The Image of Turkey in the Public Discourse of Interwar Yugoslavia During the Reign of King Aleksandar Karađorđević (1921–1934) According to the Newspaper “Politika”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ZESZYTY NAUKOWE TOWARZYSTWA DOKTORANTÓW UJ NAUKI S , NR 24 (1/2019), S. 143–166 E-ISSN 2082-9213 | P-ISSN 2299-2383 POŁECZNE WWW. .UJ.EDU.PL/ZESZYTY/NAUKI- DOI: 10.26361/ZNTDSP.10.2019.24.8 DOKTORANCI SPOLECZNE HTTPS:// .ORG/0000-0002-3183-0512 ORCID P M ADAM M AWEŁUNIVERSITYICHALAK IN P F HISTORY ICKIEWICZ OZNAŃ E-MAIL: PAWELMALDINI@ .ONET.PL ACULTY OF POCZTA SUBMISSION: 14.05.2019 A : 29.08.2019 ______________________________________________________________________________________CCEPTANCE The Image of Turkey in the Public Discourse of Interwar Yugoslavia During the Reign of King Aleksandar Karađorđević (1921–1934) According to the Newspaper “Politika” A BSTRACT Bearing in mind the Ottoman burden in relations between Turkey and other Balkan states, it seems interesting to look at the process of creating the image of Turkey in the public discourse of inter-war Yugoslavia according to the newspaper “Politika,” the largest, and the most popular newspaper in the Kingdom of d Slovenes (since 1929 the Kingdom of Yugoslavia). It should be remembered that the modern Ser- bian state, on the basis of which Yugoslavia was founded, wasSerbs, born Croats in the an struggle to shed Turkish yoke. The narrative about dropping this yoke has become one of the On the one hand, the government narrative did not forget about the Ottoman yoke; oncornerstones the other, therefor building were made the prestige attempts and to thepresent position Kemalist of the Turkey Karađorđević as a potentially dynasty. important partner, almost an ally in the Balkans, which parted from the Ottoman her- itage. KEYWORDS -Yugoslavian Relations Yugoslavia, Turkey, King Aleksandar Karađorđević, Interwar Period, Turkish 144 P M __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ AWEŁ ICHALAK Introduction In the 1920s, there was a very popular statement among Yugoslav political commentators to describe the international situation of their country, that the (brige). The appearance of this catchy term resulted from the fact that this wordKingdom is also anof acronymSerbs, Croats that andwe getSlovenes from the was first surrounded letters of bythe the names problems of all —Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, Greece, Albania, Hungary and Austria.1 This curiosity and language play turnedneighbours out ofto thebe anKingdom excellent of Serbs,diagnosis Croats of andthe youngSlovenes kingdom’s position on the international stage. The uncertainty of the existence in the first months after the end of the Great War and the smaller or larger territorial disputes between Yugoslavia and almost all its neighbours created the leitmotif of the Yugoslavian foreign policy—to watch over the consolidation of the post- Versailles order 2 It was intended to achieve this goal in two ways. The first was to resolve the disputable issues with all the neighboursin Central and setand up Southeastern at least correct Europe. relations as soon as possi- ble.3 The second was to strengthen the role of Yugoslavia in the region and to make it a leader of this part of Europe.4 To achieve the latter, the Kingdom of 5 and the so-called Balkan Entente, known also as the Balkan Pact.6 The anti- revisionistSCS has taken policy an activebrought part Belgrade in two regional closer toalliances: The Little Entente , with which it shared common concerns about the revisionist tendencies of Hungary. In Czechoslovakia and Romania keeping Bulgaria in check. The cooperation of these three countries re- sulted in the addition,creation ofRomania the Little and Entente the Kingdom block, which of SCS perfectly were even matched closer the to French assumptions of creating the anti-Bolshevik cordon sanitaire.7 Possible 1 Nikola Pašić and Ante Trumbić. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, London 2010, p. 81. 2 D. Djokić, , Spoljnopolitička doktrina novostvorene jugoslovenske države, [in:] Politički život Jugoslavije 1914–1945, ur. A. Ackovi Beograd 1973, p. 317. 3 A. Mitrović , Спољна политика Краљевине СХС/Југославије 1918–1941, „ ” 2008, 2, ć,p. 53. 4 Ibidem;Б. Димитријевић, . С. Сретеновић, Краљ Александар Карађорђевић, . III, 2010, p. 9. 5 About theИсторија Little Entente 20. века see i.e.: D. Bober, Rola i miejsce Jugosławii w polityce Małej En- tenty (1920–1938)Б Глигоријевић, књ БеоградMala Antanta 1920–1938 6 About the so-calledPoznań Balkan 1981 [unpublished PhD dissertation];Balkanska M. Vanku, Antanta (1934– 1940), Beograd, Titovo 1986. Užice 1969. 