autonomy for themselves.

Originating from Serbia and led by the legal theorist and historian Slobodan Jovanović (1869–1958), the Cultural Club* gathered around itself the entire intellectual and political elite of Serbia. This "Club" advocated autonomy (banovina) for all "Serbian territories" - Bosnia, Montenegro and Macedonia, and was close to the historical concept of "Greater Serbia". Thus, it can be said that 1939 put an end to Yugoslav centralism...

Joining the Tripartite Pact


As is known, on September 1, 1939, the Second World War began with the attack of Nazi Germany on Poland. But this war for a little over a year and a half had not yet directly affected Yugoslavia, but the situation of the steadily expanding fascist aggression of Germany and Italy and the military conflagration in Europe led to an increasing increase in the danger for the Yugoslav state, and in addition, Germany, after the annexation of Austria, became Yugoslavia's immediate neighbor.


Princess Olga Karadjordjevic, wife of Prince Regent Paul, chatting with Adolf Hitler at a social event. This photograph was taken in June 1939 during Prince Paul's official visit to Berlin, when the reigning monarch, King Peter II, was still a minor. It was yet another attempt to sway Yugoslavia to the Axis side, which Paul had successfully resisted since 1934 (until the situation became unbearable in April 1941).

The Cvetkovic government was seriously concerned about averting the possible threat of Yugoslavia being drawn into a military conflict, and three days after the start of World War II, the country's leadership hastened to issue a statement about the complete neutrality of the Yugoslav kingdom.

Forced to make concessions in domestic policy, including the agreement on autonomy with the Croats, concluded for the sake of the country's territorial integrity, Prince Regent Pavel Karadjordjevic, guided by the same idea of integrity, finally chose a foreign policy course that put an end to the apparent neutrality of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, maneuvering in every possible way.


German Chancellor Adolf Hitler ceremoniously greets Prince Regent Paul Karadjordjevic at the train station. Prince Regent Paul's foreign policy, including the signing of the Tripartite Pact, was dictated by a desire to give Yugoslavia as much freedom of action as possible in extremely unfavorable circumstances. After the fall of France and the evacuation of British troops, Prince Paul saw no other way to save Yugoslavia than by adopting a policy of compromise with the Axis powers. After the end of the war, the communist authorities of Yugoslavia declared Paul an enemy of the state - he was forbidden to return to Yugoslavia and all his property was confiscated. He died in Paris on September 14, 1976, at the age of 83. He was rehabilitated by a Serbian court in 2011 and reburied in the family crypt at the Royal Mausoleum in Oplenac, Serbia.

In his conversations with the German ambassador in Belgrade, Prince Regent Pavel Karadjordjevic repeatedly pointed out the need for close Yugoslav-German cooperation, especially in trade and economic matters, in which Germany was very interested – in order to obtain food and raw materials for industry from Yugoslavia, especially non-ferrous metal ores. Being an Anglophile, Prince Regent Pavel believed that Yugoslavia’s friendship with Berlin could protect the kingdom from war, and Hitler, who was preoccupied at the time with preparing an attack on the USSR, combined tolerance and pressure in his attitude towards Yugoslavia.


German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Yugoslav Prime Minister Dragiša Cvetković sign the Tripartite Agreement. On March 25, 1941, by decision of the Royal Council, Prime Minister Dragiša Cvetković and Foreign Minister Aleksandar Cincar-Marković signed a protocol in the Belvedere Castle in Vienna on Yugoslavia's accession to the Axis Tripartite Pact, and two days later, on March 27, a group of officers carried out a military coup, overthrew the government, declared King Peter II of age and transferred power to him

And finally, on March 25, 1941, in Vienna, Dragiša Cvetković and Aleksandar Cincar Marković (Minister of Foreign Affairs) signed the Tripartite Pact.


German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop delivers a speech after signing the Tripartite Pact. The agreement was reached after months of negotiations between Germany and Yugoslavia by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Yugoslav Prime Minister Dragisa Cvetkovic. Under the treaty, the Axis powers pledged to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia.

That same day, riots broke out in Belgrade, quickly spreading throughout Serbia. Communists and anti-fascist activists were behind these riots, and the protesting masses, recalling the First World War, revived their anti-German sentiments. The mass "no" to the union with the German Reich was evident from the slogans shouted by the protesters: "Down with the government!", "Long live the union with the Soviet Union!", "Better a grave than a slave!" and "Better war than a pact!".


