No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Slovenian Hopes and Plans in the Last Days of the Habsburg Monarchy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 January 2024
Abstract
The article analyzes Slovenian perspectives on the possible formations of a state of South Slavs from the final stages of World War I until when the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenians (SCS) was established in 1918. In this period, the most influential Slovenian People's Party (SLS) gradually abandoned the concept of the May Declaration and accepted the idea of unification with Serbia. Despite Slovenian parties seeming to be in harmony on this issue, significant ideological differences separated them, as reflected in the geopolitical parameters of imagined Yugoslav state ideas they envisioned. Further, dissidents from the main parties also developed alternative visions of their own. This article looks at a few of the most prominent alternatives, while determining what distinguishes them from the requirements of the May Declaration, and examines the crucial factors in Slovenians’ decision to join the state of South Slavs with Serbia and to be outside the Habsburg monarchy.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Regents of the University of Minnesota
References
1 The declaration was read in the Austrian parliament, an entity that represented the stance of the Yugoslav Club, where Slovenian politicians played a prominent role. “On the basis of the national principle and the Croatian right to statehood,” it stated, the signatories demand “the unification of all areas of the Monarchy under the scepter of the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty inhabited by Slovenians, Croats, and Serbs into an independent state body that will be free from any government of foreigners and be built on democratic foundations . . . . With this reservation, the signatories will participate in the work of the parliament.” Prunk, J., Toplak, C., and Hočevar, M., Parlamentarna izkušnja Slovencev 1848–2004 (Ljubljana, 2006), 72Google Scholar.
2 Pleterski, Prva odločitev Slovencev za Jugoslavijo.
3 Djokić, D., Nedostižni kompromis: Srpsko-hrvatsko pitanje u medjuratnoj Jugoslaviji (Belgrade, 2010)Google Scholar; Djokić, D., Pašić and Trumbić: The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Chicago, 2010)Google Scholar; Ekmečić, M., Ratni ciljevi Srbije 1914 (Belgrade, 1973)Google Scholar; Gligorijević, B., Parlament i političke stranke u Jugoslaviji, 1919–1929 (Belgrade, 1979)Google Scholar.
4 Lampe, J. R., Yugoslavia as History: Twice There Was a Country, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 2002), 101Google Scholar.
5 Perovšek, J., Slovenska osamosvojitev v letu 1918 (Ljubljana, 1998), 13Google Scholar.
6 “Ob rakvah,” Slovenec, 30 June 1914.
7 Erjavec, F., Zgodovina katoliškega gibanja na Slovenskem (Ljubljana, 1928), 29–31Google Scholar.
8 Ivašković, I., “Trijalistička reforma Austro-Ugarske u časopisima slovenskih liberala iz Trsta i Gorice,” Povijesni prilozi 40, no. 60 (2021): 293–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Heka, L., “Hrvatsko-ugarska nagodba u zrcalu tiska,” Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci 28, no. 2 (2007): 931–71Google Scholar.
10 Slovenian political parties primarily regarded the Slovenian lands at that time as encompassing Carniola, where Slovenes constituted the absolute majority, followed by southern Styria, (southern) Carinthia, and a part of the Austrian Littoral, including the cities of Gorizia and Trieste. In these urban areas, Slovenes did not have a majority, but there was a strong Slovenian rural hinterland.
11 As Anton Korošec, Šusteršič's main rival within the party, acknowledged after the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy: “Throughout the trialist idea's prominence, the Slovenians feared that they would not be incorporated into the South Slavic entity. That's why we Slovenian politicians, perhaps more than strictly necessary from a political perspective, aligned ourselves closely with the Croats . . . . In our overall policy, we consistently upheld the idea that we are one nation with the Croats and that we must share the same destiny.” See Kranjec, S., “Koroščevo predavanje o postanku Jugoslavije,” Zgodovinski časopis 16, no. 1 (1962): 218–29Google Scholar, here 220.
12 Ivašković, I., “How Littoral Slovenians Viewed the Idea of a South Slavic Unit in the Habsburg Monarchy,” Journal of Modern European History 21, no. 1 (2023): 52–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 J. Kocka, “Bürgertum und bürgerliche Gesellschaft im 19. Jahrhundert Europäischen Entwicklungen und deutsche Eigenarten,” in Bürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert: Deutschland im europäischen Vergleich. Band 1, ed. J. Kocka (Munich, 1988), 11–87.