7 Ententeop. see cit., i.e.: pp. Ž.53 Avramovski,–54. Б. Димитријевић, С. Сретеновић, THE IMAGE OF TURKEY IN THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE... 145 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ cooperation with France was to guarantee the support in the confrontation with Italy, the growing power of which was feared in Belgrade and in Paris.8 In the 1920s the fear of the expansionist policy of Italy was one of the few factors that brought Yugoslavia and Turkey together.9 Nevertheless, it was the idea of pan-Balkan cooperation in the spirit of the slogan “Balkans for the Balkan peo- ples,” propagated from the beginning of the 1930s, which led to closer political ties with Turkey.10 This does not mean, of course, that Turkey was ignored by the Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs before the 1930s. There is no doubt, however, that it initially played a secondary role. It was no different with For obvious reasons, until 1923, in the international arena, Turkey focused primarilythe place andon the significance war with ofGreece the Kingdom and maintaining of SCS in theTurkey's direction foreign of reforms policy. begun by Kemal Mustafa Pasha, the future Atatürk (“the Father of Turks”). The situation changed after the Treaty of Lausanne was signed on July 24, 1923 and the Republic of Turkey obtained international legitimacy. After 1923, there can be distinguished two phases in the foreign policy of interwar Turkey. In the first one, in the years 1923–1932, Turkish rulers focused mainly on strengthening the position after the Lausanne Treaty.11 For this reason, in the 1920s, the Balkans, and consequently Yugoslavia, played the peripheral role in the policy of Turkey which focused mainly on the Middle East.12 The situation changed at the beginning of the 1930s when Turkey began to strengthen its position in the Balkans and became one of the most involved promoters of the idea of Balkan cooperation. It is this Balkan vector that allows to distinguish the second phase of Turkish interwar foreign policy, the phase of increased diplomatic activity in the Balkans in the years 1932–1939.13 Taking the above into account and bearing in mind the Ottoman burden in relations between Turkey and other Balkan states, it seems interesting to look at the process of creating the image of Turkey in the public discourse of inter-war Yugoslavia. It should be remembered that the modern Serbian state, on the basis of which Yugoslavia was founded, was born in the struggle to shed Turkish8 yoke, initiated by the first Serbian uprising in 1804 headed by Đorđe 9 The Balkan Entente in Turkish–Yugoslav relations (1934–41): The Yu- goslavA. Perspective Mitrović, op., “Middle cit., p. 322.Eastern Studies” 2016, Vol. 52, No. 6, p. 1012. 10D. Although Barlas, A. it Vlašić,should be noted that both the above-mentioned slogan and the idea of pan- Balkan cooperation are much older, and its roots can be traced back to the 19th century. 11 Uwarunkowania geopolityczne bałkańskiej polityki Turcji w latach 20. i 30. XX wieku, „Balcanica Posnaniensia. Acta et studia” 2014, t. XXI, p. 187. 12 Ibidem,J. Paszkiewicz, p. 188. 13 Ibidem, p. 187. 146 P M __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ AWEŁ ICHALAK which ended the First Balkan War. The narrative about dropping this yoke has becomePetrović, one known of the as cornerstonesKarađorđe, and for finished building with the prestigethe London and Treaty the position of 1913, of the Battle of Kumanovo (October 23–24, 1912) contributed to the creation of the Karađorđević dynasty. The great victory of Serbian arms over the Turks at who was commanding in this battle.14 Therefore, the issue of presenting the imagethe myth of Turkeystrengthening in the public the political discourse position of interwar of King YugoslaviaAleksandar seems Karađorđević, to be all the more interesting. On the one hand, the government narrative did not for- get about the Ottoman yoke; on the other, there were made attempts to present Kemalist Turkey as a potentially important partner, almost an ally in the Balkans, which parted from the Ottoman heritage. Press and the Press System in the Interwar Yugoslavia in the Service of Royal Policy The most important medium actually allowing to make such acrobatics and create such an image in the mass consciousness of the Yugoslav society was still the press. In the first half of the twentieth century, it was still the most popular and definitely most accessible medium of information, which could significantly affect the public opinion’s perception of current political events. 15 has left many loopholes allowing for the control