In March 1941, Yugoslavia experienced serious unrest, culminating in a military coup. This unrest was largely caused by the government's decision to sign the Tripartite Pact with the Axis powers on 25 March, allying the country with Germany, Italy and Japan in a military alliance. This move sparked widespread protests and eventually led to a coup d'état on 27 March, which overthrew the incumbent Cvetkovic government.

In this situation, on the night of March 26-27, 1941, Air Force Generals Borivoje Mirkovic and Dusan Simovic staged a coup d'état. The young King Peter II declared himself of age. General Dusan Simovic was appointed Prime Minister and Vlatko Maček was appointed Vice Prime Minister. Only one person died in this military coup, and the military forces participating in it occupied all the main government institutions in Belgrade within two hours of the night and surrounded the royal court, encountering almost no serious resistance.


General Dusan Simovic – Prime Minister of Yugoslavia. Immediately after the coup that overthrew the government of Dragiša Cvetković, General Dusan Simovic (1882–1962) served as Prime Minister of Yugoslavia from 27 March 1941 to 12 January 1942. Simovic's premiership was short-lived, as Yugoslavia was occupied by Nazi Germany on 6 April 1941, the day of his daughter's wedding. He subsequently headed the Yugoslav government-in-exile, first in Jerusalem and then in London, until he was replaced by Slobodan Jovanovic in January 1942. After the end of the war, Peter II appointed Simovic as head of the Yugoslav government, but Josip Broz Tito refused to support him, and Simovic resigned in May 1945. The communist authorities were quite lenient towards Simovic after he returned to his homeland in 1952, where he was granted a general's pension.

Germany's opponents responded to this coup with enthusiasm - for Winston Churchill, the coup d'état in Yugoslavia was evidence that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, in his words, "found its soul", and Hitler saw this as a brazen challenge to Germany in the midst of preparations for war against the USSR. In his appeal to the German people on April 6, 1941, Hitler declared:

The government which advocated peace with Germany was overthrown under the obvious pretext that this was necessary because of its attitude towards Germany... Since this morning the German people have been at war with the usurpers in Belgrade and at war against all those forces which Great Britain has discovered in the Balkans to oppose peace in Europe.

Here is what the British military historian Antony Beevor writes:

Hitler saw in the coup of March 27 "the final proof of the collusion of the Jewish-Anglo-Saxon warmongers with the Jews at the headquarters of the Moscow Bolsheviks" (negotiations were underway in Moscow). He even managed to convince himself that it was a treacherous violation of the Soviet-German friendship pact, which, by the way, he had planned to violate.

Note. In post-war historiography, suspicions began to appear that the NKVD may have also been aware of the preparation of this coup, and may have influenced it. For example, according to General Pavel Sudoplatov, in his memoirs published after the war, Soviet intelligence actively assisted the conspirators by sending a group of its employees to Belgrade. There is also an opinion that the coup was carefully planned and financed by British intelligence, and that British intelligence services had been in contact with opposition forces long before the putsch, but there is no evidence for this...


German invasion of Yugoslavia. In April 1941, Germany, along with its allies Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria, invaded Yugoslavia. The attack on Yugoslavia was swift and brutal, an act of terror that resulted in the deaths of 17 civilians, the highest civilian death toll in a single day since the war began. To make matters worse, residents of nearby towns and villages had flocked to the capital to celebrate Palm Sunday. All Yugoslav airfields were also bombed, destroying most of the 000 aircraft on the ground. The invasion, which began on 600 April, was a swift and decisive victory for the Axis powers, culminating in the unconditional surrender of the Royal Yugoslav Army on 6 April.

Early in the morning of April 6, 1941, Hitler's Germany attacked Yugoslavia and Greece at the same time without declaring war. The Wehrmacht invaded Yugoslavia from three directions simultaneously - Bulgaria, Austria and Hungary, and the beginning of this invasion was accompanied by massive bombing of Yugoslav military and communication facilities. The most important communication lines were put out of action, and the already small and outdated Yugoslav army was destroyed on the ground. aviation.


Belgrade after the bombing. Around 7:00 a.m., the first waves of German bombers flew over Belgrade and dropped their deadly cargo. There was practically no serious defense – weak anti-aircraft fire was conducted for some time, several Yugoslav fighters took off and entered into air battles, but were put out of action in the shortest possible time. The entire city was easy prey for German bombers. Source: Belgrade National Library

Belgrade suffered greatly, with barbaric bombings resulting in extensive destruction and significant civilian casualties (according to various estimates, between 2000 and 30 people died).


