CEU eTD Collection Second Reader: Professor Maria Kovacs Reader:Professor Second Advisor: Professor Florian Bieber UNRECOGNIZED ALIKE, YETNOTEQUAL:ALBANIANSANDBOSNIAN ALIKE, UNRECOGNIZED MUSLIMS INMUSLIMS INTERWAR YUGOSLAVIA 1918-1941 In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Nationalism StudiesProgram Central European University Central European Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Gëzim Krasniqi Gëzim Master of Arts Submitted to Submitted 2009 By CEU eTD Collection ILORPY...... 62 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 57 CONCLUSION...... OPRSN...... 49 ...... COMPARISON A OFYUGOSLAVIA: INTHE KINGDOM ANDALBANIANS MUSLIMS BOSNIAN 5. 4. ALBANIANS: THE IRRITANT ELEMENT WITHIN 36 ‘OLD SERBIA’...... 3. BOSNIAN MUSLIMS AS THE RELIGIOUS OTHER OF SOUTH 23 SLAVIC PEOPLE...... TEOHR:URCGIE AINLGOP NITRA UOLVA...... 13 YUGOSLAVIA...... GROUPS NATIONAL INTERWAR IN UNRECOGNIZED OTHERS: 2. THE .KNDMO EB,COT N LVNS NTR TT FTRE‘RBS.. 1 ‘TRIBES’.... OF ANDSLOVENES:THREE STATE CROATS AUNITARY SERBS, OF 1. KINGDOM LITERATURE REVIEW...... VI II ...... INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS...... I Table ofContents 5.1. 4.3. 4.2. 4.1. 3.2. 3.1. 2.2. 2.1. 1.3. 1.2. 1.1...... 9 ...... 3.2.1. Between the lines: making the difference in the Croat-Serb 32 political ...... disputes 2.1.1. Treaty of Saint Germain 17 of 1919...... 1.3.1. Territorial organization of 11 the country...... M T P C R I D Y F H T NITIAL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ANDDISEMPOWERMENT ECONOMIC NITIAL POLITICAL OLITICAL REPRESENTATION AND THE ANDROLE OF THE OLITICAL REPRESENTATION ROM CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY TO ROYAL DICTATORSHIP ROYAL TO MONARCHY ROM CONSTITUTIONAL HE STATE OF HE STATE HE CONFLICTING VISIONS HE OF CONFLICTING OLE OF THE OLE OF OLONIZATIONAND EXPULSION OFLAND EADING TOWARD NATION STATE OMESTIC LEGISLATION AND NATIONALIZING POLICIES ANDNATIONALIZING OMESTIC LEGISLATION UGOSLAVIA ANDUGOSLAVIA THE UTUAL RELATIONSHIP AND RELIGIOUS COMPETITION RELIGIOUS AND UTUAL RELATIONSHIP Y A UGOSLAV LBANIA AND LBANIA V ERSAILLES M USLIM A Y LBANIANS IN LBANIANS UGOSLAVIA ...... 6 ...... O ’ RGANIZATION IN EMPOWERING RGANIZATION S MINORITY PROTECTION S MINORITYSYSTEM PROTECTION ...... 40 ...... : Y S UGOSLAVIA ERB C EMIYET i -C ROAT OPPOSITION ROAT ...... 53 ...... 25 ...... 20 ...... 43 ...... 46 ...... : POLITICS B OSNIAN ...... 15 ...... 4 ...... , GOVERNMENT M USLIMS , ...... 28 ...... ADMINISTRATION CEU eTD Collection and Brendanand O’Leary (London andNew York: Rowtledge, 1993),175. 3 Press, 1974), 202. ‘Yugoslavia’, ‘Kingdom of Yugoslavia’, ‘Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes’ and ‘Yugoslav state’. ‘Yugoslav and Slovenes’ and Croats Serbs, of 2 ‘Kingdom of Yugoslavia’, ‘Kingdom ‘Yugoslavia’, 1 centralist tendencies and the vision of one nation-state for South for South Slavic andthetendencies vision leaving nation-state centralistone thus of people, monarchy” Serbian andthe nation, toone rise language, giving based on“one existence new came The into that on 1 Decemberwithin state. state andwhich was 1918, the in issues and, particular,with national smaller and developments living these regard to groups other have sidelined and Croats Serbs between andclashes conflicts Inaway,etc. political –Albanians,ethnicItalians, Romanians, Germans, Turks, Hungarians, groups Jews,Roma such as Bosnian MontenegrinsMuslims, Macedonians, and, non-Slavic especially those of of Yugoslavia, Kingdom the denied, whose wasstubbornly andexistence continuously economic andpolitical position ethnicof other andcultural livinggroups within borders the state. Yugoslav first the about wrote who scholars the of most of of attention centre the at been have continuously andCroats between Serbs relations –Serbs Consequently,main and Croats. ideologies,of ethnic groups aboveall, two the sovereigns seven differentlegal systems” hadfrom “inherited religion,communities,culture, their that with previous antagonist distinct approach centralistby state in inhabitedelite predominantly Serb the a country bymixed and little,stability.YugoslaviaApplicationif and ofa economic had social any, political, known economical and social Inits 23yearsexperiment. of existence Kingdom the (1918-1941), of renamed (later Slovenes of Kingdom the Yugoslavia) and theKingdom Croats Serbs, struggle groups, ethnicof andcultural power among different Introduction George Schopflin, “The rise and fall of Yugoslavia,” in Joseph Rothschild, Throughout this thesis I use different terms to describe this country, suchas: ‘interwar Yugoslavia’, Located in a region aggravated by a history of political division, border shifting and shifting border of byahistory division, in political aregion aggravated Located Nevertheless, comparatively little has been written with regard to the socio- the to regard with beenwritten has little comparatively Nevertheless, East Central Europe Between the Two WorldWars 2 led to power struggle led competing national topower and ii The politics of ethnic conflict regulation 1 proved to be a short lived political, lived short be a to proved (Seattle: University of Washington 3 reflected Serb reflected JohnMcGarry CEU eTD Collection the dissolutionthe Austro-Hungarian of Empire; (d) theposition Albaniansof and their treatment than groups(including other Bosnian in territoriesthe Muslims)Yugoslavia assigned after to (includinggroups Albanians)in the territories annexed by worse in Serbia 1912-1913 treated there were different standardsnational minorities, homogenization promoted ata certainand, level, policies; oppressive (c) in the treatment of presence the negate to ittried its existence throughout minorities, national of of protection national groups in Yugoslavia,for the (1919) SaintGermain of Treaty the accepted Yugoslavia inter-war that fact the despite with those as such, it of ‘barred’ doors for state the non-south Slavic speaking national groups; (b) language arguingelementinKingdom that:(a) wasthe mainunifying and the of Yugoslavia, Muslims being position Albanians. inbetter compared to Theby thesisaimsatproving this, different state treatment had wereequally they argue factdespite both to groups that the attempts that unrecognized, and, consequently, different and in Slovenes. It Serbs, Croats of Albanians, the Kingdom groups, national asunrecognized position within the state, with Bosnian minorities. andnational nations both itcharacterized Rather, relationship. politicalwas notonly confined competition andethnic rivalry, withinand Serb-Croat internal Nevertheless, in Belgrade. centered were that institutions political the of functioning country and of in the organization territorial also the reflected were hegemonic tendencies even and unitarist Serb groups. smaller the of rights minority other to reference any omitting in language, religion in thus mother to relation discrimination only clause and education Hungarians. In level constitutional the the Kingdom too, affirmedof Yugoslavia anon suchas and within state, Germans forthe groups some of national the education) elementary minorities inits territory init 1919, never wentfurther guarantyingthan (in languagerights national of for protection Germain the Treaty Saint the of and accepted Slovenes Croats fact Kingdom Likewise, the that the despite Serbs, space atallfor groups. noalmost of other Thus, this thesis sets to examine and compare the position of examine Muslims position and Bosnian compareof the to Thus, thesis sets and this iii CEU eTD Collection (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996), 5. 4 state, external homeland (Albania) and national minority, all forming a ‘triadic nexus’ ‘triadic a forming all minority, national and (Albania) homeland external state, by wasfurther state the determined by interplay the at least – of factors three nationalizing that is largely determined by political considerations and state’s official (centrist) ideology. betterto understand the complex multi-facetand relationship minority-majority, arelationship focusing on the case of unequal treatment of Bosnian Muslims and Albanians, this study helps for illegitimaterendered Yugoslavia and improper state an most ofits By inhabitants. incompatible with the political much very ininterwar people and politics control Yugoslavia were hegemonic territory, over orientations of Serb tendenciesfor considerinterwar Yugoslavia. I that to with regard scholarly the work other nations in contribution ora symbolic give isto minoritiesmy aim in Yugoslavia, Albanians and Muslims Bosnian and, as such, they appliedmodes, andby analyzing of bythestate, treatment distinct approaching different organization in AlbaniansandBosnianMuslimsthe of Rather, the Kingdom Yugoslavia. of oran lifenational each of analysis groups, non-recognized of and each andevery aspect of expulsion. and marginalization of in that Albanians of treatment the whereas policies, assimilation of MuslimsinBosnian theinterwar in fallslargely Yugoslavia thecategory integration of and treatment finally, the (f) policies; repressive state’s oppose awayto as resistance armed chose in manycases the state, within interests their will articulate that political organization strong was characteristic of Bosnian Muslims the inter-war period, throughout Albanians,lacking a bargaining political and state the with identification of level high relatively a While state. the and from they will receive treatment importancefor the was of great state) with the identification organization political their (including state the toward minorities of behavior the token, same the by (e) Muslims; Bosnian for characteristic not was which something Rogers Brubaker, In this am thesis, I however, not trying provide athorough to analysis of positionthe of Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and theNational Question in theNew Europe iv 4 – CEU eTD Collection government most of mostgovernment of time,the as opposed to Albanian andmilitary),defiance (political strategy the leader, Muslims theirtosupport Bosnian the and of Mehmed the Spaho, of the Serb elite) element within the state. In addition, this chapter tries shedto light on that if considerations political the in (especially irritant and hostile alien, being as considered mainly were latter the while nation) ingredientpart of the (and as as such, group speaking national Serbo-Croatian the to belong to considered former were the duetothefactthat state the unrecognized Kingdom,Yugoslav with two groups, national as differentfrom quite treatment within and Turks state. the in Albanians contextof representation of Decemberpolitical beanalyzedtoo the 1919,will Skopje founded for in Defense at andJusticeAssociation the (Cemiyet), Role of Islamic the and Regions” Macedonia). region called“Southern (Kosovo the lived – they where so the Kingdom theirof measuresand state Yugoslavia, rebellion,pacify unrest and taken to control reis-ul-ulema Yugoslav Muslim Organization (YMO), Bosnian Muslim cultural societies institution and of Muslims on oneother’ side, of the South Slavic‘religious andthe as Muslims Bosnian people.analyzes chapter following SerbsThe ItGermain. Saint aimsof Treaty at shedding and light onCroats the relations of betweenNations and its applicability on onthe case of Yugoslavia, with a Bosnianparticular emphasizes on thethe other andtheLeague Versailles the Conference of at established minority system inbrief protection side, as well legal andpolitical position, issues aswell to related other Also,them. this analyzes chapter as on the role Further,focusesstate. chapter two onothernational within Kingdom,groups Yugoslav their of Yugoslavia, political institutions andmajor political have thatdevelopments characterized the Meanwhile, sixth the sets comparechapter to Bosnian Muslims Albaniansand inthe Therefore, thefirst chapter of this thesis examines internal organization of Kingdom the of . Fifth chapter, on the other side, depicts the position of Albanians in the v CEU eTD Collection stability and a workable democratic system in very argues sucha further system stability slim.were and aworkable democratic polity He internal its for chances Consequently, communities. confessional and national numerous its (andnational ideologies exclusive hadalready that irreconcilable) mutually in evolved each of mutually of the prevalence and national question because unresolved the of democratic state 2007). Compromise: AHistoryofInterwar Yugoslavia Political System Alex N.Dragnich’s University 1993), Press, The nationalquestioninYugoslavia: origins, history, politics work seminal Banac’s Ivo out: stand Yugoslavia inter-war on books three all, Above entity. political formatof the agree on the to failure and opposition Serb-Croat the strife to national and instability inherent political almost attribute most of scholars relations and the Serb-Croat Literature review developments in Yugoslavthe Kingdom will be included in this thesis. By the same token, many secondary sources – books, articles, discussions etc. - which analyze differentnational These groups. andprimary sources willbe factual data examined indetail. social,Kingdom figures in and the its economic political system of Yugoslavia about and the laws),legal primary andcontains (constitutions, official – factual sources data anddocuments Bosniangroups, Muslims and Albanians. differenttreatmentprovidesof mainMuslim state’s for an explanation Yugoslavia’s the The methodology used here combines analytical and critical approaches. Theliterature andapproaches. critical analytical herecombines The methodology used According to Banac, inter-war Yugoslavia failed to be established as a stable and astable be as established failedto Yugoslavia Banac,inter-war According to The great majority of the academic work done on inter-war Yugoslavia deals with the (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1983) and Dejan Press, 1983) andDjoki Dejan Institution Hoover (Stanford: vi The FirstYugoslavia.The Search a Viable for (New York: Columbia University Press, (Ithaca and London: Cornell London: and (Ithaca ü ’s Elusive CEU eTD Collection Yugoslavia (external factors) were the cause of the state’s failure. state’s werethe cause of the factors) (external Yugoslavia represents such an example. Thus,heis of opinion World that WarIIand occupation of created a separate Croat autonomous unit (called by Djoki towardleading processes a and dynamics compromise. political as in Yugoslavia developments political considers The of tofail, improbable country he an as ‘pre-programmed agents’.or Instead pre-ordained not and pragmatism also but principles, their on based act which agents more asactive actors of the Slovenes, Serbs and Croats, not to say anything about minorities. downgradeled the political,who to unification process and differences cultural religious the theelites of tendency the of because were undermined entity political acceptable stable and Croat leaders such as Radi Croat Stjepan position andrecognize whichdoesn’t their distinct national identity, staunchly aspromoted by inferior inleaves an them Yugoslavia that andSerb-dominated accept ahighly centralized to willing weren’t Croats hand, other the On it. over a control had superior) numerically (being Serbs state Slavic of where anextendedSerbiaandanation people, south was primarily most Yugoslavia leaders,inter-war of For in Serb the termsthe Yugoslavia. of state-building fail. to ordained building of a functional experiences national of differentwere and groups religious that includedinand Yugoslavia, legitimate Yugoslavminorities state was almost impossibleideologies or it was pre-or Macedonians. ideology national reconcilenot could the that andaccept (Yugoslavism)state official of the Serbs, Croats, Put and itSlovenes, otherwise, let alone tofor be acceptableBanac, bygiven non-Slavic the different historical Finally, Djoki Alex likewise, N. Dragnich,emphasis opposition agree Serb-Croat inability andto on ü provides a quite different approach. Unlike Banac, hesees approach.political Unlike different a quite provides Sporazum ü , Ma – Serb-Croat agreement of agreementof August 1939–that – Serb-Croat 26 þ ek etc. In Dragnich’s opinion, efforts to create a tocreate efforts In Dragnich’s opinion, ek etc. vii ü as ‘elusive compromise’) - CEU eTD Collection Bosnian Muslims and Albanians. is with case as the minorities, of treatment different for conditions create automatically Thesecriteria state. of the and security of state-building project itposes to the of threat level of and Yugoslavism) state (non/acceptance the minorities of the on toward attitude the minorities largely behaviordepended toward oppression. state Similarly, state-sponsored the in a Global Age assimilation is actively encouraged.” See: Montserrat Guibernau, cultural, historical or political national minorities within itself. In this situation, internal diversity is ignored and 5 against the proclaimed national unity national unity proclaimed ( the against were actively denied. minorities Undeniably, approach. an exclusive followed in Yugoslavia, national-minorities but inmulti-ethnic by existenceof experiencethe denying managing state, constantly not core of Serbia asthe newthe of only function lacked andunitarism centralism). state, wasin (definition anation-state of as as Yugoslavia and of a nation-state Yugoslavia behavior structures state highly centralized of the because primarily wereneglected groups minority smaller that from arise First, this. thecontext, broaden otherwise issues,which different in in understanding developments political Yugoslavia and its state-building Two process. both groups, Slavic andnon-Slavicfactors areimportant (though more as object than subject) relations and the way they impacted state-building process. However, I consider that Serb-Croat-Slovene of the importance minority the recognizes approach My own in Yugoslavia. developments political internal the in position and role their and groups minority of analyses detailed relations, onlyBanacprovides especiallyinterwar Serb-Croat Yugoslavia, the all threeprovidethe for manyuseful analyseselements of dynamics political within the process) of state-building. Banac, Djoki According to Guibernau, “Denial concerns the state’s refusal to acknowledge the existence of any sort of sort ofany existence the to acknowledge refusal state’s the concerns “Denial Guibernau, to According Second, because of the fact that the existence of numerous ethno-national groups went groups ethno-national numerous of existence the that thefact of because Second, Undeniably,inter-war Yugoslavia was of an example a long-lasting (and unfinished (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999), 60. 