14 Matković, S., Premili Ivane: korespondencija Ivana Hribara s hrvatskom elitom (Zagreb, 2016), 10Google Scholar.
15 Ivašković, “How Littoral Slovenians Viewed the Idea of a South Slavic Unit,” 52–70.
16 Perovšek, J., Politika in moderna: idejnopolitični razvoj, delovanje in zareze v slovenski politiki od konca 19. stoletja do druge svetovne vojne (Ljubljana, 2022), 8Google Scholar.
17 Prunk, Toplak, and Hočevar, Parlamentarna izkušnja Slovencev, 73.
18 “Deklaracija, Jugoslovanski klub in S.L.S.,” Slovenec, 1 February 1918; “Tržaško jugoslovansko ženstvo za deklaracijo,” Edinost, 3 February 1918; “Deklaracija, Jugoslovanski klub in S. L. S.,” Slovenec, 4 February 1918; Jeglič, A. B., Jegličev dnevnik (Ljubljana, 2015), 730Google Scholar.
19 Pleterski, Prva odločitev Slovencev za Jugoslavijo, 177.
20 Pleterski, Prva odločitev Slovencev za Jugoslavijo, 243.
21 Hribar, I., Moji spomini II. del (My memories part II), (Ljubljana, 1928), 270Google Scholar.
22 Representatives of JSDS were also invited to that meeting and agreed to participate in the founding, but not to be members of the Council. See “Dnevne beležke” (Daily Notes), Naprej, 6 June 1918.
23 Pleterski, Prva odločitev Slovencev za Jugoslavijo, 249.
24 Zečević, M., Slovenska ljudska stranka pred stvaranje Kraljevine SHS 1917-1918, (Belgrade, 1968), 342Google Scholar, 365.
25 Pleterski, Prva odločitev Slovencev za Jugoslavijo, 310.
26 Jeglič, Jegličev dnevnik, 760.
27 Ibid., 759.
28 Hribar, Moji spomini, 268–73.
29 “Kaj pa je?,” Slovenec, 30 September 1918.
30 “Pravna vsebina majniške deklaracije,” Slovenski narod, 7 September 1918.
31 Ivašković, “Trijalistička reforma,” 293–316.
32 Rahten, A., “Zadnji slovenski avstrijakant: Prispevek k politični biografiji dr. Ivana Šusteršiča,” Zgodovinski časopis 53, no. 2 (1999): 195–208Google Scholar.
33 “Deželna ustava, deželno gospodarstvo in dr. Šusteršič,” Slovenec, 2 September 1918.
34 Trumbić indeed negotiated with the Serbian prime minister Nikola Pašić about a broader Yugoslavia as a constitutional monarchy under the rule of the Serbian royal Karađorđević dynasty, which eventually resulted in the Corfu Declaration in July 1917.
35 Pleterski, Prva odločitev Slovencev za Jugoslavijo, 178.
36 Šušteršič, I., Moj odgovor. Žlindra v državnem (Ljubljana, 1996), 97–98Google Scholar.
37 Rahten, “Zadnji slovenski avstrijakant,” 202.
38 Ibid., 203.
39 Lakatos, A. L., “Federation projects in Central Europe, 1848–1918,” History of European Ideas 41, no. 1 (2016): 22–38Google Scholar.
40 “Izolirana Jugoslavija ali Zedinjene države,” Novice, 24 October 1918.
41 “Podunavske Zedinjene države,” Novice, 26 October 1918.
42 Ibid.
43 Jeszenszky, G., “Peace and Security in Central Europe: Its British Programme During World War I,” Etudes historiques hongroises (Budapest, 1985): 457–82Google Scholar.
44 “Dinastično vprašanje,” Novice, 23 October 1918.
45 “Pred odločitvijo,” Resnica, 5 October 1918.
46 Jeszenszky, “Peace and Security in Central Europe.”
47 “Pred odločitvijo,” Resnica, 5 October 1918.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Jeszenszky, “Peace and Security in Central Europe.”
51 “Deželni glavar dr. Ivan Šusteršič o položaju. Wilsonov odgovor in sklep “Narodnega Vjeća,” Resnica, 26 October 1918.
52 “Dinastično vprašanje,” Resnica, 26 October 1918.
53 Ibid.
54 Radić, S., Politički spisi: Autobiografija, članci, govori, rasprave (Zagreb, 1971), 334Google Scholar.
55 Ivašković, I., “The Vidovdan Constitution and the Alternative Constitutional Strategies,” Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu 68, no. 3–4 (2018): 525–51Google Scholar.