The bombings mainly targeted residential and business areas where there were no military targets. The attack, which included four waves of bombing, caused significant damage to infrastructure, including the destruction of bridges over the Sava and Danube rivers, as well as the loss of vital transportation networks. The National Library, one of Belgrade's most important cultural institutions, was also destroyed, with hundreds of thousands of books and manuscripts lost. Source: Belgrade National Library

The Germans entered Zagreb on April 10, 1941. After Vlatko Maček* refused the post of prime minister of Croatia under German protectorate, it was proclaimed Independent State of Croatia, and the Ustasha came to power. Croatia was ruled by a militia, an army, a secret police and a system of concentration camps – there were twenty of them, and the Ustasha principles of an ethnically pure state, proclaimed by the Ustasha back in 1933, reigned in the country.


German troops enter Zagreb. In April 1941, Zagreb became the capital of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), a puppet state created by the Ustasha, a Croatian nationalist organization that closely collaborated with the Axis powers. This followed the German invasion of Yugoslavia, which began on April 6, and on April 10, Slavko Kvaternik, a prominent Ustasha representative, proclaimed the establishment of the NDH in Zagreb. The city became the administrative center of the new state under the Ustasha regime.

And on April 13, 1941, Belgrade fell, which was facilitated in no small measure by numerous supporters of the fifth column, spreading defeatist sentiments and anti-war propaganda. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia finally ceased to exist on April 17, 1941, when its army, which had fought for eleven days, capitulated, and the bearers of the Yugoslav supreme power were in exile...

After the complete occupation of Serbia, in August General Milan Nedić was appointed Prime Minister of the so-called Government of National Salvation, but his administration differed from the administration in Norway and France in that in Serbia the Germans held all the main levers of power in their hands. In Serbia the Germans created a system of concentration camps, where out of 75 Jews according to the 000 census only 1940 survived the war.


In 1941, Milan Nedić (1887–1946) was a key figure in Serbia during the German occupation, heading the collaborationist Government of National Salvation. He initially commanded the 2nd Army Group during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, but was captured by the Germans. He was later released and allowed to return to Belgrade. On 29 August 1941, the German military commander in Serbia appointed Nedić as prime minister.Governments of National Salvation"This puppet government collaborated with the occupation forces, particularly the Germans, in administering the occupied territory.

Note. In July 2008, a group of Serbian citizens filed a petition with the Belgrade District Court seeking the posthumous rehabilitation of Milan Nedić, whom the plaintiffs considered a "victim of persecution and violence for political reasons." In a 2014 ruling, the higher court rejected the petition for judicial rehabilitation of Milan Nedić. Today, Milan Nedić, the head of the Axis collaborationist regime in Serbia during World War II, remains attractive to some Serbs and therefore controversial, with claims that he sought to save Serbs from a worse fate. In 1946, he committed suicide by jumping out of a window...

This is how L. Ya. Gibiansky from the Institute of Slavic Studies describes the negotiations between Serbian collaborators and the German occupation authorities about the future structure of Serbia:

During the negotiations, the Yugoslav participants tried to raise with the German side the question of "the formation of a remainder of Yugoslav territory, similar to that in France," that is, of the allocation of at least some zone that would not be occupied by the victorious troops and where Yugoslav power would be preserved, even if in a certain way controlled by the invaders. But the German answer was categorically negative: the Yugoslav territory was to be occupied in its entirety.

After the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, Montenegro received the status of an Italian protectorate, and Slovenia was divided between Germany, Italy and Hungary. The history of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from 1918 to 1929 and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1929 to 1941 was short: only twenty-three years.

The People's Liberation War was ahead...

Information


*Nikola Pasic (1845–1926). Serbian and later Yugoslav politician and diplomat, ideologist of the creation of "Greater Serbia". Of Macedonian Romanian descent. He served as Prime Minister of Serbia five times, Prime Minister of Yugoslavia three times, and Mayor of Belgrade twice. One of the founders of Yugoslavia. He is credited with the following statement: "The Serbs are a small people, but there is no greater one from Constantinople to Vienna".

*Jovan Cvidic (1865–1927). President of the Serbian Royal Academy of Sciences and Rector of the University of Belgrade. He began his academic career as a geographer and geologist, and continued his work as a sociologist. After the end of World War I, he participated in the Paris Peace Conference as an expert on border delimitation, where, using his ethnographic maps of the Balkans, he demonstrated to the conference participants the geographical distribution of the various Balkan peoples, which helped to define the borders of the new country.