5 narodno jedinstvo narodno ü and Dragnich see it as such too. Nonetheless, though viii Nations without States.Political Communities ) and nation-state, they fell prey of prey fell they nation-state, and ) CEU eTD Collection and securitization of -willethnic-relations be usedbuild to my argument. Age (book: andminority resistance ), and Brubaker’s Rogers work In this context, Montserrat Guibernau’s theoretical framework on denial of minorities of denial on framework theoretical Guibernau’s Montserrat context, this In Nations without States. PoliticalCommunities in aGlobal Nationalism Reframed - ix concepts of nationalizing policies nationalizing of concepts CEU eTD Collection http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/greaterserbia_skupshtina.htmat: available is decree voted of the text The Slavs. ofSouth state Elusive Compromise 9 Balkans: From Mohammed the Conqueror to Stalin short –a 1918) October (29 livedEmpire state Habsburg which from joined Serbs the Kingdom and Croats of Serbs,of Slovenes, Croats and Slovenes independence the just a monthdeclared later. See: Dejan Djoki (Croat) and Svetozar Pribi Svetozar and (Croat) National Council ( the at assembled and inAustro-Hungary, Slovenes ofthe Serbs,Croats leaders political 8 Institute forPeace Support and Conflict Management of 2003),Vienna, 131. Territorial Integrity and International Stability: The Case of Yugoslavia in ceremony 1918). Ata of organized Monarchy anduntil Habsburg the Vojvodina (alsopart (Slovenia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Slavonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina) and Slavonia Dalmatia, Croatia, (Slovenia, course Warsof Balkan of south Slavic 1912-1913), inhabited landsof Empire Habsburg wereannexed bySerbiain Kingdom Kosovo andMacedonia, which the (including Serbia of Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 325-329; Politics the Entente countries, Yugoslav Committee ( Press, 2007), 12-39; Dennis P. Hupchick, residing in Corfu (Greece), the organization of the Monarchy's South Slavic South Monarchy's the organization of the in (Greece), residing Corfu representing south Slavic people: the exiled Serbian government led by Paši Slavic exiled the government Nikola people: representing south Serbian thatin ofnegotiationsprocess groups awaywere by separate and pursued discussions long arelatively after 1December 1918, on established It was officially War(WWI). I consequence of dissolution the of Habsburgthe Ottoman and Empire atthe end World of the 7 6 of three‘tribes’ 1. Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes: aunitary state Montenegro’s Great Montenegro’s Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from Habsburg South Slav lands, led by Anton Korošec (Slovene), Ante Paveli See: Dejan Djoki Dejan See: Rothschild, Joseph religion and culture –Yugoslavia wasmost complicated the of thenew instates interwar EastCentral Europe, “By virtually everyrelevant criterion –history, political traditions, socioeconomic standards, legal systems, (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press,1993) The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was one of the states that emerged as a emerged as that one and states of the was Slovenes Croats Serbs, of The Kingdom ü , , 25-26; Dennis P. Hupchick, East Central Europebetween the Two WorldWars Elusive Compromise: HistoryA of Interwar Yugoslavia Skupština Narodno Vje Narodno ü evi ü (Serb), first created the National Council in Zagreb (8 October 1918) and then and 1918) October (8 Zagreb in Council National the created first (Serb), voted on 28 November 1918 to depose the Petrovi the depose to 1918 November 28 on voted being being composed of thelargest and the most varied number ofpre-1918 units.” Ivo Banac, ü e ).” The Balkans: from Constantinople to communism 7 This new country comprised of the already existing already the of comprised country new This The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, The Balkans, 27-29; (Boulder: European East Monographs, 1992), 409. Jugoslovenski Odbor 1 , 115-140; Enver Hasani, [last accessed: 27.04.2009]. Georges Castellan, Georges , 201. (Vienna: National Defence Academy’s Defence National (Vienna: (New York: Columbia University 8 , Kingdom , Kingdom of Montenegro ) residinginLondon,and ü dynasty and join the new the join and dynasty Self-Determination, History of the - Joseph Rothschild (New York: émigrés living in ü ü , then ü 6 9 - , CEU eTD Collection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 133;Ivo Banac See: Georges Castellan, Georges See: accurate. very is not data these categories, religious and linguistic in only divided were people that fact the of 15 14 13 University Press, 2003), 98. Understanding the Balkan Wars of 1990s 12 Yugoslavia through documents: from its creation to its dissolution 11 could be based.” institutions political modern “provided upon which that weak foundations representative very diverseSlavic south peoples and others the into theybroughtthat unifiedthe in kingdom 1918 state. of the character about the disagreements internal above all, and,(c) relations, andeconomic international political (b) legacies, state did not extend through the month. 10 Jews etc. Ruthenians, Slovaks, Czechs, Italians, Turks, Albanians, Hungarians, Germans, minorities: ethnic people’, interwarincludedmillion Yugoslavia some 2 of (17 percent population) overall the ideologies”. national their“conflicting reflected National Council, said: of of internal mountain barriers, of fragmented communications among regions and populated by by address red Paveli to replying Alexander, Regence Belgrade, Prince According to the officialcensus of 31 January 121, Yugoslavia had a bit less then 12 million people. Because Ivo Banac John B. Allcock, in Yugoslavism,” There Was Education; Slav “South Jelavich, Charles See Prince Alexander of Serbia's Reply to Yugoslav National Council's Address in: Snežana Trifunovska ed., Not be mixed with the Croat As far as the first factor is concerned, it is the different historical legacies of legacies all the ithistorical is different the isfactor As far concerned, first asthe However, the immediate euphoria surrounding the formation of formation the euphoriaaunitedsouth Slavic of surrounding theimmediate However, our kingdom everbe happy and glorious!” universal law. […]Long wholelive the people ofthe Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes! May loyal great to the constitutional, parliamentary, anddemocratic principles resting upon of free citizens of the State of the Serbs,Serbs, Croats, Croats, and Slovenes.and […] Slovenes,Faithful to my father's example, and I I shall shallonly be the alwaysKing remain State of name of King Peter Iproclaim ofunity the with Serbia ofthe provinces theindependent “ We thus realizewhat correspondsto thewishes my anddesiresof in people,the and , The National Question in Yugoslavia, Serbs, Croats Serbs, Explaining Yugoslavia 13 Different communities’ historical experiences and legacies, indeed, legacies, and experiences historical communities’ Different History ofthe Balkans, 15 As Rothschild points out, Yugoslavia was one of contrasting regions, Ustaša , and , leader. Slovenes eds. Norman M. Naimark and Holly Case (Stanford: Stanford (London: Hurst & Company,2000),264. 12 419; Fred Singleton, There were three main reasonsfor this: (a) historical , in the 406. 11 2 14 To begin with, apart from ‘three-named from the apart with, Tobegin Unitary , The National Question in Yugoslavia, (Dordrecht : M. Nijhoff,1994), 160. A Short Historyof theYugoslav People [my emphasizes] Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Its Historians: ü 10 on behalf of the of behalf on 49-58. CEU eTD Collection 21 20 national states, 1804-1920 History of the Yugoslav People Random House, 2002),109-124; John R. Lampe, 19 100-122; Alex N. Dragnich, 18 InstitutionPress, 1983), 135-144. country (Westport and London: Greenwood2004), Press, 7; JohnR. Lampe, Rogel, Carole see: problems economic on more For Yugoslavia. in 17 disagreements about the political organization of the country. as and thebiggestandnations) of Serbs (primarily Croats ideologies national that country. functioning of the the to wouldobstacles additional that cause Axis powers rising of the the and crisis economic it was world 1930s, especially phases, later In in its affairs. interfere Yugoslavia was byhostilefromsurrounded enemies (apart Greece and Romania), ready to 16 and defeated), Bulgaria (the all“mourninglosses, their both of territory andtheir of people” With years. Austria, leadersin Hungary, post-war first Yugoslav headache the for constant Arabic). Latin, (Cyrillic, orthographies in different wrote and sovereignties, former their from systems communities widelyof cultures, differentdivergent religions, had legal inherited eight and solvedinternational which until weren’t Italy,1926, through agreements Slovenes more a “project than more a“projectthan a fact”. Slovenes organization allof made ethno-national the theKingdom groups, andSerbs, Croats of Versailles. In particular, border disputes border In Versailles. particular, in Conference Peace in International the was being shaped that order international WWI new promising. country rather Margaret Macmillan, Margaret Fred Singleton, For more on this, see: Margaret Macmillan, Margaret see: onthis, more For Georges Castellan, Georges Of particular importance in this context are differences in economic and industrial development of the regions ofthe development industrial and economic in differences are context this in importance Ofparticular Joseph Rothschild, Joseph (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 117-121; John B. Allcock, Nevertheless, the crucial problem that Yugoslavia faced was that of of competing that faced thatYugoslavia was crucial the Nevertheless, problem The second major problem that the newly created state faced was related to the post- tothe facedrelated was state newly created the major that problem The second 16 In other words, these differences these words, Inother A Short History of the Yugoslav People Historyof the Balkans, East Central Europe Between theTwo WorldWars Paris 1919 (Published Seattle : University of WashingtonPress, 1986), 300-305. The First Yugoslavia. Search for a Viable Political System , 135-139; Charles and BarbaraJelavich, , 123. 419. 18 Paris 1919: six months that changedworld the Undoubtedly, all this rendered the perspectives of perspectives the thisrendered Undoubtedly, all 19 Yugoslavia as History, with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania 3 17 , 135. in history, religion, culture and political and culture religion, history, in The Breakup of Yugoslavia and its Aftermath Yugoslavia as History: Twice there was a The establishment ofthe Balkan 113-117; Fred Singleton, , 202. Explaining Yugoslavia (Stanford: Hoover (New York: 20 A Short caused a , 21 , CEU eTD Collection Company, 2003), 26; Yugoslavia,” in 27 Historical Studies and Contemporary Commentaries 26 National Question in Yugoslavia, Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina). See: Dejan Djoki Dejan See: Bosnia-Herzegovina). and Slovenia Croatia, and in 1933went asfar asto propose a federal arrangement of Yugoslaviawithfour federal units (Serbia, known exponents of Democratic Party, Ljuba Davidovi Ljuba Party, of Democratic exponents known most ofthe one example, For Party. Democratic around gathered mainly were who territories) Austro-Hungarian socalled the and Serbia pre-1913 from Radicals) (primarily parties and politicians Serb between one the is difference main The state. new ofthe format the and Yugoslavia in developments political 25 24 23 Naimark and Holly Case (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003). Yugoslavia,” in Serbian, Croatian and Slovene Nationalism: Political ideological, and Cultural Causes of the Rise and Fall of WilsonPress, 2006), 39-44;John R. Lampe, P. Ramet, (London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1997), 11-19; Ivo Banac Yugoslavism: AlexandarPavkovi 22 equal and free nations of Slovenes, Croats it, equal andandmany “for Croats freenations Serbs.of AsRusinowSlovenes, put Slovenes unity of the Serbs. for most Serb leaders was simply the culmination of the long line of events leading to national state, hegemonicSlav newsouth Thus, the whereSerbs amajor or role. a unitedstate, played live in all would of Balkans the Serbia, Serbs where meantthe Greater kindstate of Yugoslav would lead to Trialism. to lead would while it for others represented only unificationthe of South the Slavs, was aunion that hoped it meant the union of Serbiaof what the country meant.” and Montenegro language“peoples whohadlittle never incommon interpretation except agreedon a common with the South Slavs amongpredominated Slavic South within people.So, of Yugoslavia, asMacmillan argues, the Dual Monarchy, of Yugoslavism ideology,and Yugoslavia of avariety comprehensions contradictory opposition Serb-Croat Yugoslavia: of visions conflicting 1.1. The George Schopflin, “The rise and fall of Yugoslavia,” 304; Dennison Rusinow, “Yugoslav Idea before Idea “Yugoslav Rusinow, Dennison 304; ofYugoslavia,” fall and rise “The Schopflin, George For a detailed profile of Paši However,it should be noted that not all the Serb95. parties Yugoslavism,” and There Was politicians Slav Education; shared “South the same Jelavich, views Charles with regard to Margaret Macmillan, Margaret See for example the role of Ljudevit Gaj, Vuk Stefanovi On the other hand, for Slovenes and Croats, a South Slavic state meant a union of a union meant state Slavic a South Croats, and Slovenes for hand, other the On Despite various intellectuals’ engagement The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation 1918-2005 Yugoslavism: Histories of a Failed Ideas 1918-1922 Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of 1990s 27 Paris 1919 24 For most of the Serbs the of most For ü and his political visionsee: Alex N. Dragnich, 173-175. ü 23 , , 123. Since there is no document that defines Yugoslavism, for some The Fragmentation of Yugoslavia: Nationalism in a Multinational State Yugoslavia as History, (Boulder: East EuropeanMonographs, 1998), 31-62. ü 4 , in general showed more tolerance toward non-Serbs toward tolerance more showed general in , , The National Question in Yugoslavia, 25 ü , especially Serb Prime Minister Paši Karadži 22 ü in an inclusive promoting all Yugoslav , Elusive Compromise, ü 41-46; Arnold Suppan, “Yugoslavism versus , Josip Strosmmayer etc, in promoting pan- ed. Dejan Djoki (WashingtonD.C.” Woodrow Serbia and Yugoslavia ü 50,136; Ivo Banac Ivo 50,136; (London: Hurst & pre eds. Norman M. þ ani (Serbs from (Serbs 70-115; Sabrina : ü , The 26 , any CEU eTD Collection < (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 2005), v. 32 Compromise, 30 29 28 state. of and decentralized a federal favor in thus state, arguing leader of the Croatian Peasant People’s Party (HSPS), Stjepan Radi from Bosnia, Croatia, Vojvodina, as well as other elements from Slovenia and some and Slovenia from elements other as well as Vojvodina, Croatia, Bosnia, from chapter). In most of the smallernamely (which other national will groups be inmore discussed detail in thenext cases, on the side under Yugoslav itsof dominion.”state the “Belgrade camp’striving and anindependent for state preserve Serbian centralism striving to thecommon were to be found Serbs future:separatism Croatian country’s the in debateover political struggled primacy for the the form of government. withouthavingcommonstate structures state in and allissues detail to related discussed the a join create and leadersto Serbia ‘rushed’ andCroat Slovene Austria, and from comingItaly Council. National the and Committee Yugoslav the opposition, 1918), signed bySerbGovernment(whichneverthelessitjust opposed days later)and from leaderslands) in areexemplified Declaration the Habsburg Geneva (9Novemberof Federal/decentralist November theissue 1918of National the Council leftformatopen state. of the future of the attitude and tendency Declaration Corfuof (1917) of the Croats and Slovenes (including some Serb joint in by nation wasprotected managingtheirstate).” equality Yugoslav Magyaror and (but domination ifchallenges only cultural theidentity and autonomy each of andtheir meaning and primary Croats function was protection Italian,against Austro-German, 31 http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/greaterserbia_corfudeclaration.htm Vesna Pesic, “Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis,” in See: For more on Radi on more For For more on this see: Alexandar Pavkovi Alexandar see: onthis more For DennisonRusinow, “Yugoslav Idea before Yugoslavia,” 26. The Corfu Declaration, 20 July 1917 So, “ever since foundingthe distinct of two Yugoslavia, nationalist have policies 35-39. ü ’s stance of the unification issue see: Dejan Djoki Dejan see: issue unification ofthe stance ’s 30 andin unification of the documentadopted session the 23-24 of ü , , The Fragmentation of Yugoslavia 32 This antithesis was complicated by other factors, by other complicated was antithesis This 5 ü , Elusive Compromise, >[last accessed: 20.04.2009] 31 , 19-24; Dejan Djoki However, under the threat the under However, Peaceworks No.8 29 ü Nevertheless, in both in Nevertheless, was against a unitary 28 Especially the Especially 29-39. . ü , Elusive CEU eTD Collection Bosnian Muslims, Macedonians and Montenegrins. 37 36 1, Cleansing as a Tool of State Building in the Yugoslav Multinational Setting,” dominant nation to the detriment of ethno-national minorities.” Klejda Mulaj, “A Recurrent Tragedy: Ethnic 35 to 1966 See: Dejan Djoki Dejan See: genuine beliefs, but sometimes out of pragmatism, and whose views, in many cases,Djoki evolved during the period.” 