56 Ušeničnik, A., Um die Jugoslavija. Eine Apologie (Ljubljana, 1918), 58–59Google Scholar.
57 Rahten, A., Slovenska ljudska stranka v beograjski skupščini. Jugoslovanski klub v parlamentarnem življenju Kraljevine SHS 1919–1929 (Ljubljana, 2002), 108Google Scholar.
58 A. C. Popovici, Ehemal. Mitglied des zentrallen Vollzugausschusses der rumaenischen Nationalpartei in Ungarn und Siebenbuergen. Die Vereinigten Staaten von Gross Oesterreich. Politische Studien zur Loesung der nationallen Fragen und Staatsrechtslichen Krisen in Oesterreich-Ungarn (Leipzig, 1906).
59 Popovici, Ehemal. Mitglied, 348–50.
60 Karpowitz-Toševa, L., “Program Velikoaustrijske federacije Aurela C. Popovicija,” Časopis za suvremenu povijest 26, no. 1 (1994): 65–80Google Scholar.
61 Bakisian, N., “Oscar Jászi in Exile: Danubian Europe Reconsidered,” Hungarian Studies 9, no. 1–2 (1994): 151–59Google Scholar.
62 Gross, F., “Peace Planning for Central and Eastern Europe,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 232 (1944): 169–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
63 Jászi, O., “Dismembered Hungary and Peace in Central Europe,” Foreign Affairs 2, no. 2 (1923): 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
64 Jászi, O., Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Hungary (New York, 1969)Google Scholar.
65 Arhiv Republike Slovenije, 1546, Zbirka biografij vidnejših komunistov in drugih javnih osebnosti – Življenjepis Dragotina Gustinčiča, 1546, kutija 15, Ljubljana.
66 Ibid.
67 A. Vovko, “Politični profil La Yougoslavie, revije jugoslovanske politične emigracije v Švici 1917–1918,” Prispevki za zgodovino delavskega gibanja 13 (1973), 117–31, here 119.
68 Trumbić categorically rejected the possibility of Gustinčič's appearing at the congress of the oppressed nations of Austria–Hungary held in Rome in April 1918. Gustinčič unsuccessfully lobbied the organizers of the congress and his protest letter was published by only one Italian magazine.
69 Vovko, “Politični profil La Yougoslavie,” 124.
70 “Jadransko vprašanje,” La Yougoslavie (Nov. 1918), 284.
71 Originally from Dalmatia, Nikola Smodlaka was a doctor who considered himself a Yugoslav and a Serb (Ibid., 117).
72 Slovenian social democrats, and later communists, considered the Macedonians to be a special nation (neither Serbs nor Bulgarians). Such a position was advocated by Henrik Tuma before World War I, and by Gustinčič in the later discussion of the Yugoslav communists in 1923 See J. Perovšek, “Slovenski komunisti in vprašanje makedonskega naroda leta 1923,” Prispevki za zgodovino delavsekga gibanja 18–19, no. 1–2 (1978–79): 17–44.
73 Vovko, “Politični profil La Yougoslavie,” 119–23.
74 “Dr. Anton Korošec,” La Yougoslavie (Nov. 1918), 301.
75 Jeglič, Jegličev dnevnik, 580.
76 Ibid., 765.
77 Ibid., 763, 765.
78 Ibid., 769.
79 Rahten, A., Avstrijski in jugoslovanski državni problem. Tri razprave Janka Brejca iz prelomnega obdobja narodne zgodovine (Ljubljana, 2002), 101Google Scholar.
80 Pleterski, Prva odločitev Slovencev za Jugoslavijo, 255.
81 Krizman, B., “Prevrat’ u Zagrebu i stvaranje ‘Države Slovenaca, Hrvata i Srba’ u listopadu 1918. god’,” Zbornik Historijskog Instituta Slavonije 6 (1968): 173–243Google Scholar, here 174–75.
82 Jeglič, Jegličev dnevnik, 770.
83 Boban, Lj., “Kada je i kako nastala Država Slovenaca, Hrvata i Srba,” Časopis za suvremenu povijest 24, no. 3 (1992): 45–60Google Scholar.
84 The liberal Slovenski narod wrote: “The Slavic people mocked the Manifesto of Charles I as a document that should throw ‘sand in Wilson's eyes,’ offering the South Slavs a substitute for Yugoslavia in the form of Illyria, in which the Slovenians would have to give up their territories in Carinthia and Littoral.” See “Pred proklamacijo – ‘Ilirije’,” Slovenski narod, 17 October 1918. See also “Jugoslovani ne odnehajo od svojih zahtev” in the conservative Slovenec, 17 October 1918.