*Stepan Radich (1871–1928). Founder and leader of the Croatian Peasant Party, which was active when Croatia was part of Austria-Hungary. He supported the idea of an independent Croatia, for which he was arrested several times, and his assassination in parliament created an even more serious rift between Serbs and Croats. Currently, a number of clubs and educational schools in Croatia are named after Stjepan Radić, and 265 streets have been named in his honor.

*Vlatko Macek (1879–1964). Leader of the Croatian Peasant Party after the assassination of its founder, Stjepan Radić, in parliament.

*Cultural club. An organization founded in 1937 that advocated for the advancement of Serbian national interests in Yugoslavia against the backdrop of Croatian separatism. This non-governmental club was headed by Serbian politician, member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences, lawyer and historian Slobodan Jovanović (1869–1958), who took part in the Paris Peace Conference (1919) as an expert of the Yugoslav government. During the war, he was the Prime Minister of the government in exile. After the war, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison (which he never served), deprivation of political and civil rights for ten years, confiscation of all property and loss of citizenship. He died at the age of 89 in London.

Literature
1. A. L. Shemyakin "The First World War. The Birth of Yugoslavia"
2. S. A. Romanenko "Yugoslavia: from "brotherhood and unity" to war and disintegration"
3. R. Bukvic "Development of the regional problem in Yugoslavia"
4. M. Nikulin "Yugoslavia between the world wars"
5. A. A. Silkin "The Kingdom of the SHS in the 1920s"
6. L. Ya. Gibiansky "The internal political scene of Yugoslavia at the turn of the 1930s-1940s"
7. T. Belyakova "The Influence of the Religious Factor on National Identity in Interwar Yugoslavia"
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    5 August 2025 04: 38
    What a wild contrast between the streets of Zagreb and Sarajevo! No wonder they didn't want to live with each other. wink wink
    1. +6
      5 August 2025 05: 15
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      What a wild contrast between the streets of Zagreb and Sarajevo!
      There was also a photo where they were slaughtering a ram right on the streets of Sarajevo. I didn't publish it...
  2. +5
    5 August 2025 05: 07
    The difference was not only in one letter of the names - Josip and Joseph. The difference was also in the name of the common capital, which would have been made common for, say, Azerbaijanis and Armenians, if during the USSR, in the time of our Joseph, Armenians and Azerbaijanis would have started cutting each other's throats and fighting among themselves. Our Joseph would have appointed Magadan as their common capital, that's for sure. It can be assumed that their Josip proposed the same fate to the Serbs and Croats, if during the time of the SFRY they would have started cutting each other's throats and fighting among themselves. Only I forgot the name of the Yugoslav Magadan of the time of Josip Broz Tito... well, the alternative to the Soviet Magadan of the time of Joseph Stalin... Remind me...
    1. +7
      5 August 2025 05: 12
      Only I forgot the name of the Yugoslav Magadan of the times of Josip Broz Tito... well, the alternative to the Soviet Magadan of the times of Joseph Stalin... Remind me...
      Let me remind you - this is an island Goli-Otok (Naked Island), where Tito kept political prisoners... wink
    2. +3
      5 August 2025 16: 25
      Tito was a Croat, he did not like the Serbs behind their backs and was afraid of them, suppressing their national self-consciousness in every possible way, and it was he who laid the so-called historical bomb in the foundation of Yugoslavia. In every possible way encouraging the national self-consciousness of other peoples of Yugoslavia - especially the Croats, Bosnians and Albanians. It was they who would later play the main role in the collapse of Yugoslavia and the genocide of the Serbs. Exactly the same thing would happen with the USSR, only in our country the role of the main troublemakers would be played by the Bandar-logs and the Balts, and in all the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia (and partly in our Caucasus too) there would also be a mass genocide of the Russian population.
      1. +5
        5 August 2025 17: 05
        Quote from The Watcher
        Tito was a Croat, he disliked and feared the Serbs behind their backs, suppressing their national consciousness in every possible way
        Tito's mother was Slovenian. And the bomb was planted under Yugoslavia back in 1918, when this kingdom was formed, and when it was necessary to resolve the issues of national borders. Let me just remind you that historically it turned out that the Serbs lived both in Croatia and in Bosnia. And Bosnia didn't even exist back then, because all this music was part of the Ottoman Empire... Now about the Albanians. Their resettlement to the territory of the modern border of Serbia began back in the days of the Ottoman Empire, where both of these peoples were part, something like the USSR, where any person could freely move to another republic. Tito simply intensified this process and in the end it turned out Kosovo...
  3. +7
    5 August 2025 06: 19
    Louis Barthou was not the assassin's target at all. He died from "friendly fire" by the French police: the only bullet that hit him was from a French 8mm service revolver, while the assassin used a 7,63x25 Mauser. France officially acknowledged this shameful fact only in 1974. What makes it even more shameful is the place where the bullet hit: in hand. That is, the wound, in principle, was not fatal if medical assistance was provided in a timely manner. But here too the French made a mistake, and Barthou died from blood loss. The situation is further aggravated by the two killed and many wounded innocent bystanders (also "friendly fire" from the French police), as well as the fact that another Frenchman, wounded by the assassin (General Alphonse Georges), was hit much harder than Barthou, but he was saved, while Barthou was not.
    1. +3
      5 August 2025 07: 32
      Quote: Pushkowed
      The bullet that hit him was from a French 8mm service revolver, while the assassin used a 7,63x25 Mauser
      The question of what weapon was used to fatally wound Bartu remains. debatable still, as is the question of who was really behind the minister's killer. There is an opinion that all this was organized German Secret Service, who feared a rapprochement between France and Yugoslavia, then the murder of Barthou logically fits into this version...
      1. +5
        5 August 2025 13: 45
        Quote: Luminman
        The weapon that fatally wounded Bartu will remain controversial to this day
        Even if there is something to discuss here, it is unclear what changes from this. France officially first blamed everything on Chernozemsky, then admitted that it was their own clumsy people who did it by mistake. That's it: all the reputational damage that could have been incurred from this admission has already been incurred. To change the testimony back again means to cause unhealthy suspicions towards oneself, to receive new reputational damage. In addition, it is unclear who might benefit from reconsidering it again after so many years. the most fundamental question that turns the entire world history of the 20th century upside down (sarcasm): 8mm or 7,63mm?