34 First Yugoslavia. The interests in Bosnia-Herzegovina their that convinced were can be leaders Muslim retained Bosnian by Likewise, being partgovernment. the ofin the governmentparticipate they if realized in Belgrade. Alex N. Dragnich, 33 Muslims Yugoslav Yugoslav nation. Slovenes. in presumedlived andYugoslavia that with onepeople Croats, names—Serbs, three Albanians. also butrecognized, suchasMacedonians, different nations, but rather as three tribes ( tribes three as rather but nations, different ( unity” “national of idea the enshrined Slovenes nation-states. or states, national unitary of principles based and on was the Slovenes, Croats Kingdom Serbs, inception, of the of very the act state nation toward 1.2. Heading one people’ was to prevail in the new state of South Slavic people. (tobedevelopments in discussed ‘one king,follows) showed, motto Serbia’s what state, one As latter would plague the newstate. the of acontinuous become Croats) (primarily national groups other Serbsandthe between which mainantagonism the constituted The concept of ‘ concept The Vesna Pesic, “Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis,” 5. ofthe interests the solely serve to and belong to conceived “is that state a wemean here By nation-state Nonetheless, this does not mean that there were clear cut differences and irreconcilable political camps. As camps. political irreconcilable and differences cut clear were there that mean doesnot this Nonetheless, be best would interests they that considered they main the in divided, were politicians Slovene Though (March2006), 21. ü putit, ‘Political actors were active rather than pre-programed ‘agents’, who sometimes acted out of ed. Stephen Clissold (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 175. Nonetheless, despite different opinions, especially those of Slovenes and Croats, from 33 36 ; on the ‘Zagreb camp’, otherwise, were mostly those people who weren’t The three constituent peoples, Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were not defined as and not were Croats Slovenes peoples, Serbs, The constituent three ü , narodno jedinstvo Elusive Compromise, 37 150. Thus, the new state’s Serb leadership pursued the “semi-official Thus, new “semi-official doctrine the Serb leadership pursuedthe state’s ’ of Yugoslavs initially didn’t recognize ethnic or national individuality of 10; H.C. Darby et al., plemena 6 narodno jedinstvo A Short History of Yugoslavia from Early times ) of one united nation – south Slavic or 34 35 Be as it may, these different opinions different may, these Beasit T he Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Nationalities Papers, Vol. 34, No. ) in) amonarchy, which CEU eTD Collection Kona, 1921). Found at: 45 44 40 43 Failed Ideas 1918-1922 39 42 (California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2004), 112-113. 41 38 and Slovenes. Croats, names” ( “onethree of nation whereasin 1921 Constitution inunitarism wasreflected formthe of constitutional concept of nations, three as were perceived and Serbs Croats Serbs, unification, the to Prior state. the and politicalinterplay within balance changed accordingthe factors power to of different of administration. in state the communication language of Kingdom,the predominated Serbian (Cyrillic alphabet) in official anddocuments fact that Constitution of 1921 recognized. Yugoslavthe nation were officially Article 13). every kind of political association on a ‘religious, tribal (ethnic) or regional’ basis (Para. 1, of the ‘three-named people’” of ‘three-named the an the country’send to by disunity identity enforcing Yugoslav from above” theirinstitutions and new totheir convictions their political partners.” In adapt as “neednoway being sawany to state beginning the anation-state. Serbs perceived very Kingdom newin themselveswereaminority – theSerbianelitefrom the the–Serbs Serbian elite by proving to beSerbian simply fromelite byprovingto “incapable of expanding their outlook Serbian to Ibid., 304. 172. ofYugoslavia,” fall and rise “The Schopflin, George Matjaž Klemen Matjaž Radmila Radic, “Religion in a Multicultural State: The case of Yugoslavia,” in Dejan Djoki Dejan Matjaž Klemen Matjaž Sabrina P. Ramet, Ustav Kralevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca i Hrvata Srba, Kralevine Ustav It should be noted, however, that the concept of unitarism or of concept however,thatthe shouldbenoted, It Nonetheless, though no single ethnic group was in a position to actas wasina to the noposition singleNonetheless, group ethnic though 43 ü , Elusive Compromise, þLþ þLþ and Mitja Žagar, Mitja and and Mitja Žagar, Mitja and The Three Yugoslavias http://digital.nb.rs/razno/ustav/swf.php?lang=eng&direct=RA-ustav-1921 ed. DejanDjoki 41 In 1929, KingAlexander introduced royal indictatorship to“put order 38 40 troimeni narod where only religious differences between, the three ‘tribes’ of ‘tribes’ three the between, differences religious only where (Article 3) defined Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian as the official the as Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian defined 3) (Article The former Yugoslavia’s diverse peoples The former Yugoslavia’s diverse peoples: a reference sourcebook 69; ü (London: Hurst & Company, 2003),196. , 51. od 28. juna,1921. god. ) historically divided into “tribes”—Serbs, three divided ) historically 7 39 Asfar aslanguage the despite isconcerned, (Beograd : Izdava , 112-113. Yugoslavism: Histories of a 45 narodno jedinstvo þ All the contrary, the contrary, All the ka Knjižarnica Gece 42 thus Staatvolk forbidding had 44 CEU eTD Collection cent of country’s population.” See: Dejan Djoki Dejan See: population.” of country’s cent many contemporaries did –Yugoslavia was a nation-state, in which theSouthSlavs formed thanmore 80 per 52 See: P. Dennis Hupchick, 51 1982), 212. 50 state’ dominated in the state institutions, and, second, thepolitically definitionand overruled of the newconstantly state were as they a ‘nation- Serbs, to equal officially were Slovenes and nation-state. single and Croats isa Kingdom leadership Slovenes as of acted Conference, Serb though Serbs, the talks in Peace Conference. Paris appointed Prime Minister. Prime appointed then firstformed led they the in January provisional government 1919 -Stojan Proti 49 meansdominate. usedby them to Italians, Bosnian Muslims, Macedonians, Albanians, Turks etc. 48 47 ( Parliament 46 Army”. Yugoslav became Army Serbian “the disbanded, were army Austro-Hungarian old the from units Royal includingHouse), the military, political the leadership, andAs bureaucracy. by wasdominated all,Serbian Serbian the (above new institutions Thus, very the soon, state territories. horizons” Yugoslav Unlike Hupchick, Dejan Djoki Hupchick argues that Yugoslavia “was the most artificial European nation-state to emerge from Versailles.” from emerge to nation-state European artificial most the “was Yugoslavia that argues Hupchick Hugh Seton-Watson, See: Ivo Banac Margaret Macmillan, Margaret Vesna Pesic, “Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis,” 5. Joseph Rothschild, Joseph 52 , legally and many politically omitted minority such groups, as Germans, Hungarians, Based on the ideal of national self-determination, promoted by Wilson atthe Peace promoted national Based self-determination, on ideal the of First, Iwill look to the domination of the new state by Serbs and the political and legal These institutions were mechanically transferred to the new parts of Yugoslavia. new the parts to mechanically transferred were institutions These Privremeno narodnopredstavništvo , The National Question in Yugoslavia, East Central Europe Between theTwo WorldWars 48 51 Eastern Europe Between the Wars 1918-1941 Paris 1919 Serbs also hadthehighest number of deputies in Provisional the 46 These had two major consequences: first, despite the facts that Croats facts that the despite first, major Thesehadtwo consequences: The Balkans: fromConstantinople tocommunism used the pre-existing Serb institutions to control institutions usedcontrol pre-existing Serb the tonewlygainedthe 50 ü is of the opinion that “if we accept the notion of the ‘national oneness’ – as Another Serb, Nikola Paši , 117. ü , Elusive Compromise, 8 380-381; Sabrina P. Ramet, ) 49 , convened in Belgrade in March 1919, ü , led the Yugoslav delegation in the (Boulder and London: Westview Press, Westview London: and (Boulder 38. , 217. , 138. The Three Yugoslavias Croatian ü was , 46. 47 CEU eTD Collection Compromise: A History of Interwar Yugoslavia Wars 1918-1941 Macedonia etc. For more on political parties in 1920s, see: HughSeton-Watson, (suppressed in1921), Mehmet Spaho’s Yugoslav Muslim Organization (JMO), Cemiyet from Kosovo and 55 Question in Yugoslavia, there was acountry and debates the about more For vote. procedures didn’t 161 thatand led to the against, 35 adoptionfor, voter of the new deputies constitution,223 Finally, see: Johnof revolt. R. Lampe, sign in parliament the boycotted Slovenes some and deputies Croat Macedonia. and Kosovo from andTurks Albanians 54 faileddeal inmost direpolitical problems state’s and turbulence or ended with to the by Ljubaled Davidovi out of dissident radicals, Serbs and Croats from Croatia and Slovene Liberals (this party was 57; Dejan Djoki Dejan 57; 53 two main parties: Serb Radical Party by main Paši SerbRadical two Party (led parties: privileged. unitandfederalism,was where weresuppressed, aone-unitCroat parties the nationally-based which was weekend after the assassinationconsiderably Kinginof Alexander 1934), where acentralistgovernments, dictatorship bythecrown system since1929– (royal dominated unitarist parliamentary dominated by system (until 1929) Serb-dominated unstable a be distinguished: can arrangements ofconstitutional periods Threedifferent Croats. mainly political instability and widely expressed dissatisfaction from and obstruction non-Serbs, administration government, politics, dictatorship: royal to monarchy constitutional 1.3. From Stjepan Radi politicalCroat struggles whichendedand disagreement, ina way tragic – with shootingthe of (Vidovdan Constitution). into adoption struggle, the whichculminated of ina unitarist andcentralized constitution 1921 Other major parties were Radi were parties major Other and Muslims Bosnian of votes and parties Serbian of support the with approved was Constitution Vidovdan Alexandar Pavkovi Alexandar During itsDuring 23years interwar-Yugoslavia was of by characterized existence, deep 53 The first period was especially markedby constitutional and organizational ü ü , 219-224;, Ivo Banac in the Parliament on inIn politicson 20 Junedominated by period, thethis Parliament were 1928. , Elusive Compromise: A History of Interwar Yugoslavia , 125-128; Sabrina P. Ramet, ü , The Fragmentation of Yugoslavia: Nationalism in a Multinational State, 387-403. ü ). 54 55 The years to come were very volatile and characterized by Serb- characterized come volatile and very Theyearsto were ü Between 1921 and 1929, the kingdom had 24 governments and had kingdom 24governments the and 1929, Between 1921 ’s Croatian Peasant Party, Jovanovi Party, Peasant Croatian ’s , The National Question in Yugoslavia, , 51-64. The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation 9 ü and Proti ü ’s Agrarian Party, Communist Party Communist Party, Agrarian ’s ü , 45-50;Ivo Banac ) and Democratic Party, formed Party, ) and Democratic 141-378; DejanDjoki Yugoslavia as History: Twice Eastern Europe Between the , The, National 32. ü , Elusive , 51- CEU eTD Collection (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1942), 270. dismissed as well as appointed by him.” See: Joseph A. Schumpeter, ministers are in this case cabinet servantsthe committee: of the governing monarch, the to as choice their insubstance impose to power the lack as well monarchies, as in name,parliamentary and can in principle in have be parliaments and electorates that rights other the all having while parliaments, and electorates 62 61 60 59 58 Europe Between the Two World Wars some 1500 military cadets, 1300 were Serbs, 150 Croats and 50 Slovenes. See: Josephexample, in 1941, Rothschild, of 165 Yugoslav generals in active service, 161were Serbs and 2 Croats andSlovenes; of 49 were Slovenes, 18 were Bosniaks, 136 were Croats.” The same control was maintained656 ministers in the in officearmy: forbetweenthe formationof the state and the conclusion of the Sporazum, 452 were Serbs, and minister of justice for 237. See: Sabrina of P. Ramet, rest the for Slovenes to (going the time), of268 out the months ministry264 for of the army minister and navyof prime forall position 268 the months, held the Serbs minister of internalunification, affairs for247 months, they desperately needed votes). So,though they constituted around 40 per cent of population atthe time of the Yugoslavia. Serbs were very reluctant to share leading political offices with the others (with the exceptionwhen 57 56 non-Serbs. monarchy, far from legitimating the state, came to Slovenes, Croats (after 1925),or with minority parties. be perceived as alien anddeadlock. oppressive by became King’s official party. official King’s became almost Union that Yugoslav – JRZ) Radical renamedinto Party” (later Peasant Yugoslav only ‘Yugoslav’ parties were allowed to exist, the dominant party was the “Democratic expanded Serbia, the leadership of which was reluctant to give up of its plans to create a Serb- for an Thus, Yugoslavia became asynonym others. the over Serb hegemonic control tax werenow finallytax structures unified. systems, and educational and civil codes, regional penal several further strengthened asthe leftandflourished right the underground.” ‘Yugoslav’ parties were allowed to offer candidates. As a result, “political extremism of the According to Schumpeter, “A ‘constitutional’ monarchy does not qualify to be called democratic because Castellan, Joseph Rothschild, Joseph Carole Rogel, Carole 173. ofYugoslavia,” fall and rise “The Schopflin, George In general, equality of people (be itonly threethe officially recognized ‘tribes’) was unthinkable in interwar Carole Rogel, Carole After royal the of decree 1921 andof constitutionthe approving in 1931, the In other words, both constitutional monarchy constitutional both words, other In 56 History ofthe Balkans: 58 In all these governments, Serbs had the main shares main the had Serbs governments, these all In In 1931, when In parliament1931, when new constitutionthe permitted convene,to only The Breakup of Yugoslavia and its Aftermath The Breakup of Yugoslavia and its Aftermath East Central Europe Between theTwo WorldWars 61 421. Thus, the oppression, especially non-Serbs,of increased. , 278-279. 60 After the approval of approval After 1931Constitution, the the of when 59 10 The Three Yugoslavias, The Three Centralization and hegemonic control were control hegemonic and Centralization , 8. , 8. 62 and royal dictatorship were periods of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , 237. 38; According to Rothschild, “of Rothschild, to According 38; 57 , be it in coalition with coalition in it be , East Central CEU eTD Collection 68 International Borders: A Question of Appropriateness,” 139. (including regions Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Vojvodina). the cases, with the exception of the Croatia’s six and Slovenia’s twodistricts, they were Serbs 67 139. 66 65 International Borders: A Question of Appropriateness,” 95). controlled departments” controlled 64 ( ( districts were constitutions inthe sanctioned regional autonomy, wasincluded in newthe constitution. 63 Paši However, autonomy. regional/local country) and federalized (even for amore decentralized asking representatives Croat with constitution, various proposals were made about the administrative division of the country, divided of inseveral regions),aspart pre-existing general the on discussions new the banovina system and(1929-1939) territorial organization: the organization: territorial organization of the country. In its entirety, interwar Yugoslavia had three different thecountry 1.3.1. Territorialorganizationof forms of policies. state-centered the of victims fell cases in most and role political insignificant an quite minorities played environment, and political In suchstate nation-state. centered opštine John R. Lampe, John Ivo Banac Peter Radan, “Yugoslavia’s Internal Borders as International Borders: A Questionof Appropriateness,” 138- Joseph Rothschild, Joseph Ivo Banac See Article 95-99 of the 66 The heads of the districts ( Another important aspect of the domination of the state by Serbs is that of is by of territorial state that Serbs the of domination the aspectof important Another ). (1939-1941). During (1939-1941). 1918-1921(when period the transitional country the was 64 , The National Question in Yugoslavia, , The National Question in Yugoslavia, Oblast Yugoslavia as History: Twice there was acountry East Central Europe Between theTwo WorldWars system deliberately divided the state into thirty-three “tightly and centrally and “tightly thirty-three into state the divided deliberately system Ustav Kralevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca 65 based on “natural, social and economic circumstances” (Article circumstances” economic and based social “natural, on Sporazum Oblast na þ (district) system (1921-1929), the (1921-1929), system (district) elnik (agreement) system which created a federal Croation afederal created system which (agreement) ü ’s proposal, according to which there was to beno to which was there to according ’s proposal, ) were chosen directly by the King the by directly chosen were ) 398; Peter Radan, “Yugoslavia’s Internal Borders as 398; Peter Radan, “Yugoslavia’s Internal Borders as 11 East Quarterly,European XXXIII, No.2 oblasti ), counties ( , 133. od 28. juna, 1921. god. 63 So, the only administrative units administrative only the So, , 217. 68 This kind of regulation was zrezovi ), and municipalities Banovina 67 and in most of (1999), 138. (region) CEU eTD Collection 74 73 72 International Borders: A Question of Aproproprietness,” 139-140. Compromise: A History of Interwar Yugoslavia Sabrina P. Ramet, (denial nation-state the of asa aboutYugoslavia Serbelite theperception And,the of as state”. only ina “nationalizing itremained be asingle nation state, reality, to was considered remained an ‘incomplete’ or ‘unrealized’ nation states. nation ‘unrealized’ ‘incomplete’ or remained an Yugoslavia interwar self-determination, national of principle the on based environment) multinational of excessively (out in Yugoslavia anation-state create to efforts various mostthe from any administrative and territorial organization of Yugoslavia. 