85 Sirotković, H., “O nastanku, organizaciji, državnopravnim pitanjima i sukcesiji Države SHS nastale u jesen 1918,” Časopis za suvremenu povijest 24, no. 3 (1992): 61–74Google Scholar.
86 Banac, I., “Emperor Karl Has Become a Comitadji: The Croatian Disturbances of Autumn 1918,” The Slavonic and East European Review 70, no. 2 (1992): 284–305Google Scholar, here 301.
87 “Manifestacijski sprevod v Ljubljani,” Slovenski narod, 30 October 1918.
88 Rahten, Avstrijski in jugoslovanski državni problem, 118.
89 M. Kovač, “Raspadanje Austro-Ugarske i rađanje Kraljevine SHS u svjetlu francuske politike (od listopada do prosinca 1918),” Časopis za suvremenu povijest 35, no. 1 (2003): 141–72.
90 J. Perovšek, “Jugoslovanska združitev,” in Slovenska novejša zgodovina 1848–1992: od programa Zedinjena Slovenija do mednarodnega priznanja Republike Slovenije, eds. Zdenko Čepič, Neven Borak, and Jasna Fisher (Ljubljana, 2005), 200–01.
91 Prepeluh, A., Pripombe k naši prevratni dobi (Trieste, 1987), 130–31Google Scholar.
92 Lampe, Yugoslavia as History, 111.
93 Rahten, Slovenska ljudska stranka, 26.
94 Engelsfeld, N., Povijest hrvatske države i prava – razdoblje od 18. do 20 (Zagreb, 2002), 277Google Scholar; Perovšek, “Jugoslovanska združitev,” 201.
95 Krizman, B., Hrvatska u prvom svjetskom ratu: hrvatsko-srpski politički odnosi (Zagreb, 1989), 337Google Scholar.
96 Jeglič, Jegličev dnevnik, 770.
97 Ibid., 768.
98 Ibid., 767.
99 Ibid., 771.
100 According to Janko Brejc, Švabić sent a warning letter to the Italian command in Logatec that the units of the Serbian army (although in reality then still far away) were already in Ljubljana and that further penetration of Italian troops could lead to a conflict between the allies. Rahten, Avstrijski in jugoslovanski državni problem, 27–28.
101 “V. Jugoslaviji,” Slovenski narod, 19 October 1918.
102 “Serbs will know how to organize a common state not only for themselves, but also for the Croats and Slovenians, without imposing Serbism on us. . . . Do you think that a proud, free Serb, who suffered more for freedom than anyone else, will allow those whom it itself saved and created an irreversible opportunity to create a strong and free nation to create ridiculous difficulties for him at the end of the day? . . . Believe me, Serbia doesn't need us, we need Serbia!” See “Biti ali ne biti!,” Slovenski narod, 25 November 1918.
103 Ibid.
104 “One final time” the editors concluded: “the path of Slavic freedom leads through Serbia, there is no other way!” Ibid.
105 “Ujedinjenje s Srbijo,” Domovina, 29 November 1918.
106 Ibid.
107 Perovšek, J., Liberalizem in vprašanje slovenstva (Ljubljana, 1996), 44Google Scholar.
108 “Srbija na pomoč,” Slovenski narod, 9 November 1918.
109 E.g., J. Lavrič, J. Mal, F. Stele, Spominski zbornik Slovenije (Ljubljana, 1939).
110 Pleterski, Prva odločitev Slovencev za Jugoslavijo.
111 D. Čepulo, L. Margertić, I. Beuc, Hrvatska pravna povijest u europskom kontekstu (Croatian legal history in the European context), (Zagreb, 2006), 113–22.
112 Stavbar, V., Majniška deklaracija in deklaracijsko gibanje (Maribor, 2017), 55–60Google Scholar.
113 R.W. Seton-Watson, “Austria-Hungary and the Southern Slavs,” in The War and Democracy, ed. R.W. Seton-Watson et al. (London, 1914), 139.
114 Rahten, A., Avstrijski in jugoslovanski državni problem. Tri razprave Janka Brejca iz prelomnega obdobja narodne zgodovine (Ljubljana, 2012), 101Google Scholar.
115 Šišić, F., Dokumenti o postanku Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca, 1914–1919 (Documents on the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians, 1914–1919), (Zagreb, 1920), 277Google Scholar.
116 Perovšek, Liberalizem, 93–103.
117 Lampe, Yugoslavia as History, 101.
118 Ivašković, “The Vidovdan Constitution,” 525–51.