        And what about the victims and injured among innocent people? Did Chernozemsky shoot them too? Why? To throw mud at the French police (probably knowing in advance that these victims would be blamed on them, not on him)? And this when he had a more important goal (committing regicide) and had no time to be distracted by some ordinary people. Since the police were so incompetent that they shot a lot of innocent people, it follows that it is not impossible that Barthou would be among their victims.

        Quote: Luminman
        There is an opinion that all this was organized by the German secret service, which feared a rapprochement between France and Yugoslavia, then the murder of Barthou logically fits into this version.
        If so, then new questions arise. First, why wasn't this revealed during or after WWII (when the French had good reason to dislike the Germans)? Instead of honestly exposing the enemy, the French for some reason took the blame (and reputational damage) upon themselves. Why would they shield the Germans? Second, if the Germans were really involved, they did it all very stupidly. If Barthou was an important target, why only one bullet in the arm (which he could easily have survived)? Or was there a worldwide conspiracy (still ongoing) according to which the French were in cahoots with the Germans and deliberately did not provide medical assistance to Barthou? But then why didn't they shoot him themselves?
        1. +5
          5 August 2025 16: 44
          Pushkowed, Chernozemsky himself could probably answer all these questions, but he was slashed with a sabre so that even his own mother would not have recognized him. I understand that he was only an executor, but he could have told a lot of interesting things if he had stayed alive. There is something in common with the assassination attempt on Kennedy, whose killer was shot after the first superficial interrogation. Oswald could have told a lot, too, but it didn't work out...
    2. +5
      5 August 2025 11: 40
      VMRO will use the term “terrorist” without embarrassment and you can calmly call it Vlado Chernozemsky.
      1. +3
        5 August 2025 14: 51
        VMRO uses the term “terrorist” without hesitation
        At that time they were just fighters for the freedom of Macedonia and for declaring themselves a Macedonian nation, and not some kind of Bulgarianized Serbs or Bulgarians.
        1. +7
          5 August 2025 17: 30
          For freedom in Macedonia from foreign occupation and annexation of Bulgaria. In extreme cases, the Macedonian state is independent and is the second state in Bulgarian.
  4. +6
    5 August 2025 08: 49
    Thanks to the author for the article!
    But here's a rhetorical question.
    How can this be combined?
    And even despite the extreme differences between religious denominations – Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims – the southern Slavs still intuitively felt a cultural closeness

    and right there:
    When entering the union state, each side had its own interests, political parties began to form on the basis of ethnic communities, and at the everyday level, friction between nationalities was expressed in statements such as “the Serbs want everything” and only “the Croats will ruin everything.”