71 70 districts drawn from districts drawn from four other Croat-dominated Savskaand Primorska Croat-dominated banovine by country again,forthe borders, asinsix national was dominated Serbs political and banovine 69 1939) when Croatian an autonomous The state. existingthe 33 bureaucratic dominance of the Serbian elite under the under Serbianelite of the dominance bureaucratic of 1929,King3 October Alexander,in promote attemptand to an safeguard political- the was on “Kingdom3 October1929,when renamed state the into By Yugoslavia”. of a decree within state. the andcontrol domination used both to promote ethnic and economic links of the Serbs and ensuring a centralized Ibid., 83. Rogers Brubaker. Peter Radan, “Yugoslavia’s Internal Borders as International Borders: A Questionof Aproproprietness,” 140. See Article 38 of the Ibid., 81. Sabrina P. Ramet, To sum To sum up the arguments presented in notwithstanding chapter, this thetendencies and The last administrative organization of the country was that of wasthat country the of organization administrative The last Serb domination maintained was alsoafter creationthe ‘Kingdom the Rivers”of of Serbs were majority, Croats in two, and Slovenes in one. across cutting thus considerations, andeconomic geographic reflected borders The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation Nationalism Reframed, The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation The Constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia Oblasti banovine were replaced with 9 9. banovina , 72-75; Peter Radan, “Yugoslavia’s Internal Borders as . 72 banovine Certainly, in any possible aspect, Serbs Certainly, aspect, in profited any possible 12 was created as a result of the unification of the , together with a number of bordering of number a with together , Yugoslav 73 banovine , Belgrade, September 3, 1931; See also: See 3, 1931; September , Belgrade, Though in Versailles Yugoslavia , 81; Dejan Djoki Dejan , 81; rubric, , 80. (provinces). 70 Sporazum radically restructured radically ü , Elusive 71 Though the Though (23August 74 69 CEU eTD Collection faultiness and shortcomings, its data, census of the see: analyses Ivodetailed an ForBanac rubrics. census only the are language maternal and religion 76 (Winter 1996), 20. Turks, 12,825 Italians etc., evidenced in the first census, in evidencedfirst 12,825 Italians etc., Turks, the 472,409 Hungarians, 441,740Albanians, 229,398Rumanians, Vlachs and168,404 Cincars, of some 727,650Bosnian Muslims, (Bulgarians) 585,558Macedonians 513,472Germans, 75 in chapter). next the in detail be discussed to is (this religion different a with but category, linguistic Croatian” or “Serbian the belonged to latter Serbs’, while the ‘South former considered weresimply – the and Muslims of national Macedonians existenceof Bosnian recognizethe not separate groups national,linguistic and religious diversity. The official state ideology of anythingideal.” of looked but homogeneity,ethnic newstate Yugoslavia the of criteria novel by the WWI, after created states many other like Thus, reality. different meant to be build as a unitary state, new country’s national and religious structure shows a Yugoslavia 2. Theothers: unrecognized national groups in interwar Yugoslavia.inter-war in minorities addresses of position the chapter following Thus,the by state. the undertaken policies byvarious nationalizing were directly affected that one Yugoslavia were the achieve theideal of Undoubtedly, nation the various national livingstate. minorities in in to order state, the of existence the throughout applied were policies various nationalizing reality, the with properly coincide didn’t an example) just is minorities the of existence These data is deducted based on the official census of 1921, where nationality was not a census rubric – rubric census a not was nationality where of1921, census official on the based deducted is data These Adam Burgess, “National Minority Rights and the ‘Civilizing’ of Eastern Europe,” Nothing, I venture tosay, ismorelikely todisturb the peace oftheworld the than treatmentwhich might in Though from Though from very its inception, act of Kingdom of and Croats Serbs, Slovenes was , The National Question in Yugoslavia, - Woodrow Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference, 31 May 1919 - May 1919 31 Conference, Peace Paris at the Wilson - Woodrow 13 certain circumstances be meted out to minorities. 76 exemplify new countries huge countries new exemplify 49-58. Contention narodno jedinstvo 75 The existence , Vol. 5., No. 2, did CEU eTD Collection University Press, 1990), 133. 81 80 1918-1922 79 78 differentminorities, as well as role of outside factors, in general the state was more inclined to beto in harmony with political due other, each to considerations and specific situations of the had legal sources all three fact that these the Despite fields. legislation different on as thestate aswell legal 1931 constitutions, different The sources: Minority 1921and Treaty, Protection 77 ethnicallyseparate population.and linguistically homogenous by a inhabited of a region a out create nation state to attempt of implication the was adirect number of members of Mass minority the groups. exterminationexpulsion or minorities of ‘simplification’ of the ethnic structure of the population for asit led to the expulsion of a large Regulation for Settlement of Southern Regions of 1920) directly and indirectly led to applied inMacedonia and Montenegro). was skewtheresults vote, whereas pressure to allowed to HungariansVojvodina of weren’t first votingelectionsthe and in duringvotings and (in 1920, Germans pressures the rights and Vojvodina were reconfigured in such allhadmajorities),inso that as way, such reconfigured Serb and were Vojvodina territorial and administrative (re)organization of the country (for example Kosovo, Macedonia losses sothatcensus figures, Serbia’sWar huge during Great wereignored), the population basispre-war of onthe electoral constituencies created LawJune 1922(which Electoral of constitutions, 1931 centralist 1921 and the theseminorities; marginalize and dominate andterms.” homogenous “define into attemptby community exclusive thedecadesSerbs asan political dominantthe practically was denied identity distinct their are concerned, Germans, Eric J. Hobsbawm, Joseph Rothschild, Joseph John R. Lampe, “The Two Yugoslavias as Economic Unions,” in Leslie Benson, Leslie John B. Allcock, Legally, As far as non-Slavicthe minorities, Albanians, Hungarians, Turks, Italians and ed. Dejan Djoki Yugoslavia: ConciseA History however, interwar Yugoslavia’s policy toward minorities drew on three minorities drewon toward policy interwar Yugoslavia’s however, Explaining Yugoslavia East Central Europe Between theTwo WorldWars Nations and nationalism since 1780. Programme, myth, reality ü (London: Hurst & Company, 2003),188. 77 The new state used different legal and political means to , 265. (New York: Palgrave,2001), 39. 80 In addition, several state initiatives (such as the as (such initiatives state several addition, In 14 Yugoslavism: Histories of a Failed Ideas , 214. 81 (Cambridge: Cambridge during the interwar during 79 denial of denial 78 CEU eTD Collection 86 85 1955), 31. 84 83 AmericanJewish Congress and Worldthe Jewish Congress, 1943), 27. 82 on ofnational grounds ‘disloyal’ minorities.security, they persecuted in many cases, and, minorities denationalize to undertook regimes, administrative centralized built minority states national uniformity, of bytheideal obsessed because, discreditable protection. minority the of principle very the opposed states new many national-self-determination, of principle predominant the to weakness of the Versailles minority system was “the premise that states would in premise “the thatstates undertake minority weakness of system Versailles was the self-determination.” national of principle the to corrective and corollary “a only any to state” accrue which automatically immunities tended to think of sovereignty as ununalterable andirreducible quantity andrights of 1920) was the cornerstone to the League of Nation’sminority protection. system protection minority Versailles’s the and 2.1. Yugoslavia minorities. national of protection the for system Nations’ of League the brief in discuss looking into the provisions deriving from the Minority Protection Treaty, itis important to stick toits minorities’ provisions. nationality, (liberty, equality of rights equality law,of religion,language and etc) specific to minority rights: regard with provisions general three were there Indeed, parties. state many with signed it that Treaties Minority the in primarily rights minority safeguard to set Inis L. Claude Jr., Robinson et al., Inis L. Claude Jr., Robinson et al., Jacob Robinson et al., Certainly, regardless of the minority treaties, the record of minority states was minority states of therecord minority of treaties, the regardless Certainly, The Treaty of Versailles, signed on28June 1919(itentered in forcein 10 January ad-hoc Were the Minorities Treaties aFailure? Treaties Minorities the Were Were the Minorities Treaties aFailure? Treaties Minorities the Were National Minorities National Minorities: An International Problem legal documents at the detriment of the Minority Protection Treaty. Before Treaty. Protection Minority of the detriment atthe documents legal Were the Minorities Treaties a Failure? 83 In a situation when the leaders of “the new and enlarged states new of“the andenlarged leaders In the a situation when , 40. 15 , 40. , 35-40. (New York: Institute of Jewish Affairs of the Affairs ofJewish Institute York: (New 84 , the Versailles minority system was (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, University Harvard (Cambridge: 86 Probably thegreatest Probably 82 League Nationsof 85 By sticking CEU eTD Collection 92 (2003) standards of minority-rights and in post-communist ofself-determination era: a “Standards historical Kovacs, M. Maria perspective,” See: minorities.” for tolerable and gradual more process the make to only assimilation, such prevent to designed wasnot scheme protection minority League the arule, Butas ofFinland. Island Aaland Swedish-inhabited ofthe case inthe as approach, this to exceptions incorporation into a single majority nation through assimilation, though the League itself made occasional 91 (London: Christophers, 1928), 60-76. The Protection of Minorities. The Working and Scope of Minority Treaties under the League of Nations 90 treaties, addressed five notes to the Conference, stating, among others, that application of such minority Paši Nikola minority treaties. the against stubbornly fought PeaceConference atthe delegation Yugoslav sovereignty, the tongue. Yugoslavspecial to includingrights ethnic groups, education the in rightto mother their handother treaties it with asked the that Hungary should Italy and forgranting provide the of the on while minorities, national with dealings in its hand free a have to wish its expressed of Nations, Yugoslavia on one side, League atthe of the negotiations Nation. During policies assimilation discrimination, position of minorities extremely unsatisfactory, as they became object of violence, 89 Leagueof Nations the 88 87 nations” of “prisons old the as oppressive and multinational way, most of the new states built on the ruins of the old oppressive empires, were quite as tax collectors into remote provinces among peoples who spoke different languages.” different whospoke peoples provinces among remote into tax collectors farmers and teachers, settler sending gendarmes, of authority inpowers, colonial manner the their imposed often they meant expansion territorial “Rapid wished. they way the minorities morality.” and law international of norms the with conformity in acting commitments, their fulfill to faith good Inis L. Claude Jr., be to minorities ofmost fate long-term the regarded system ofNations League “The that argues Kovacs Maria Mair, L. P. see: rights tominority regards with ofNation League the outat carried procedures onthe more For Eric J. Hobsbawm, Mark Mazower, Mark Ibid., 50. , 437. 92 Yugoslavia too, wasYugoslavia too, very muchcomply to resistant minority with of Leaguethe rights Considering it asviolation of the principleof equality of states and attack upon state The Balkans. A Short History National Minorities Nations and nationalism since 1780. Programme, myth, reality, 87 In reality, this meant that most of the states were free to act and treat act free were to of states mostthe meant that this Inreality, 90 to take measures against the violation of minority rights rendered the rendered rights minority of violation the against measures take to ü , the head of head these whileopposing Yugoslav delegation, the of , the , 139. 91 and exclusion. (New York” Modern Library,2002), 120. 16 89 they had replaced. Inability of Inability replaced. had they Nations and Nationalism 9 (3), Nationalism and Nations 133. 88 This CEU eTD Collection Germain-en-Laye,10 September 1919. < 94 a Failure? 93 State who are not born nationals of another State shall State another of nationals born not are who State religion”.Article According to “all 6, persons born in the territory Serb-Croat-Slovenethe of distinctioninhabitants oftheKingdom ofbirth,language,without nationality, raceor “toassureYugoslavia undertakes full protectionand complete life of andliberty all to minorities livingin territory the of Yugoslavia latter’s andthe obligations. UnderArticle 2, Treaty has 16 andrights interwar Yugoslaviacomply obligations that to undertook with and The respect. articles in total, and 11 articlesof 1919 Germain 2.1.1. Treaty of Saint stipulate in quite into10 September on 1919). detail the decidedrights to sign the Treatyof of theSaintdelegation Germain of the Kingdom state. created of Serbs, livenoin arerecognized, alphabets groups newly other andtwo wholethe religions three Croats andthe official state policySlovenes of Yugoslavia, was that apart from the three-named but single scope. have apractical doesn’t people,State at the Peace in minority this rights question of the tolerance”, broadest practice the iscalledto nature very Conference byits alphabets, and two religions three names, three with of people a single composed State, and “the Serb-Croat-Slovene fact that of the because that claiming then of sovereignty”, rights incontestable certain of renunciation ananticipatory State our for imply “would provisions accessed: 20.01.2009]. See: Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. St. State. Serb-Croat-Slovene the and Powers Associated and Allied Principal the between Treaty See: For more on the positionof Paši The Treaty of Saint Germain, undoubtedly, represents the cornerstone of minority of cornerstone the represents undoubtedly, Germain, Saint of Treaty The the powers, great the from pressures and negotiations of months after However, , 154-157. ü at the League of Nations, see: Robinsonet al., http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1920/14.html 93 The basic assumption here, which at the same time is time same the at which here, assumption basic The 94 17 on 5 December 1919 (the Treaty Treaty entered (the was 5 December 1919 on ipso facto ipso become Serb-Croat-Slovene become Were the Minorities Treaties > [last CEU eTD Collection Kosovës, 2001), 58-60. weren’t. For more on this see: Gazmend Zajmi, Gazmend see: onthis more For weren’t. the Peace Conference that Kosovo, Macedonia and Sandjak were excluded from this Article, this from excluded were Sandjak and Macedonia Kosovo, that Conference Peace the 1913 and Bucharest Agreement of 10 July 1913. So, despite claims the bymade Delegationthe of Yugoslaviaat 1912-13, but 97 territory transferred to Serbia or to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes since 1 January 1913.” 96 Magistrat, 2006), 287. 95 inliving were to1January prior partof territories Serbia 1913 –those minorities of sorts two between distinguish to intention state’s reveals schools, in their 9 theArticle of paragraph last Minority Treaty). preambleof of inJuly 1878”(seethe undertaken the Berlinof 13 Article Treaty the 35of obligations from the “discharged and wasalso Slovenes Croats Serbs, of Kingdom the that fact by the werealsodisadvantaged proper minorities Serbia within In addition, Muslims etc. Bosnian Romanians, Italians, Hungarians, Germans, include latter the whereas Macedonians, itminoritiesafter and to territories include WWI. Turks Albanians, assigned former The law. permanent a became it Constitution 1921 the of adoption the after then interim and declared an treaty, Germain was Saint Treaty of May 1920,the with on 10 this, line In them. over prevail action official or regulation law, any shall nor them, with interfere recognized asfundamental laws,law,no andthat regulation officialor action or shall conflict family law inregulating andpersonalstatus with accordance Muslim usage. Yugoslavia. By sameArticlethe Muslimsto the token, 10grants suitablefor provisions citizenship of particular tothe Austrians rights in livingBulgarians, andHungarians minorities received the same recognition and protection by treaty.this Articles in 3-5 refer all the not Nevertheless, languages). minority in schools institutions, social and religious languageestablish, (including themanage rightto and control at their own expense charitable, nationals.” Articles 8 and9 minoritieswith provide rightsthe tobe educatedin theirmother The last paragraph of the Article 9 reads as follows: “The provisions of the present Article apply only to Mustafa Imamovi De facto Article 1 stipulates thatprovisionsArticle 1stipulates containedin Articles 2to8 of Treaty the be shall , Kosovo, Macedonia and the region of Sandjak were annexed by Serbia during the Balkan Wars Balkan the during by Serbia were annexed ofSandjak the region and Macedonia Kosovo, , de jure ü they didn’t become part of Serbia until the signing of the London Agreement on 30 May , Bosnia and Herzegovina: Evolution of Its Political and Legal Institutions 96 , which provides for, which ofminoritiesmother rights use tongueprovides to Vepra 2 18 (Prishtinë: Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve të eArteve dhe e Shkencave Akademia (Prishtinë: 97 and those living in the living those and de jure 95 (Sarajevo: Nonetheless, they CEU eTD Collection census) butnot linguistic rights(there wereno schools in Albanian). in Albanians, concerned, was caseof linguistic difference (in the only theirrecognized only religious and linguistic differences recognized state new the that of be said its cancitizens. it religion), and oflanguage basis in only done was (which censuses 98 including the application of including application the Yugoslavia’s Peace Treaty and could their keeporganizing life religious before, astheydid Article from 10 Sandjak Macedonia profited of Muslimsinas and Kosovo, other forinclude asit all minority didn’t livingthe groups in Muslims country.the as Bosnian well part was in function of the nationalizing policies of the state, was mostly partial and selective didn’tget thesametreatment. and groups passive resistant actively south, and north post-1913, and