    Let me repeat, the question is rhetorical.
    1. +6
      5 August 2025 10: 49
      Quote: Edward Vashchenko
      But here's a rhetorical question.
      How can this be combined?
      The question is rhetorical, but I will try to answer. Everything is compatible in what is written. Example - sometimes people would come to us for retraining brothers in arms from Poland and Hungary. We drank a lot of vodka with the Poles and told hundreds of jokes, and none of us even felt any alienation, even though the Poles are Catholics. But with the Hungarians, it was a little different - we drank vodka and told jokes, but we didn't feel any special closeness, although I can't say anything bad about them, they are very good guys. I'm responding to your first comment, about differences and closeness...

      Now about personal interests and frictions. Personal interests and frictions exist even among people of the same nationality and the same religion. Examples - classmates, fellow students, colleagues at work and neighbors on the landing. You know that without me. As for the Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats (who speak the same language), for five hundred years they lived in different empires and were affected by completely different external stimuli. In such a situation, of course, there will be friction between them...
    2. +6
      5 August 2025 14: 58
      Quote: Edward Vashchenko

      But here's a rhetorical question.
      How can this be combined?

      Even though the question is rhetorical, I will try to answer.
      This contradiction is easily combined in the image of a communal apartment, where everyone is aware of their connection, understands/reads each other well, but at the same time is burdened by such closeness when it interferes with personal interests.
      1. +7
        5 August 2025 16: 47
        Quote from cpls22
        These contradictions are easily reconciled in the image of a communal apartment.
        Very aptly noted...
  5. +4
    5 August 2025 08: 57
    And on April 13, 1941, Belgrade fell.

    Belgrade was captured by only 7 SS men under the command of Fritz Klingenberg, commander of the 2nd company of the 2nd SS motorcycle reconnaissance battalion of the Das Reich division. Interesting story
    1. +7
      5 August 2025 11: 03
      Quote: Konnick
      Belgrade was captured by only 7 SS men
      And there was no one to defend it - mobilization was not declared, and the troops located near the borders were either surrounded or routed. The entire aviation (well, almost all) was destroyed at the airfields, and the soldiers from among the Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians and Bosniaks surrendered without a fight...
      1. +2
        6 August 2025 01: 14
        Unlike other branches of the armed forces, the Yugoslav aviation demonstrated the greatest tenacity and courage in repelling the German aggression. However, it could not be called completely outdated, although it had enough old machines. In terms of the number of combat aircraft involved in the campaign, the forces of the parties were approximately equal, but a role was played by the betrayal of a high-ranking Air Force officer, who informed the enemy of the full deployment of Yugoslav military airfields and corresponding military logistics facilities (which led to the loss of most of the aircraft on the ground), as well as a breakdown in communications and interaction with the command. Despite the massive involvement of their air forces and the combat experience of German pilots, the Nazis, apparently, did not count on such heroism from the Yugoslav pilots, who entered into combat with them even in a clearly losing situation, sometimes resorting to aerial ramming. Although the Yugoslav Air Force was unable to prevent the barbaric bombing of the capital, two dozen German machines in the skies above it were shot down or damaged. And before the end of the hostilities, the royal pilots managed to write off several dozen German and Italian aircraft from the enemy's account. And unlike the mass surrender of the army, the military aviators preferred to destroy their combat vehicles on the runways, or to ferry them to the territory of the allies in Greece, the Middle East and North Africa. Four "bombers" (including three Do-17K) tried to fly to the USSR, but only one Savoia "Hawk" made it (according to other sources, there were five "Hawks", and only three "made it").
      2. +2
        8 August 2025 00: 18
        ..and soldiers from among the Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians and the Bosnians surrendered without a fight

        There were no "Macedonians" at that time, the Comintern tried to do that in 1942. And the Bulgarians from Macedonia were officially called "Southern Serbs" by the authorities and schools were switched to the Serbian alphabet.
        The publication contains good material, but also many errors. The most obvious are the use of maps from the borders after WWII as supposed maps of the "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats..."
        1. +2
          8 August 2025 11: 16
          anzar, these are the southern Slavs, whom the Serbs consider ethnic Serbs, and the Bulgarians consider Bulgarians. At one time they were all part of the Ottoman Empire, but after Bulgaria and Serbia gained independence, the question of the ownership of this territory and the ethnic element living on it arose sharply...
          1. 0
            8 August 2025 13: 27
            Anzar, these are southern Slavs, whom the Serbs consider ethnic Serbs, and the Bulgarians consider Bulgarians.