pre non-Slavic, and Slavic Thus, state. and religious and ethnic similarities/differences) political with elite’s vision of a unifiednation minority linguistic, state, as(in)compatibility towardthe attitude its of a well (including was by moredetermined as such factors size of minority,the minority’s geographic position, there living groups minority the of several toward non-official) and (official attitude state’s a result, As possible. as as close nation-state resemble will that entity political homogenous a create to ideology official state’s on the based was inthecountry minorities of treatment the Rather, discrimination. any without rights minority of protection the to committed was automatically newfully notthe mean does language) in that state mothereducation that the necessary steps to create conditions forminorities to enjoy these rights - above all, right to (which Based bothon the application of the Minority Treaty in practice and classification of minorities inofficial As it will be discussed in the next section, domestic legislation which for most of the finally had Minority the signed theTreaty factdespite Yugoslavia So, interwar the de juremeans thatYugoslavia its minoritiesrecognizes shari’a law As in matters. family far as languagethe issues are 19 98 and it accepts it andundertake accepts to CEU eTD Collection 101 Hungarians in the Voivodina 1918-1947 Mustafa Imamovi this law. For more on this see: Charles Jelavich, “SouthSlav Education; Was Thereofficials Yugoslavism,”, the ministry of 104;education, some minorities, above all Hungarians and Germans, could profit moreconditions to openfrom schools inminority languages (including private ones) was almost fully discretionary the for in mother language as a inright principle,but it had to be decided in case-by-case basis.Since the decision and adopted the Law on National Education. It is characteristic of this law that it didn’t express the right to educationwere prepared in 1919, 1921, 1925,1927, and 1928,but never implemented), on 5December1929 Yugoslavia 100 103 102 99 scope of minority rights was constantly being eroded and restricted in and being restricted practice. ofminority eroded was constantly scope rights the Treaty), (Minority country the of undertakings international the with compared When minorities. the of being well the of detriment the at went and aggressive quite was minorities implementation, subsequentnationalizingvarious toward Yugoslavia’s attitude of policies, policies nationalizing and legislation 2.2. Domestic minority rights. minority explicitly include to that refers provision even doesn’t a single 1931constitution Indeed, the Sandjak). Macedonia, (Kosovo, regions south in completely bypassed were and permanently implemented not were minorities) of ranks the from children 30 then less no with parallels new the of opening law of andsome withconsequence) the tothe provisions of the (especially regard those languagesschoolsminority in and (many schools Hungarian German asa were closed withregulated it Lawthe on National forbade (1929), Education openingof private the was schools minority the of issue the when even So, schools. elementary in language mother otherracesand to‘minoritieslanguages’ of on education)(right guarantees law) with the be had regulated to (it provision former ageneral one the included only isconcerned, on in tongue education right mother with,1921 and both 1931constitutions were very much in of disfavor minorities. Asfar as the Mustafa Imamovi See: The exercise of his right needed to be further regulated by the law. After several attempts (when draft laws draft (when attempts several After law. by the regulated befurther to needed right of his exercise The See: Zajmi, Gazmend Ustav Kralevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca The Constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia Because of the prevalence of the idea of national unity and adoption, as well aswell as adoption, and national ideaunity of of the of prevalence the Because ü , ü Bosnia and Herzegovina Vepra 2 , Bosnia and Herzegovina 102 , 164-165. Article 16,however,included wasnot in Constitution the of 1931. (Boulder: Atlantic Research andPublications Inc., 2003), 157-160. , 287-289; Gazmend Zajmi, , 288. od 28.juna, 1921.god. , Belgrade, September3, 1931. 20 100 with regard to minority rights. Article 16 Vepra 2 , 68-75; Enik 101 Ę A. Sajti, education in 99 Tobegin 103 CEU eTD Collection Sajti, discussed detail inmore in thesubsequent chapters. For effects of agrarian reform inVojvodina see: Enik 106 Jugoslaviju 1918-1941 period madeperiod for things Yugoslaviaeasier it when its minorities. comes to Though legally overall international circumstances (which undoubtedlythe didn’tCertainly, favor minorities) unity’. ‘national of of ideology post-1918 state’s the with line in and interests national its minorities accordingmostly to it treated at Versailles Conference, the Yugoslavia undertook policies. anti-minority these from affected mostly were Kosovo and Macedonia were affectedVojvodina. alesserHerzegovina and to extent by these Kosovoregions and of Macedonia (referred toas‘South Serbia’),as well Bosnia- as policies, opened theas way for confiscation of lands,it colonization of land willand deportation of people in be20s and lawswere adopted early throughout which decrees and that bases 30s, consequent of discussed in next chapters, the regions of Historisë së Kosovës, 1981),47; Zoran Janjetovi 105 diverse peoples, 104 strong, had a major influence on Yugoslav politics. Matjaž Klemen Matjaž politics. Yugoslav on influence amajor had strong, Agrarian Reform ( of Preparation on a Preliminary Decree waspublished 25 September 1919 on estates, big solveandquestion eliminate agrarian ‘justly’he the promised to January 1919 where called ‘agrarian’ ‘land’ or reform. Basedon a proclamation madeAlexander by Regent on 6 so on the and embarked Slovenes of Serbs-Croats state the its creation, after Immediately discrimination. economic disempowerment, political at aimed which policies various implementing started state language’, the oneking, one ‘one ideology state, state official the minority verythe existence within of of againstdifferent groups the borders Yugoslavia went fact that of Being the aware wentastep further. minority groups to rights cultural political, or Effects of the agrarian reform and colonization in Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia will be will Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina Kosovo, in colonization and reform agrarian of the Effects See: Dr. Hakif Bajrami, According to Klemen to According Hungarians in Voivodinathe 1918-194 To conclude with this chapter, despite the international obligations that interwarconclude despite theinternational To chapter, that obligations this with Nevertheless, state refusal to implement commitments to grant positive economic, positive grant to commitments implement to refusal state Nevertheless, 111. Predhodne odredbe za pripremu (Beograd: Inis, 2005), 327. þLþ Rrethanat Shoqërore dhe Politike në Kosovë më 1918-1941 and Žagar, only the German minority, which was well organized and economically and organized well was which minority, German only the Žagar, and , 164-179. ü , Deca careva, pastor 21 106 Though all minorities living in these regions in these living minorities all Though agrarne reforme þLþ and Mitja Žagar, Mitja and þ ad kraljeva ). . Nacionalne manjine u 105 (Prishtinë: Instituti i This decree was the The formerYugoslavia’s Ę A. 104 CEU eTD Collection Oxford University Press, 2007), 65. 109 Princeton University Press, 2006), 294. 108 maneuvering and applied its international obligations toward minority groups in a selective manner. which groups enjoy determined the statusexplicitly which of document national wasno there minority. categories, census the Thisfrom legal apart 16), obscurity (article gaveConstitution the state enough space for linguistic (includingrights education inmother language) in accordance with Minority the Treaty 1921and 107 andcultural domination.” disadvantage, exclusion combining […]often and subordination political marginalization, economic ‘nationalization’; hence, they of“multipleend upbeing subject forms deeply and rooted of are inmost of first and the policies myth)nationalizing need of a unifiednation-state, of target domain, from language rights, education,to and culture political participation. minorities. Thus, in what follows, first we will look at socio-cultural and political position of position them. between and makeacomparison society within then and state groups the these political and socio-cultural at look will we first follows, what in Thus, minorities. of treatment differentiated state’s exemplify cases which two represent Muslims and Bosnian subordination, as well as causes of the se differentiation by the state. In this anddiscrimination much marginalization the that is not ushere interests what However, context, Albanians fully fully authorized [are] yetnot recognized”. who citizens “formal were in Yugoslavia minorities of members phrase, Sassen’s Adopting groups recognized in (explicitly implicitly Minority in the Treaty and minority 1921Constitution), , but different modes of treatment of minorities, various scales of oppression and Will Kymlicka, Saskia Sassen, Saskia guaranteed were groups religious’ and linguistic ‘racial, the all aspect, legal formal the from Though, 107 Will Kymlicka argues that minorities, by being the greatest obstacle to the goal (or goal the obstacle to greatest by beingthe minorities, that argues Will Kymlicka in Yugoslavia remained for most of mostfor inYugoslavia partmarginalized of remainedthe unrecognized. and Territory, Authority, Rights. From Medieval to Global Assemblages Multicultural Odysseys . Navigating the New International Politics of 109 Thisis the case with interwar Yugoslavia too. 22 108 Moreover, they were discriminated in any discriminated were they Moreover, (Princeton Oxford:and Diversity (Oxford: per CEU eTD Collection inBosnia-Herzegovina: A Historiographic Discussion,“ in Serbianism left room fora Bosnian-Muslim identity.” See: Fikret Adanir, “The Formation of a “Muslim” Nation Fikret Adanir argues, “neither the Illyrian Movement of Ljudevit Gaj nor Vuk Karadži Vuk nor Gaj ofLjudevit Movement Illyrian the “neither argues, Adanir Fikret 115 en-Laye, 10September1919. 114 113 112 of the strength approximate Bosnian Muslim the community yieldPazar, to Novi 727,650 persons. and See: Ivo Banac, Montenegro and Serbia pre-1912 in living Albanians) (minus 111 Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca Muslim (national) identity. in system a shareof timeYugoslavia. political time after get the maintainThus,managed Muslims Bosnian tosomekind of autonomy and affairs on religious in with forMusulman usage.” these matters regulating accordance provisions suitable matter “thefamily andpersonal law status of inthe Musulmans Minority Treaty accords citizenship and political is independent from confessional the faith” “freedom faith”.of ThoughArticle 12of 1921Constitutionthe stipulates “exercise that of of right constitutional the under recognized officially was identity (Muslim) religious Muslims was quite Bosnian clear linguistic Thus, leadershipCroat’ official standnewstate’s the the of toward group. – they werein censuses nor name Serbs official country’s of the Islamic inneither the mentioned religion.were Bosnian Muslims to faith.regard with only was recognized ‘otherness’ Their terms. ethnic or national in recognized weren’t Muslims Bosnian Slovenes, Slav unification (1917). Cited in: Atif Purivatra, 110 people 3. Bosnian Muslims as the religious other of south Slavic Thisgoes back to earlier periods of development the of pan-Serb, pan-Croat or Yugoslav national ideas. As, Germain- St. State. Serb-Croat-Slovene the and Powers Associated and Allied Principal the between Treaty 95. Yugoslavism,” There Was Slav Education; “South Jelavich, Charles According to the 1921 census, in Bosnia there were living 588,247 Muslims. If one adds other Muslims Words of Bosnia’s Words Ustav Kralevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca i Hrvata Srba, Kralevine Ustav Indeed, both Bosnian forand nationalismsboth aseparate Indeed,Croat left didn’t Serb aroom In the official doctrine of ‘national unity’ of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Reis ul-ulema (Sarajevo: Svjetlost,1977),18. 115 After along period of livingin big empires -during the periods in a meeting withSlovene politician Anton Korošec onthe eve of south- od 28. juna,1921. god 111 because I have had enough of Turkish and German governance.” Jugoslovenska Muslimanska uPoliti , where they were put under the category of ‘Serb or “I willjoin anyinitiative which brings freedom to our people, 23 The Ottomans and the Balkans. A Discussion of . The National Question in Yugoslavia, 112 However, their distinct their However, - Džemaludin þ 113 ü kom Životum Kraljevine ’s all-embracing ’s , Article 10 of the ý auševi ü 110 50. 114 - CEU eTD Collection Press Inc., 1995),135-178, 333-340. McCarthy, Fine Jr., Fine Hoare, Malcolm, Muslims, namely attacks and pillages in Muslim villages after the arrival of the Serbian army,Ramet, P. see also:Sabrina NoelSee: localSerbs. Also 1924in armed Montenegrins attacked some Bosnian Muslim villages killing some 600 people. 119 118 117 Saqi, 2007), 73-76. 1994), 147-150; Marko Attila Hoare, of Its Political and Legal Institutions Herzegovina: A Historiographic Discussion,“ 270-276; Mustafa Imamovi of concept Islamic community ( nationalisms in Bosnia. Nonetheless, many Bosnian Muslims continued to view themselves ad members of supranationalthe identity - inorder togenerate loyalty toward the Dual Monarchy competeand withSerb and Croat the administration of Bosnia, promoted a new political concept 116 122. and Yugoslavia communities reemerge: historicalperspectives onnationality,politics, and opposition in the former Soviet Union “Primordial Ethnicity or Modern Nationalism: The Case of Yugoslavia’s Muslims, Reconsidered,” in Historiography Habsburg Empire. by subordinated and mistreated Muslim rulingBosnian inthe elitelater Ottoman and violence,looting from andexpropriation sidethe of Serbs (many bewhom of considered to of subject were Muslims in many casesBosnian end the of WWI,where after the immediately by and violence deteriorated Croats outburstfurther of the Thingswere inBosnia Slovenes. of Serbs, state of the very creation the at and pessimistic very hesitant Muslims were Bosnian Croats. nationalities), thus offeringnegated national the individuality Bosnianthe of Muslims (as well of as two otherthe Yugoslav possibilities to Bosnian The more the Muslims: to become either Serbswere or an enlarged Serbia, expansionistand ambitions of Serbs,the whoregarded Kingdom the of Yugoslavia it as though of the Croats, who were“the theyexperienced state, thesouth-Slavic of became part Muslims Bosnian WWI,when hoping to resurrect of their own.” of the Turkish Ottoman Empire (1463–1878) and Austria-Hungary and Empireof Ottoman (1463–1878) Turkish the According to the data presented by Ramet,from 1918 until 1920, about 2000Bosnian Muslims were killed by Carole Rogel, Carole During the Habsburg rule inBosnia, BenjáminKállay, the Joint Imperial Minister of Finance, charged with Matjaž Klemen Matjaž TheHistory of Bosnia From the Middle Ages to the Present Day 118 Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia: A Short History bošnjaštvo Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922 Consequently, though they considered themselves part of Consequently,of themselvespart south-Slavicthe they considered though people, eds. Fikret Adan editor (of the English edition) Edward Allworth(Durham: Duke University Press, 1994), 116- The Breakup of Yugoslavia and its Aftermath þLþ Kingdom authorities strengthened centralism and unitarism the more they umma and Mitja Žagar, Mitja and and role of Kállay see: Fikret Adanir, “The Formationof a “Muslim” Nation in Bosnia- 119 The Three Yugoslavias ), whereas some educated people opted for Serb or Croat identity. For more on the Õ r and Suraiya Faroqhi (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 269; Sabrina Petra Ramet, : , 162;Ivo Banac, A Tradition Betrayed , 204-205; Noel Malcolm, The History of Bosnia From theMiddle Ages tothe Present Day The former Yugoslavia’s diverse peoples, diverse Yugoslavia’s The former , 49. For the elements of Serb triumphalism against Bosnian against triumphalism of Serb elements Forthe , 49. The National Question in Yugoslavia, 24 (London: Hurst and Company, 1994),122-123; Justin , 28. Bosnia: A Short History bošnjaštvo , 107; Robert J. Donia and John V. A. ü , (Bosnianhood) of –akind Bosnia and Herzegovina: Evolution 133. (Princeton: The Darwin The (Princeton: 116 (1878–1918) - after (1878–1918)- (London: Papermac, 368; Marko Attila (London: Muslim 117 CEU eTD Collection 122 121 120 community. their of apart splitting and part other the of alienation meant action such as for side, either support to reluctant of Croats and Serbs, most of the Bosnian Muslim elite and most of the ordinary people were Though many hadlotBosnian Muslimsparticipate suffered during a WWI(having to actively disempowerment economic and political 3.1. Initial overall developments political and religious issues in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Before looking at the role of JMO in Yugoslav politics, however, itis important to analyze the became that 1919-1941. period the Muslims voiceof the political throughout Bosnian the statehood”. which,in words of wouldHoare, embrace neither nor “Muslim nationhood Bosnian with stage) that was self-rule for Bosnia Herzegovina, principlethe of unavoidable and at reconcile Muslim leadership (which the tried nation-state to Yugoslav of principle a unitary movement.” national Croat and Serb to Muslims “awaken” the sought to who Croats, and Serbs critics, adverse of side their the to over go to inclining was Muslim Westernized the particularism, religioethnic Muslim a dangerfor posed ways, certainly ideologies,national intheirstrikingly anddifferent Croat united by a common devotion and allegiance to the religion. As Banac put it, “though the Serb was divided pro-Croat between andpro-Serb, apro-Yugoslav stream, which, however, were Organization ( Organization Marko Attila Hoare, Attila Marko Ibid., 366. Ivo Banac, Bosnian Muslims entered the life into new south-Slavic state with mixed feelings. mixed with state south-Slavic new into life the entered Muslims Bosnian Nevertheless, as far as the Bosnian Muslim elite is concerned, for most of its part it This line minor of policy, with was alternations, carriedby out Yugoslavthe Muslim 122 The National Question in Yugoslavia, Jugoslavska Muslimanska Organizacija - JMO Jugoslavska MuslimanskaOrganizacija- The History of Bosnia From the Middle Ages to thePresent Day 120 But,when faced agenda with aggressive ‘nationalization’ 121 Thus, a third way was to be chosen. The Bosnian 362. 25 ), aparty established in 1919 , 108. CEU eTD Collection 126 and Legal Institutions 1918-1922 128 127 Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Mustafa Imamovi Mustafa Slovenes. and Croats of Serbs, Kingdom Committee (Dr. Halid-beg Hrasnica and Hamid Svrzo), who also were present in the proclamation of the 125 123; Atif Purivatra, people in streets. by the See: Robert liberators as greeted J. Doniawere they unrest), and and John disorder V. the A. suppress Fine to Jr., government provincial Bosnian by the 124 Political and Legal Institutions the Middle Ages tothe Present Day Commerce, Mehmet Spaho (later president of JMO), that were in favor of a common Yugoslav state. For more For state. onthisYugoslav see:common Noelof a Malcolm, favor in were that of JMO), president (later Spaho Mehmet Commerce, within Hungary, whereas Bosnia’s with a Bosnian Provincial Administration” ( Administration” Provincial a Bosnian with wasreplaced government Bosnia’s inlife. Already 1919, January hadvery short however, a There were such leaders as Šerif Arnautovi 123 shrank. and competences which hadits departments andin also werepresent ceremony the 1Decemberthe of 1918. 1913)andlater(31 October National of Bosnia-HerzegovinaGovernment (3November 1918) National aseparate Council forfrom comingBosnia created delegates Bosnia-Herzegovina andCouncil from Croats Serbs, Slovenesof and secession Monarchy in 1918, Dual October of National Following creation the state. ideasouth-Slavic of a common the supporting Slavs” inunification be by them South attention paid by“thescant explained 1918,can to other Thus, their smallnumber within provisional the institutions setupfollowing the Yugoslav systematic purgeof bureaucracy from Bosnian inherited Austro-Hungarian the period”. Hoare, rule Beograd’s by affected in also “the changes.According to involved Bosnia these leaders Muslim Bosnian however, and Serbs, Serbs-Croats swallowed of upbyanextended of Inthedecisive Serbia. moments creation state the of the see and still thatready supply Habsburg being weren’t to their troops), they country Marko Attila Hoare, Attila Marko Xavier Bougarel, “Bosnian Muslims and the Yugoslav Idea,” in Ibid., There were 6 Bosnian Muslims in National Council of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, 2in the Central It is indicative the fact that when Serbian troops entered Sarajevo on 6November 1918 (having been invited For the matterof fact, Bosnian Muslim leaders were not fully united when it comes to the future of Bosnia. 128 , especially , especially Serbs. ed. Dejan Djoki Jugoslovenska Muslimanska uPoliti , 267-271. The History of Bosnia From the Middle Ages to thePresent Day ü Bosnia: A Short History (London: Hurst & Company, 2003),102. , 265-266. Reis ul-Ulema Reis , 93-95; Mustafa Imamovi ü and Safvet-beg Bagaši Džemaludin Džemaludin , 159-162; Marko Attila Hoare, 26 þ Zemaljska Vlada Zemaljska kom Životum Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata iSlovenaca ü , Bosnia and Herzegovina: Evolution ofIts Political ü , ý Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina: Evolution of Its auševi 126 ü Yugoslavism: Histories of aFailed Ideas , that were in favorof an autonomous status Local administration as well was well as administration Local ü and head of the Bosnian Chamber of Chamber Bosnian ofthe head and 123 and people ) appointed from ) appointed Belgrade, The History of Bosnia From 125 : , 102. These institutions, A Tradition Betrayed 124 in general were , 27. 127 , CEU eTD Collection population started to organize itself. to organize started population t measures, as aresultof these however, side, other the inevitable. On among memberscommunity; Muslim the Bosnian of the hence,disempowerment was negative effects had Yugoslavia enormous in creation of of the theinitial period Herzegovina systematic destruction of Muslims.” Muslims and infavorof Serbs,” to“amassive inamounts of from power transfer economic away Bosnia-Herzegovina the be solved only at the expense of one confessional community”. confessional expense one the of be only at solved “could there question most Muslims agrarian the of were landlords inBosnia factthe the that Muslims. comefor Bosnian times wereto better Thus, and Slovenes. of Croats Serbs, State the within JMO, which used political bargaining (solely) to improve the position of Bosnian Muslims 134 Zulfikarpasic in dialogue with Milovan Djilas and Nadezda Gace 132 131 Middle Ages to the PresentDay 133 land. See: John B. Allcock, 129 on tenants to distributed land were of hectares million one other 54,728 families of various types of tenants of tenants of types various of families 54,728 other 130 1920. compulsory purchase of (for Bosnia andHerzegovina)on of thetransfer serfsfrom landlords to ownership the and decree onland issued reform all (for on Yugoslavia) 25 February additional1919, two decrees Bosnian Muslims immenselywere affected by agrarianthe Followingreform too. the interim following Yugoslavia, of thein period creation Muslimsviolentactions the against Matjaž Klemen Matjaž Hoare, Attila Marko Ivo Banac, Ivo Banac, Marko Attila Hoare, Attila Marko According to estimates, some 113,103 families of former serfs obtained 775,233 hectares of land and some 129 Undoubtedly, the state political and economic measures undertaken in Bosnia and Bosnia in undertaken measures economic and political state the Undoubtedly, Apart from Apartfrom politicalthe in disempowerment interimthe (1918-1921)andperiod During the agrarian reform During in agrarian the practicallylastedreform which until Bosnia 1931, The National Question in Yugoslavia, The National Question in Yugoslavia, þLþ and Mitja Žagar, Mitja and The History of Bosnia From the Middle Ages to thePresent Day The History of Bosnia From the Middle Ages to thePresent Day Explaining Yugoslavia , 108. beglik 132 holdings were issued on21 July 1919 and14 February The former Yugoslavia’s diverse peoples in eyes of the most of Bosnian leaders, “bore the stamp of stamp the “bore leaders, Bosnian of most of the ineyes 133 134 The organization took form the The organization took party a political – of , 110; Marko Attila Hoare, beglik 367. 368. See also: Milovan Djilas, 27 land obtained some 400,000 hectares of cultivated hectares 400,000 some obtained land (London: Hurst & Company,1998), 12-15. agalik 131 The History of Bosnia From the and The agrarian reform which , 132. The Bosniak. Adil Bosniak. The beglik , 108; , 108. he Bosnian Muslim lands. 130 more than Due to CEU eTD Collection and religious autonomy etc. For more on the program orientation of the JMO see: Atif Purivatra, Atif Muslimanska uPoliti see: JMO of the orientation program onthe more For etc. autonomy religious and equality withof Islam other religions, independenceland, of confiscated the for compensation fair of and goals question” Other agrarian the for solution tribe”. “just include Serbo-Croat program the of the “branch as Muslims considers It governments”. provincial separate and representation autonomous their with borders regional ofexisting “preservation and Declaration” 1 December on 140 139 Friedman, Francine was active in limiting JMO political Belgrade because and partly cultural and activities leadership JMO in ofthe the territory interests local the of of Bosnia-Herzegovinabecause partly was This solely.Yugoslavia. See: 138 Slovenaca official. See: Atif Purivatra, Ibrahim Maglajli morethe centralist and pro-Serb wing of party the comprising intellectuals of the (including Muslim’s only refugee”. partisan limited itself in Bosnia-Herzegovina of territory the only embraceThough initially JMOsoughtto all Muslims itinshort timeYugoslavia, the a of (JMO) on16February 1919, asaunion of several of political Bosnian groups Muslims. Organization Muslim Yugoslav the of creation the after eliminated was Muslims Bosnian among diversity political initial This resistance. political organize to attempt in an emerged judges, 2doctors, 2 committee of JMO, which had 31 people, included: 7 landlords, 5 mayors, 3 professors, 3 work officers, 2 137 in 1909) and‘federal’ and Croat-leaning intellectuals led by Mehmet Spaho. Muslimanska uPoliti 136 135 ( organizacija orientation and traditional landlordsunited both smallholders, and intellectuals Westernized andof Serb Croat Yugoslaviawhichintoa common theMuslims “prompted wasanalarming threat defense that Muslims Bosnian inempowering Organization Muslim of the Yugoslav 3.2. Role Muslimanski savez) The program affirms at the same time “national unity of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes Ivo inBanac, a unitary state based JMO was unable to bridge the gap that existed between the Bosnian Muslims and otherMuslims in JMO gathered groups of people from different social backgrounds and professions. For example, the central the example, For professions. and backgrounds social different from of people groups gathered JMO In 1919several groupings were formed Bosniain Herzegovina: Muslim Organization ( Ivo Banac, The growing oppression of inThe initial Muslims phaseofthe of the creation oppression the growing of Bosnian , 57. See also: Ivo Banac, ), Yugoslav Muslim Democracy ( The National Question in Yugoslavia, The National Question in Yugoslavia, mufti The Bosnian Muslims: denial ofanation ü etc. See: Noel Malcolm, Noel See: etc. þ þ , JMO’sfirst president)gathered around cultural the society ‘Gajred’ (found kom Životum Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata Slovenacai kom Životum Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata Slovenacai -s, and 1 lawyer, journalist, entrepreneur, teacher, merchant, librarian and district and librarian merchant, teacher, entrepreneur, journalist, 1 lawyer, and -s, Jugoslovenska Muslimanska u Politi ulema. The National Question in Yugoslavia, 139 ” 135 Theprogram Bosnia: ShortA History Thus, already in 1919various political groupings Yugoslovenska Muslimanska Demokratija 371. 368. 28 shari’a 140 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1996), 100. courts and preservation of preservation and courts of JMO represents a consensus between aconsensus JMOrepresents of þ kom Životum Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i , 163; Atif Purivatra, Atif 163; , 138 , 52, 57,(including footnote 161). , 47-54. , thus becoming “the [Bosnian] “the becoming thus , 368. ), Muslim Union Vakuf- Muslimanska Jugoslovenska s, educational Jugoslovenska 136 137 CEU eTD Collection 143 Middle Ages to the PresentDay Životum Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca 109 of s Constitution 109 of allows 1921 the element of Yugoslavia which retained it identity.” maneuvering onlyconstituentSpaho, “BosniaMehmet political thanks wasthe tothe of Malcolm, to according boundaries), historical Bosnia’s of framework the within completely sixinto separated as provinces. Thus,though and existingitsHerzegovina borders its within shall remains existing that districts be treated reform. land the Bosnian of for andguarantees by affected Islamic religious institutions, those compensation (within the newits supportfor the constitution (a centralizing one) foradministrative the preservation of old Bosnian borders exchanged JMO case, this In Constitution”. “Vidovdan the as known constitution, Yugoslav division first tovote smaller Cemiyetandthe other groups with Democrats), and Serb (Radicals of the country), joined votes 1921,whenJMO wasJune improving for Muslims Bosnian conditions the of maintenancerespectively. of the autonomy of Karamehmedovi of 15 March 1921 betweenPaši 142 141 after Immediately the Muslims. Bosnian for favors cultural and social 1920economic, for JMO by traded elections, majority meantBosnian Muslims. in Thissupport,which of parliamentary weight, was return JMO entered it of absolute the continuously wonthesupport parliamentary seats, whereJMO won 24 in coalition with Paši Noel Malcolm, Xavier Bougarel, “Bosnian Muslims and the Yugoslav Idea,” 102. For more on the content Ibid., 94. of the agreement Further, pursuant to the article 10 of the Yugoslavia Minorities Treaty Minorities Treaty 1919, article Yugoslavia articlethe Further,to the of 10 of pursuant Starting with the elections forAssembly 1920), Starting 28November Constituent the with on elections (held the 141 However, the turning point with regard to the factorization of JMO and Bosnia: A Short History 142 ü being appointed as ministers being as (and appointed nationalof health trade industry) and Inline with 135of article this, 1921constitutionsthe stipulates Bosniathat ü , 109; Mustafa Imamovi Mustafa 109; , and JMO see: Atif Purivatra, , 165. , 86-93; Marko Attila Hoare, hari’ah 29 ü oblasti , Bosnia and Herzegovina 143 judges to “adjudicate judges to family the and on Jugoslovenska Muslimanska u Politi (article 135 required the division to be The History of Bosnia From the ü , with Spaho and Hamdija , 283. þ kom CEU eTD Collection Muslims was Lawthe on Religiousthe Community of Yugoslavia (31January which 1930), minority in all fourthe into Muslims newYugoslavia. Bosnian rendered This territorial country the of organization (for the firstquite turbulent andnegative for Bosnian Muslims. First, Bosnia and Herzegovina was divided time in centuries) with the fall 1927. inassassinate Muslims, even MehmedSpaho in to and occasion tried aggressive toward one more became in Bosnia elements radical Serb aresult, As Belgrade. in suspicion great with municipal and municipal Serbs atthe of organs numbergovernments as compared inBosnia) smaller to of population during 1927-1929victoriestoward in municipal elections and (regardless dominate Muslims’ governmentuntil in proclamation the of dictatorship 1929. Indeed,these successes ledJMO of the timeof part the most JMO was parties, other with and compromise cooperate provisions, legally, elevated Bosnian Muslims at the level of religious minority. matters mostly in this case, quite independently from As Imamovi from Belgrade. independently mostly in case,quite this matters of religious schoolscharitable institutions. Thus, the institution of and other charitable institutions according to Muslim rules and, what and Herzegovina and extended proper protection for mosques, protectionfor and and extended proper Herzegovina 147 144 of the institution recognized also 148 Muslims.” of the matters inheritance 146 Herzegovina. and inBosnia institutions religious and 145 Marko Attila Hoare, Attila Marko See: Ibid., 116. Mustafa Imamovi The institution of Ustav Kralevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca Nonetheless, period from the declaration the dictatorshipof in 1929until 1934 was Due toits success in gaininghigh amongsupport in Muslims Bosnia, and its ability to 148 Pressures from Croatian parties and paramilitaries weren’t missing either. oblast ü Reis-ul Ulema , Bosnia and Herzegovina The History of Bosnia From the Middle Ages to thePresent Day level. banovina 147 was created in1909, with the responsibility forthe preservationof cultural Indeed, these kinds of empowerments of Muslims were seen reis-ul ulema where Bosnian Muslims where Another lossBosnian lived. for Bosnian 144 , 287. As already discussed in chapter 2, Minority Treaty od 28.juna, 1921.god. banovina 30 reis-ul ulema 145 as the highest Muslim authority in Bosnia in authority Muslim highest asthe model of territorial organization of organization territorial of model was responsible organization for vakufs and other religious , 114. ü 146 argues,these CEU eTD Collection Wars 1918-1941 Seton-Watson, See:Hugh Bosnians.” by befezzed monopolized were jobs railway 153 Imamovi 152 government. See: Robert J. Donia and John V. A. Fine Jr., 151 History of Bosnia From the Middle Ages to the Present Day years (until 1975). Until 1941, only 10 percent of the remittances were made. See: Marko Attila Hoare, Nevertheless, remittances (though under the real value of the land) were supposed tobe paidforperiod a of 40 150 Bosnia From the Middle Ages to the Present Day Reil-ul Ulema Ulema of the Ministry of Justice. Immediately afterthe adoptionof the law, Yugoslav authorities forcedpreviously) the united religious community which will be based inBelgrade and which will be under direct control 149 Bosnian Muslims formost of inter-warthe period. of thepolitical protector as JMObeconsidered Muslimsmade advantages Bosnian of material on focus and Muslims) Bosnian for things good about brought nevertheless (which by anymeansnecessary be of companies.strategy Thispart governmentthe of persisting to employing secure materialMuslims forBosnian managedadvantages to Yugoslavia. inSarajevolater brother and Fehim as 1938 his Spaho wasappointed with toIslamic Community,movedconcessions regard seat was Religious which back to as part of the agreement with Stojadinovi with agreement of the as part political further were bargaining.for favors Consequently providedFirst, Bosnian Muslims. of Stojadinovi government it the entered coalition, Large Estates. on reform Agrarian Abolition of the Lawon of the passage the begun with agrarian which reform, in multi-party abolition elections. is a positive this Surely,of the developmentthe period withperiod joiningJMO otherpolitical in groupings opposing theroyal forregime andquest deprived Bosnian Muslims of religiousthe autonomy. Hugh Seton-Watson writes that when Spaho was minister of Communications, “it became a standing joke that See: Marko Attila Hoare, Attila Marko See: Indeed from this moment to the start of World War II, JMO representatives were continuously part of the Thischange was undertaken in order to avoid discontent on thepart of Bosnian the Muslim peasantry. According to this law, there has to be only one (instead of two: Džemaludin Džemaludin ü In the elections of May 1935, though In theelectionsJMO1935, though Opposition’ ‘United waspartof the of May , Bosnia and Herzegovina . See: Mustafa Imamovi 152 , 233. Further, as Minister of Communications inStojadinovi Communications Minister of Further, as ý auševi ü The History of Bosnia From the Middle Ages to the Present Day from the office and appointed Ibrahim ef. Magljaji ef. Ibrahim appointed and office the from 150 , 323-324. ü , Bosnia andHerzegovina , Ibid., 118. ü to join his government, Spaho