            And what are they like? considered themselves in the 19th century? And before WWII? There is no need for me to go into proof, just look at the map you provided of "Great Yugoslavia" as it was seen by the Balkan revolutionaries of the 19th century (this is true, the idea of a federation of Balkan nations was popular then). Where do you see "Macedonia" there? This is the territory "for some reason" is shown to Bulgaria (and it is still in the Ottoman Empire), and not to Serbia (they are already a vassal, but a state).
            And now they eat Macedonians, who were brought up to hate Bulgarians. Just like Ukrainians)) only since half a century. If you don't know, Alexander the Great is... laughing
            1. +2
              8 August 2025 17: 19
              Quote: anzar
              There is no need for me to go into evidence, just look at the map of "Greater Yugoslavia" you provided.
              You are transferring the long-standing dispute between Bulgaria and Serbia, who are macedonians to this site. This reminds me of the same old disputes about Karabakh, Tibet, the Falklands, Jammu and Kashmir, etc. There are probably a hundred such disputes today...
              1. 0
                9 August 2025 21: 15
                You are transferring the long-standing dispute between Bulgaria and Serbia about who the Macedonians are to this platform.

                Not me at all, but you because of the many mistakes in your article. Dedicated mainly to interethnic contradictions with the KSHS. Let's assume that out of ignorance you write:
                Skopje...As part of the KSHS, and after Yugoslavia, the city was the center formation of Macedonian national identity thanks to the standardization of the Macedonian language and the establishment of the Macedonian Orthodox Church

                This is true for Yugoslavia after WWII and not for the KSHS (the topic of the article) before. Then even the banovina was called "Vardar" and not "Macedonian", and its population was officially called "southern Serbs" (ha ha, in a similar way now in northern Greece live "Slavic-sounding Hellenes" - officially)) And not "Macedonians", not even geographically. You don't know this, since you write about "Macedonian soldiers".
                The nationalist governments of Serbia would never have created a "Macedonian nation", they wanted to make Serbs out of them (fortunately, they are close nations). This was done by the communists and the Comintern, so that the "brotherly Yugoslav and Bulgarian Communist Parties" would not quarrel.
                So the "dispute" is not "long-standing" at all, but from 1913 (and now already in the past)
                And here it rose because of inaccuracies and errors in your article, which deals with these very issues.
                historical
                sections of the VO.
                This reminds me of the same old disputes about Karabakh, Tibet, the Falklands, Jammu and Kashmir...

                Reminds you? How? Nowhere in your favorites do they argue about the ethnic composition of the population, but only about the ownership of the territory.
                1. +2
                  10 August 2025 07: 17
                  I will quote myself again:
                  Quote: Luminman
                  You are transferring a long-standing dispute between Bulgaria and Serbia
                  I'm not interested in arguing with you at all. Find yourself an opponent, some Serb, and start messing with his brain. The end.....
          2. +1
            22 September 2025 17: 02
            It’s strange, but when they signed the treaty in San Stefano, they were not asked for ethnic affiliation.
            1. +2
              23 September 2025 05: 56
              Quote: Danail
              It’s strange, but when they signed the treaty in San Stefano, their ethnic affiliation was not asked
              There were no questions about ethnicity in any Versailles peace treaty, nor in Seversky, when the Ottoman Empire was divided. The results of these partitions are well known—World War II and the current tensions in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, whose territories were divided with a pencil and a ruler, without regard for the ethnic and religious characteristics of the region...
  6. +3
    5 August 2025 09: 41
    A few years ago, people in southern Europe watched with interest the Serbian series "Shadows over the Balkans" about the period after the First World War. I think they wrote that the Austrians found it interesting to watch. I downloaded it and watched it once.
  7. +4
    5 August 2025 14: 06
    As a result of the Cvetkovic-Maček agreement, large territories with a Serbian population of over 800 thousand people became part of the Croatian autonomous region
    Attempts to satisfy the nationalists at the expense of the Serbs soon led to the terrible tragedies of the Serbian Krajina and the Republic of Srpska.

    This reminds me of something very much...
  8. +3
    5 August 2025 15: 59
    "With the exception of Serbia, the newly formed state had no tradition of parliamentarism," the author writes. And what about Croatia, which had autonomy within Hungary during the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
    1. +4
      5 August 2025 16: 52
      Quote: Sergej1972
      And what about Croatia, which had autonomy within Hungary during the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
      During Croatia's time as part of Austria-Hungary, it was administratively part of the Kingdom of Hungary and its interests in the Vienna parliament were expressed by deputies of the Kingdom of Hungary. There were probably Croats there, too, I didn't specifically look into it. Croatia also had something like its own parliament, but it had very limited powers and resembled sitting on a porch...
      1. +2
        6 August 2025 13: 06
        Here, perhaps, it is worth recalling the Hungarian-Croatian Agreement of 1868:
        "...Croatia and Slavonia sent deputies from among the members of the Sabor to the lower house of parliament of the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary to participate in the consideration of matters concerning their lands, and 2 people to the chamber of magnates. Of these persons, the parliament included 5 people in the so-called Hungarian delegation - for the periodic consideration of general imperial problems. Croatia and Slavonia retained autonomy in internal governance, justice (including the Supreme Court), as well as in matters of education and the church." (c)
      2. +2
        6 August 2025 16: 15
        There was the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia within Hungary, where the majority of the Croatian population lived, and the Kingdom of Dalmatia and the Margraviate of Istria, smaller in territory and population, within Austria, also with a predominantly Croatian population. The Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia had guaranteed representation in both the Hungarian Parliament (Diet) and the United Delegations of Austria-Hungary. The United Delegations of Austria-Hungary had an equal number of representatives from the two parts of Austria-Hungary, 60 people each. Of these, Croatia had guaranteed representation in the Hungarian delegation, 5 people. And in the Hungarian Diet before 1880 there were 29 representatives from Croatia, after 40. Moreover, both the representatives to the Hungarian parliament and the representatives to the Croatian part of the Hungarian delegation in the United Delegations were elected by the Croatian Sabor. The Sabor had very significant powers in matters of governance, culture, education, church affairs, etc. See also the comment by user Ryazanets87. If by the Vienna parliament you mean the parliament of Austria (Reichsrat), then Croatia and Slavonia were not represented in it, since they were not part of Austria. And the United Delegations of Austria-Hungary are not a full-fledged parliament, but rather an interparliamentary assembly of Austria and Hungary. Moreover, it met alternately in Vienna and Budapest. The delegations from Austria and Hungary met separately and communicated in writing. They met together only in case of strong disagreements, but in such cases decisions were made without any debate by a majority vote. Yes, it should also be mentioned that the Kingdom of Dalmatia and the Margraviate of Istria were represented in the Austrian Reichsrat. For example, Dalmatia sent 5 representatives to the lower house of the Reichsrat. Dalmatia and Istria had less autonomy than Croatia and Slavonia, but they still had it, they had their own representative bodies. Therefore, to sum up, it can be said that the Croats had experience of parliamentary activity in the Sabors of the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia and the Kingdom of Dalmatia and the Landtag of Istria, in the Hungarian and Austrian parliaments and as part of the United Delegations.
  9. +2
    5 August 2025 17: 27
    This is called: "Where the horse with its hoof, there the crayfish with its claw follows."
    Sovereignty is not manna from heaven, not a right, but a duty. A cross that not everyone is able to bear.
    "The state is not a ready-made paradise, but a fortress built through pain and labor."
    Yuri Kachaev, "Behind the Forest Helmets".
  10. +1
    6 August 2025 16: 21
    Perhaps it was necessary to mention the unrecognized State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, which existed for a little more than a month and united with Serbia into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
  11. +2
    14 August 2025 17: 33
    In short, if the Soviet Union had intervened, June 22 would not have happened. It would have been enough to let the Germans get stuck...
  12. +2
    9 September 2025 10: 34
    This region is still in turmoil. The reason is simple - external intervention, primarily by the Britons and Germans, stirs up this cauldron and does not allow it to cool down. In principle, Yugoslavia has always been, both between the wars and after the war, closer to a confederation, but who said that a confederation is bad? The legacy of this far from last country in Europe is now being used by the fragments into which it fell apart. Unfortunately, thanks to NATO intervention, the union of Serbs and Montenegrins fell - a great pity, there could have been a truncated confederation, but even this was too much for the West. Today, the West continues to rock Serbia - an attempt to split it into Serbia proper and Vojvodina. The dirty ears of the Western forces stick out against the backdrop of the recent unrest. I hope that the citizens of Serbia will be able to repel this attack. And we must help with this.