managed to receive managedto Spaho his government, join to 31 Bosnia and Herzegovina , 310; Sabrina P. Ramet, 149 , 307; Marko Attila Hoare, ü 151 Reis-ul Ulema Reis-ul Civic parties were banned two in this thus continuing thus their tradition of ü and Grand Mufti, that existed that Mufti, Grand and (a pro-Serb mufti) as the new the as mufti) (apro-Serb Eastern Europe Betweenthe , 131. TheThree Yugoslavias, 153 Reis-ul Ulema ü The History of them in railway cabinet, Spaho cabinet, , 123; Mustafa Reil-ul The 49. of CEU eTD Collection Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca Friedman, Francine was serious no attempt from JMO leadership to recognize Bosnian Muslims as a separate national group. See: regulation of Bosnia during Austro-Hungarian Empire.Nonetheless, almost throughout the interwar period there three ofall representation) groups, (proportional Serbs, key Muslims national and of Croats. In many principle aspects,of the this vision resembledimplementation political for and administrative pushed also leaders implied religious autonomy Bosnianfor Muslims and geographical integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. JMO 157 Ramet, P. Sabrina See: 156 Middle Ages to the PresentDay Kulenovi 1939 after the death of the latter) pushed forthe idea of the creation of a Bosnian Ma 155 154 find languagebe Muslimswould inoccasions Bosnian endangered,JMOwould acommon Bosnia and inPaši participation centrifugal unitarism)“against the tendencies” asYugoslav support thecentralist block (understood block. usedto Typically, JMO played the role swing of the whichpolitical groups, joinwould either federalistcentralist or JMO By sametoken, the ambitions. nationalist it crucial their to considered whoand Serbs Croats for both wasabattlefield andHerzegovina Bosnia Bosnian Muslims. directly affected disputes intheCroat-Serbpolitical thelines:makingdifference 3.2.1. Between aspirations in Bosnia maintainand Bosniaan autonomous Herzegovina. inbalance between Serbs andCroats politics andboth preventYugoslav nationalist their and Bosnian Muslims. This proves that the most difficult task of the JMO was totry to keep a as easilybe justaway.”taken 1939 after the signing of thesigning1939 after Serb-Croat of the Itisimportant noting that the conceptof ‘autonomous Bosnia-Herzegovina’, according to JMO politicians, Robert J. Donia and John V. A. Fine Jr., Bosnian Muslims and the JMO leadership were angered very much for having been ignored during the during ignored been having for very much angered were leadership JMO the and Muslims Bosnian Ivo Banac, þ ek-Cvetkovi 157 Throughout the existence of inter-warthe Yugoslavia, the Serb-Croat political conflict “could Bosnian Muslims, taught JMO secured,experience gainsthat In anycase,the ü was one of the main initiators of the Muslim Movement for the Autonomy of Bosnia-Herzegovina. of Autonomy the for Movement Muslim ofthe initiators main ofthe one was was an open challenge to centralism. In other cases, when interests of JMO and JMO of interests when cases, other In centralism. to challenge open an was The National Question in Yugoslavia, ü talks. As a result, Džafer Kulenovi Džafer aresult, As talks. The Bosnian Muslims The Three Yugoslavias ü ’s governments. On the other hand, JMO’s vision of hand, ’s governments.Onthe other JMO’s vision an autonomous of , 130. , 30. 154 Some of them were taken away in 1929 and even more in , 94;Atif Purivatra, Bosnia and Herzegovina , 108; Marko Attila Hoare, Sporazum 376. ü (who replaced Mehmed Spaho at the head of JMO in of JMO the head at Spaho Mehmed replaced (who 32 156 , especially in casethe of 1921 constitution 155 Jugoslovenska Muslimanska u Politi at the detriment of detriment atthe of Bosnia-Herzegovina , 125. The History of Bosnia From the banovina . Moreover, þ kom Životum CEU eTD Collection Serb or Croat or a symbiosis of both to the stage of affirming their distinct religious and evenMuslims in interwar Yugoslaviathe moved from positionthe of seeing themselves as either identity. (national) Muslim Bosnian a distinct strengthened Serbs, or identify with Croats the in the decliningto which this situation was a Muslim religion. So, Serbs of identifiedor asCroats themselves and intellectuals, Croatized/Serbianized especially by Serbs and Croats made thevariousattempts despite maneuvering. So, for as itsomewith space provided them to ‘nationalize’for people), of three-named the aspart Muslims Bosnian (with Yugoslavism ideology of the Bosnian endorsed JMOofficially Croats, and Serbs between Caught identity. religious adistinct for Muslims, o Croats pressing for ‘nationalization’ of Bosnian Muslims, resisted themore latter thus opting Assembly in Belgrade would declare themselves as Serbs or Croats. Hope).” Muslim cultural societies: cultural Muslim pro-Serb Muslim intellectuals by grewdeeper, aswasdemonstrated existencethe ofrival two and pro-Croat divisionsbetween the the in “Already mid-1920s, the andintellectuals. society Muslim amongnational feeling the Muslims. division existed Bosnian Bosnian Thus, among and nationality issueof the linkedto itwas strongly rather, of football; political a matter Bosniaandautonomous Herzegovina. strategically forces” incompatible strategically numerous between the interaction tactical “its characteristically However, block. parties’ 162 The National Question in Yugoslavia, Banac, Ivo See: Croats. as declared were Spaho, but Mehmet deputies, JMO’s the all 1923, in Whereas, Bosnian. 161 160 159 158 with the federalist block of Radi block of with federalist the In 1920, 15 MPs from JMO declared themselves as Croats, 2 Serbs, 5 were undeclared and one declared as declared one and undeclared were 5 Serbs, 2 Croats, as themselves declared JMO from 15 MPs 1920, In Xavier Bougarel, “Bosnian Muslims and the Yugoslav Idea,” 103. Ibid. Ivo Banac, Matjaž Klemen Matjaž Actually, the position of Bosnian Muslims in the Serb-Croat relations was not merelyrelations wasnot Serb-Croat Muslimsin theposition Actually, Bosnian of the 160 JMO too faced such problems. Most of the JMO deputies in the National inthe JMOdeputies the of Most problems. faced such JMOtoo The National Question in Yugoslavia, þLþ and Mitja Žagar, Mitja and Gajret 375. The former Yugoslavia’s diverse Yugoslavia’s The former ü . 158 159 In 1935 elections too, JMO was part of JMOof too,was Inelections opposition the part 1935 (The Effort) and Effort) (The never went at the detriment of its vision of an 376. 33 Narodna uzdanica nly a small number of Muslims, of number small a nly peoples, 133. 161 But with the Serbs and 162 Certainly, Bosnian Certainly, (The People’s CEU eTD Collection 166 Slovenaca 165 164 163 (Justice) considered andits paper its program JMO, through declareethnicity. their notto general, chose Bosnian Muslimsin leaders, nationalizing FacedwithMuslim Bosnian pressures, period. Serb andCroat to be a branch ( lacked name.” a national same isinway, Banac right toconclude interwar Yugoslavia“Bosnian that Muslims only why in 1941 not mourn April they really did the collapse firstof the Yugoslavia.” national identity.As Bougarel put it, “this political evolution of the Bosnian Muslims explains imena name ( tribe’s the aware only of not are but nationalism, ofareal features all the “Muslimsthat have never given language”up theirhomeland or they andhave that preserved names, out tribes’ from points to theequality three of put emphasis the February 1919, apart Serb-Croat symbiosis, simply or Yugoslavs. Theas JMO, program of which in was adopted Croatian and Serbian national movements never dulled their consciousness of their distinctive their of consciousness their dulled never movements national Serbian and Croatian the both with flirtation their and interests, religious Islamic their compromised never they opportunism,ethnically, perhaps displayedconsiderable or “although confusion, the Muslims Yugoslav identity its national toward attitude organization tells primacy and the question to about given as comparednames.” tribe’s three with people to a Serb attitude nationaltoward is, that question, “inof spirit predominantthe thesis of a united or Croat ( one. Be as it may, as Ramet argues, jugoslovenstvo Ibid., 388-389. Cited in: Atif Purivatra, Atif in: Cited Ivo Banac, Xavier Bougarel, “Bosnian Muslims and the Yugoslav Idea,” 104. ). So, religious particularism was the core of the Bosnian Muslim identity in the interwar inthe identity Muslim Bosnian the of core the was particularism religious So, 165 , 388. Further, as Purivatra points out, the fact that JMO considered Yugoslavism considered JMO that fact the out, points Purivatra as Further, The National Question in Yugoslavia, ) tobe the easiest way toward rapprochement and unification,indicates JMO’s Jugoslovenska Muslimanska u Politi 164 166 Certainly, the very name of the Bosnian Muslim 373. 34 þ kom Životum Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i ogranak ) of the three-name people, three-name the ) of plemenskog 163 Pravda In the In CEU eTD Collection massively supporting JMO all the time. the all JMO supporting massively and within continuously in thus Yugoslavia, pursuing course defending their rights apolitical in werequite BosnianMuslims united andNonetheless, territorially. dismembered politically was Bosnia when moment the namely Belgrade, by betrayed were they when moment the politics.” Muslim in mainstream course Serb 169 100. Yugoslavism,” There Was Education; Slav “South Jelavich, Charles See: Yugoslavia. in education centralized 168 Reconsidered,” 127. 167 identity. In most cases JMO supported Serb parties, but governmentthe (unitarism) and of use Yugoslav from before and avoid ‘nationalization’ (assimilation). And the recipe for this was: support for Bosnia-Herzegovina’s autonomy, preserveBosnian Muslim’s religious institutions inherited preserve to was aim main JMO’s above, Asdiscussed period. interwar the of part most underestimation and andmistreatment Mehmet in the byJMO adopted this strategy to Thanks weight. levels, political certain and,at for economic new state Spaho,and enjoy certainpolitically), Bosnian Muslims developed aunique strategy trading support of their political autonomousBosnian rights for Muslimsin defense of their cultural and religious particularity and economic interests. managed to somehow recover from the initial religio-cultural heritage.” religio-cultural Marko Attila Hoare, Attila Marko supported also JMO reasons, political for surely, and ideology, Yugoslav all-inclusive ofan name the In Sabrina Petra Ramet, “Primordial Ethnicity orModern Nationalism: The Case of Yugoslavia’s Muslims, Briefly summarizing this chapter,beingin aninferiorposition (numerically and The History of Bosnia From the Middle Ages to thePresent Day 167 Thus, Muslimsand Bosnian JMOactedasa confessional-group 169 35 Bosnian Muslims thusturnedagainst Serbsat 168 label while keeping their distinct religious distinct their keeping while label Sporazum marked the end of the “pro- , 131. CEU eTD Collection Malcolm, Antonio Baldacci andRomanian Nicolae Popp) put the total at 700 000 (Italian and 800 000 respectively.scholars See:other Noel Some unrealistic. and beunderestimates to number this consider Malcolm and Banac 175 174 Shqipëria: një kontributpër kritikën e politikës pushtuese të borgjezisësërbe state – both Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Kingdom Kingdom Kingdom tacitly andstate –both of Yugoslavia, and Croats of Serbs, Slovenes (thevery name the of newstate members of Yugoslav werenotseenasintegral the groups, happenedthat in 1912-1913’. brutal as anything were‘as andMacedonia Kosovo it,of ‘theoccupation’ second Banac put Malcolm, to inquire into the causes and conductof the Balkan Wars forInternational Peace, Endowment Carnegie See: miseries. these detail in reported have Peace International for Endowment Carnegie conversion. People such as Lev Bronshtein (later known as Leon Trocky), Edith Durham(estimates fromrange 15-25 thousands),or asmuch institutions refugees, hundreds of burned villages, looting and forced such ofAlbanians as of thousands tens killed were there campaign, this During Empire. of Ottoman part previously were 173 killings killings causedand deportations bySerb duringarmy Balkanwarsin 1912-1913. beminority most reluctantthe includedin newstate the to Kosovo”. of “Battle myththe of Serb great the place Kosovo) in by of for ‘Old(term Serbs used ethnic Serbia’ predominantwere the group Albanians fact bear that couldn’t the state, new control the came Serbelites, to who mistrust. and by and extreme wasmarked and Slovenes of Serbs, Croats a sense antipathy Albanians 171 Croats and Slovenes, these former Turkish areas were integrated as the province named province the as integrated were areas Turkish former ofSerbs, these Kingdom Slovenes, and of the Croats creation the After Wars. Balkan after of Montenegro Kingdom and of Serbia Kingdom 172 Identity inKosovo 170 of Albania – Institute ofHistory, Institute – Albania of (National Freedom),July 13, 1931, Geneva.Republished in thebook: Academy The of newspaper Sciencesthe Republic in of the published of Kosovo” Serbianization and Colonization “The article the from 4. Albanians: theirritant element within ‘Old Serbia’ According to the 1921 census, in Yugoslavia were living 441,740 Albanians. However, scholars such as Ivo Banac, During Balkanthe Wars, Serb and Montenegrin armies occupied Macedonia, Kosovo Sandjak,and which For more on the theme of the myth of the “Battle of Kosovo”, see: Ger Duijzings, Albanians which were mostly living in Kosovo, Macedonia and Sandjak of Novi Pazar became part of the Kosta Novakovi The pan-Serbian regime… has decided to denationalize Kosovo completely,by savagely suppressing the From the very beginning, the relationship between the Serb-dominated Kingdom From beginning, Kingdom very Serb-dominated the between relationship the of Kosovo Kosovo: AShort History The National Question in Yugoslavia, , 268; Ivo Banac, Ivo 268; , (London: Hurst & Company, 2000),176-210. ü was aSerbsocial-democrat and memberof Yugoslav parliament in early 1920s. Taken resistance ofthe Albanians and especially by seizing their land and colonizing it with Serbs. Report of theInternational Commission The Truth on Kosova The (London: Macmillan, 1998), 251-256; Dimitrije Tucovi 174 About half million National Question in Yugoslavia, 297. (Tirana: EncyclopediaPublishing House, 1993), 168-170. 36 171 (Washington, D.C: The Endowment,1914); Noel Onthe other side, Albanians, most probably 175 Albanians, like many other minority other many like Albanians, 172 , had a fresh memory of violence, 55, 58, 298. (Prishtinë: Rilindja, 1975). Religion and the Politics of South Serbia - Kosta Novakovi Kosta - ü , Sërbia dhe Liria Kombëtare 173 Indeed, as Indeed, . ü – 170 CEU eTD Collection replaced Albanian replaced activities of Albanians in religious institutions inKosovo and Macedonia, state authorities in many casesthus illegally introducing Albanian language in religious schools. However, in an attempt to forestall nationalist in the region of Kosovo. Exactly in these institutions where many Albanian 179 182 181 Albania – Institute of History (Tirana: EncyclopediaPublishing House, 1993), 136. in Wars,” World two between Kosova Albanians made around 2 per cent of the total number of pupils. See: Ali Hadri, “Thesome 24914 Serb andAlbanian Montenegrin children and Populationaround 11 876 Albanian children. Insecondary of schools 180 instruction. See: Zoran Janjetovi Zoran See: instruction. of language only wasthe language respective their where 3schools Czechs 7,and 5,Italians Russians 178 Press, 2002), 157. eds. Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers and Bernd J.Fischer (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University language in interwar(1918-41) and post-autonomy (1989-98) Kosovo,”in 177 1918-1922 in1936. adoptionthe LawonIslamicCommunity the of 1920s and early within1930s which institutions, religious were open Yugoslavia. citizens who,cent of all primary school children in the region of Kosovo)with the managedBelgrade wasestablished from (in Albanian which 30per comprisedpupils about passing in with Turkish. schools” teaching “Turkish of the time, would know of no other homeland outside 176 (Serb) schools, state between choose in minority other hadits Yugoslavia own schools werebanned. during Austro-Hungarian the occupation 1914-1918) secularthe schools Albanian as with languagethe instruction of (which were mainly opened by of armsweresome of measuresthe the forstate. collection taken the action schools, colonization be(will sections), discussed intheclosing down language next Albanian of disempowerment and denationalization of Albanians was immediate; confiscation of land and excludes Albanians and non-Slavs). other Noel Malcolm, In late 1930s, there were around 300 Denisa Kostovicova,“’Shkolla Shqipe’ and Nationhood,” 159. In late 1930s there were only some 252 elementary and 13 secondary schools in the region of Kosovo with According to the officialstatistics from 1929, Germans had 50, Hungarians 91, Rumanians 4, Slovaks 4, Denisa Kostovicova,“’Shkolla Shqipe’ and Nationhood: Albanians in pursuit of education inthe native Hugh Poulton, “Macedonians and Albanians as Yugoslavs,” in Yugoslavs,” as Albanians and “Macedonians Poulton, Hugh Immediately Immediately returnof the after Kosovo underSerbian control (within Yugoslavia) all ed. Dejan Djoki 181 Nonetheless, a clandestine network of Albanian schools was established in late in established was schools Albanian of network a clandestine Nonetheless, imams Kosovo with those coming from Bosnia and who spoke no Albanian at all. Denisa Kostovicova Denisa all. at Albanian no spoke who and Bosnia from coming those with , 267. ü (London: Hurst & Company, 2003),126. ü , Deca careva, pastor TheTruth onKosova mektebs with 11,362 students and mektebs 176 179 The initiative of the state to start a process of þ 37 ad kraljeva On the other side, anetwork of state schools (Islamic elementary schools) and private and schools) elementary (Islamic The Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Republic the of Sciences of Academy The 178 and newspapers, Albanianscould and only Yugoslavism: Histories of a Failed Ideas , 260. 182 Other cultural activities were also 180 Albanian Identities: Myth and History medreses , with the aim of creating loyal creating of aim the with , imams 177 took upteaching in Albanian, en masse in almost all the big towns Though almost every almost Though especially after CEU eTD Collection calling them “prehumans, who slept in the trees to which they were fastened by their tails”, “people who satisfy who “people tails”, by their fastened were they which to trees in the slept who “prehumans, them calling that therearethat Albanians no Albanicised inKosovo, butonly Serbs. Djordjevi 186 185 184 Albanian Literature Kosovo state officials ‘cooperated with Albanian Embassy in Belgrade in propagating irredentism’. See: Noelstudents Malcolm, who were studying in Belgrade also found an illegal association called “Besa”, which according linguist Shtjefënto the Gjeçovi was murdered near Prizren on 14 October1929. and In late 30s priest some 70-80a famous Albanian society, ofthis members main ofthe one soon, very But culture. and literature Albanian spreading in engaged actively was Catherine” ofSt. “Society named society) (catholic religious Another by thesis”(developed Milojevi “Arnautaš the leadersembraced political Serb of the most claims; invalidate Serbian Serb perspective) Albanian some speakingreally official doesn’t(in 439,657 1921 there censusof were persons “thereregions 1919) areno (annexed before national minorities.” in the southern positing that Nations, their representatives defended League Yugoslav of the in criticism Albanian to aresponse In Serbia. Old and in Southern minorities national without any the Infact,Yugoslav not existencethis of negated authorities purpose. was 183 162. provides a detailed analyzes of these events. See: Denisa Kostovicova,“’Shkolla Shqipe’ and Nationhood,”160- on Popular of Schools 1929. contradiction with Minority the Treaty 9)and1921Constitution (article (article 16)andLaw emergence of cultural andintellectual Albanian inelites Yugoslavia. for Albanians.” education discouraging public started regime, against the be used could skills that intellectual were afraid that state schools“far from Serbianizing Albanians, were providing them with the officials state policies; state unjust the of because precisely Albanians for unfavorable very students students studying in Belgrade. organized infull secrecy by Catholic illegal cultural Church groups, and thesefew Albanian Apart from the negation of national identity, Serb various and laterYugoslav officials (such as Vladan Cited in: Noel Malcolm, Ivo Banac, An underground group underground An , 267; Zoran Janjetovi Zoran 267; , All these state measures,linguistic All state Albanians, werein these whichdenied of rights ü , Ljuba Davidovi Ljuba , The National Question in Yugoslavia, 184 Volume 1 (Boulder: Social Science Monograph, 1995), 304. Undoubtedly, causedbackwardness anddisabled this an eventual Agimi ü Kosovo , Stojan Proti Stojan , ü , Deca careva, pastor Down)(The was engaged inimporting and distributing books from Albania. , 268. 183 De facto In general, the cultural and educational circumstances were circumstances educational and cultural Ingeneral, the ü etc) were openly waging a campaign to dehumanize Albanians, dehumanize to acampaign waging openly were etc) , all these documents bypassed Albanians.Certainly, ü andGop þ 299. ad kraljeva 38 þ evi , 241-242 (note 189); Robert Elsie, ü in 19 the th 186 century) which considers century)which 185 Logically, behind such The fact that in the that fact The History of CEU eTD Collection resistance in Kosovo, controlling up armed to of the 10000 leader the men. became See: Noel Malcolm,Austro-Hungarians, against Serbs with cooperated WWI the during who 191 1993), 162-164. House, Publishing Encyclopedia (Tirana: ofHistory –Institute ofAlbania Republic the of Sciences of Academy (2006), 27-30; Liman Rushiti, “The Outlaw Movement inKosova (1918-1928),” in “Kosovski komitet i Kraljevina SHS usvetlu jugoslovenskih izvora 1918– 1920,” Kingdom Albania.or 1918 continued well until most1927, when leaders ofits were killed eitherin Yugoslav the Malcolm, 189 associationwith the Islamic Council, 1997), 146. Muslim Identity and the Balkan State 188 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1966), 152. 187 of energiesits in supporting aim was tofight both through diplomacy (lobbying andpetitioning League of Nations) and arms (it devoted most Yugoslavia.Hasan Prishtina, Hoxhë Kadriu, Bajram Curri, and Zija Dibra were its most knownleaders. Their 190 Malcolm, Noel See: etc. interlopers” “criminal people”, European other to any known not was way that in a needs their of Albaniansgroups as known inmilitary action 7 March Albanianinhabited1920. areason Albanianamong Army a the population,wide TheThird in Skopje) started range (based arms collecting of pretext the With army. Yugoslav the by intervention harsh provoked revolts of Albanians andstate its oppressive policies from beginning.in very So, the period1918-1920variousthe were organized against strong military control of the region which Defense of Kosovo) werethe actions restlessness behind them” land,of whohada“long tradition Albanians of confiscation heavyreprisals, process, colonization education, language the suppression the Albanian the initial of the period), Macedonia. negation was hidden the strategy of assimilation of Albanians in the region of Kosovo and The main leaders of Dr. Hakif Bajrami, Hugh Poulton and Miranda Vickers, “The Kosovo Albanians: ethnic confrontation with the Slav state,” in H.C. Darby, “Macedonia,” in This Committee was formed by a group of Kosovar leaders who fled to Albania after the creation of creation the after Albania to fled who leaders of Kosovar group a by formed was Committee This Being subject to variety of pressures, including forced conversations to Orthodoxy variety to conversationsincludingforced Being(in to subject pressures, of Kosovo Kosovo , 273-278; Ivo Banac, , 268; Ivo Banac, Ivo 268; , Komiteti për MbrojtjenKombëtare të Kosovës Rrethanat Shoqërore dhe Politike nëKosovë më 1918-1941 kaçaks 190 formed in in 1918 Shkodër (northern Albania) and other small armed kaçaks were Azem Bejta (Galica), his wife (Shote Galica) and Sadik Rama. Azem Bejta, Azem Rama. Sadik and Galica) (Shote wife his (Galica), Bejta Azem were 187 A Short History of Yugoslavia: From Early Times to 1966 , Albanians remained“firmly opposed” ) to join Albanian inhabited areas in Yugoslavia with Albania. See: Noel The eds.Hough Poulton andSuha Taji-Farouki (London: Hurst & Company,in çetas National Question in Yugoslavia, The National Question in Yugoslavia, or kaçaks. 39 191 The Albanian insurgency which started inAlbanian insurgency The whichstarted Kosovo 291-295. (Committee for the National 302-306; Goran Antoni 189 , 262, 276, 277. Responding to this state , 99. Istorija 20. Veka 188 The Truth on Kosova tothenew Yugoslav ed. Stephen Clissold , Issue 1 ü , The CEU eTD Collection by no means a purely economic project. According to Allcock, it by been initiated the had Allcock, According to economicproject. means by noa purely discourse official the Despite of war. ravages the of because Malcolm, Noel See: time. same by the colonization a lawon issued also Montenegro 1914. January in adopted areas,” 195 (Beograd: Inis, 2002), 387. Vickers, between fights the during Albanians about of tens thousands. For detailed amore account of data on thekillings, plunder anddeportation of 193 192 – estates (large landholding of system Turkish the dismantle to started state Serbian Wars, Balkan in expulsion and land of Colonization 4.1. Yugoslavia. Kosovo and Macedonia was designed in order to fully integrate the ‘southern regions’ in of colonization and ofdeportation strategy new a Thus, Yugoslavia. interwar of adversaries Albania, which by late 1920intensified its cooperation with Italy, of one main the political with proximity political and because geographic especially their of within state, elements the southern by regions’ late 1920s, Albanians continued tobe seen as suspicious and danger behaviors towards the people. See: Vladan Jovanovi Vladan See: people. the towards behaviors bad extremely by their characterized were ofgendarmerie members general, In areas’. liberated just ‘pacifying 194 Malcolm, (includingforces) wereused. air in Army of whereheavyarms destroyed many deported actions the people and Yugoslav whole villages were killed, people localof Albanian population. Thousands consequences for in little practice, very In Serbia, the process was incited with the adoption of a “Law-decree on the settlement of the newly liberated newly ofthe settlement the on “Law-decree ofa adoption the with incited was process the Serbia, In There is no exact figure of the number of Albanians that were killed after 1918, Ibid., 278. but various sources speak In 1920s,2/3 of Yugoslavthe gendarmerie was stationed in theKosovo and Macedonia, with the aim of Immediately after the annexation of the territories of Kosovo, Macedonia Sandjak Macedonia and Kosovo, of territories the of annexation the after Immediately In general, although thearmed of resistance In general, although Between Serb and Albanian: A history of Kosovo Kosovo Kosovo çifliks , 279. , 278. ) in these regions and colonize the expropriated lands or those abandonedlands those or and) in expropriated the regions colonize these 192 the reaction haddisastrous Army the reaction insurgency Yugoslav of against the kaçaks 193 Although state structures security Although state and Yugoslav army, collected from various sources, see: Miranda see: sources, various from collected army, Yugoslav and ü , JugoslovenskaDržava iJužnaSrbija 1918-1929 40 (London: Hurst & Company, 1998),93-95; Noel kaçaks and Kosovar Committee achieved Committee andKosovar 195 , the colonization program was 194 managed to ‘pacify managed to CEU eTD Collection Between Serb and Albanian 100; Dr. Hakif Bajrami, 282; Ivo Banac, otherand Albanian Regions in Yugoslavia after First the World War,” 151-158; Noel Malcolm, of Kosova betweentwo World Wars,” 127-129; Marenglen Verli, “The Colonizing Agrarian Reform inKosova reforma i kolonizacija naKosovu (1918-1941) account of the colonization process in the ‘southern regions’, see, the work of Milorad Obradovi of Milorad work the see, regions’, ‘southern the in process colonization of the account was delivered to of it some half almost 13,000and families confiscated was land) of colonists ofagricultural (around of hectares 580,000 only 70,000 were hectares (where people) land 200,000 whichagricultural around moved alone, in. ForKosovo a In detailed large. by favored being Slavs with serfs, former and tenants 200 Albanian Regions in Yugoslavia after theFirst World War,” in other and Kosova in Reform Agrarian Colonizing “The Verli, Marenglen See: Reform. Agrarian for Ministry whole process was organized by the Directorate for Agrarian Reform in Skopje, which functioned as part of the 199 71. Malcolm, of the Republic of Albania –Institute of History (Tirana: EncyclopediaPublishing House,1993), 151-158; Noel settlement Southern Regions’ (15 December 1921) which sanctioned the confiscation of land of ofland confiscation the on sanctioned Law which ‘the 1921) and December (15 1931) Regions’ Southern December (5 settlement Montenegro’ and Serbia of southern regions former the in relations agrarian September1920), Law ‘The on the colonizationof Southern Regions’ (11 June 1931), Law ‘The on regulation of for agrarian reform’ (25 February 1919), ‘The Decree on the colonization of Southern the Regions’ (24 documents which regulated confiscationof land and settlement of new colonists were: ‘Preliminary provisions 198 Yugoslavia, Malcolm, Noel See: Prishtina. near ofland hectares 300 some WWI only few Serb and Montenegrin families had moved to the region. See: Serb Prime-minister Paši Prime-minister Serb See: region. the to moved had families Montenegrin and Serb few only WWI of beginning the until etc), transport free family, per hectares (nine colonists the to offered were that conditions 197 196 in. America, weresettled and countries European mainlyfrom Montenegrin andLika, Herzegovina from colonists butalsoMontenegro, Serb and of 17,000households around and ‘agrarian forreform’ needsof the regions 1919-1941,period in total 400,000hectaresaround landof wereconfiscatedin southern the wealthaccommodate Serb land)“inexpropriation to (through of colonists.” order an ‘agrarian reform’. an ‘agrarian them. landassignedthe to of character ethnic totransform the meansin order employed different states and Montenegrin BalkanWars,Serbian the violence, acts usedduring brutality and the of Thus, after pillage largeAlbanianin with andBulgarian elements.” elements areas those of population the Serbian ingovernment 1913 with a primary of “strengtheningaim the Serb and pro-Serbian Almost half (around 80000 hectares) of this confiscated land was delivered to local families oflandowners, families to local delivered was land confiscated of this hectares) 80000 (around half Almost Carole Rogel, Carole The The agrarian reform was implemented in ‘southern regions’ throughout the interwarperiod. mainThe The whole program was cancelled because of the start of WWI. In the meantime, regardless the favorable the regardless meantime, In the ofWWI. start the of because cancelled was program whole The John B. Allcock, The colonization process was resumed after WWI though this time it was presented as it was presented time this WWIthough after wasresumed process The colonization Kosovo 296; Dr. Hakif Bajrami, Hakif Dr. 296; The The Breakup of Yugoslavia and its Aftermath , 151; Dr. Hakif Bajrami, Explaining Yugoslavia National Question in Yugoslavia, Rrethanat Shoqërore dhe Politike në Kosovë më 1918-1941, 198 , 103-108; ZoranJanjetovi However,many Albanians ininterwar Yugoslavia lost theirland and 197 Rrethanat Shoqërore dhePolitike në Kosovëmë 1918-1941 , 110. Rrethanat Shoqërore dhe Politike në Kosovë më 1918-1941, (Prishtina, 1981). See also: Ali Hadri, “The Albanian Population ü 299-302; Sabrina P. Ramet, 41 , Deca careva, pastor 200 Kosovo , 72. Having in mind the fact the most of the The Truth on Kosova , 279;Ivo Banac, þ ad kraljeva The Three Yugoslavias, The Academy Sciences of Academy The 47-96; Miranda Vickers, The , 324-346. National Question in ü kaçaks Kosovo , 42-46. , Agrarna 199 ü . The , 279- bought 47-51, In the In 99- 196 CEU eTD Collection for use of brute force, intimidation and expulsion of all the Albanians from Yugoslavia.” The full text of the of text full The Yugoslavia.” memorandum from is available at: Albanians < the of all expulsion and intimidation force, brute of use for government of Stojadinovi royal the to presented regime), monarchic onthe adviser political former of Yugoslavia, (academician 205 to Turkey 1918–1941,” Jovanovi Vladan See: homesteads.” property.Namely, numbered mosques and graveyards were turned into army warehouses, gardens and through political misuse of Muslim priests and schools, and especially in terms of relation towards Muslim 204 1920. See: Ivo Banac, 203 202 Anthem Press 2006), 61. World wars based on myth?“ in 201 years of years withcontacts of direct Turkey, signed on11July 1938 the “ three after almost latter, the of representatives Albanians from Yugoslavia, of for expulsion acceptAlbanian line variousmemorandums migrants.In and Turkish and proposals with migrate. people to were deprivedof land)their more1938 than villagesin population the 6,000 people, Kosova, the23 of Drenicaregion of worsened their economic situation a lot. As a result of this,many people (for example, only in have land perfamily member, Albanians to confiscate andallow only local 0.4 hectares actions to state the from time that and lived agriculture, at Kosovopeople Macedonia in humiliation Various methods, starting from confiscation of land, direct orders for deportation, by state the expel to Albanians and other Muslims from ‘southernthe inlateregions’ 1930s. Balkan Wars MacedoniaAlbania andMontenegro to andTurkey hadwhich startedalready during the ‘integrate’ to schools Serb through southern assimilation of process ineffective and long than policy effective region in the state system. So, the emigration of Albanians of Kosovo, century documents ed., Elsie Rober The most famous memorandum on expulsion of Albanians is the one written by Dr. Vaso Vaso Dr. by written one the is of Albanians expulsion on memorandum famous most The As Vladan Jovanovic put it, “in practice the Yugoslav administration had demonstrated lack of tolerance lack demonstrated had administration Yugoslav the practice “in it, put Jovanovic Vladan As Tens of thousands of Albanians have left Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro in the period between 1910- between period the in Montenegro and Macedonia Kosovo, left have of Albanians of thousands Tens Ivo Banac, Noel Malcolm, “Is the complaint about the Serb state’s deportation policy of Albanians betweenthe two Indeed, one of the main aims of agrarian policies in ‘southern regions’ was to force 204 The 203 Gathering clouds: the roots of ethnic cleansing inKosovo and Macedonia - early twentieth- and finally attempts to sign bilateral agreements with countries willing to (Pejë: Dukagjini, 2002). , continued throughout the interwar period. However greater efforts wereputHowever efforts interwar greater period. , continuedthe throughout National Question in Yugoslavia, 202 The Currents ofHistory Currents Forcedmigration of and deporting Albaniansbe was amorethought to ü National Question in Yugoslavia, on 7 March on 1937. The memorandum entitled "The Expulsion of Arnauts" the calls www.aacl.com/expulsion2.html The Case forKosova: Passage toIndependence 201 ü were left no other choice but to emigrate. , “In Search of Homeland? Muslim Migration from Yugoslavia from Migration Muslim of Homeland? Search “In , (Tokovi istorije), issue: 12 (2008), 58. 301. 42 301; Noel Malcolm, >[last accessed: 12.10.2008] and reprinted in: Convention onregulatingof ed. Anna Di Lellio (New York: Kosovo , 258. ý ubrilovi ü 205 CEU eTD Collection “In Search“In of Homeland? Muslim Migration from Yugoslavia to Turkey 1918–1941,” 56-66. P. Ramet, Turkish Review Balkanof Studies,9 basedmyth?“ on 61; Hikmet Oksüz and Ülkü Köksal, “Emigrationfrom Yugoslavia to Turkey (1923-1960),” Malcolm, “Is the complaint about the Serb state’s deportation policy of Albanians betweenthe two (AlbanianWorld sources). wars However,according to Malcolm, 90,000-150,000 is a reasonable number. See:Noel data, in the period 1927-1939,some 19,279 ethnic Albanians went to Turkey and 4322 in Albania) to 250,000 207 on Kosova of Institute – Albania of Republic the of Sciences of of the Academy The in: text full published the also Convention, See 61. myth?“ on based wars World two the between ofAlbanians policy deportation state’s Serb the about complaint the “Is Malcolm, Noel See: Turks. not Albanians, Muslim at aimed fact Turkish-speaking populationof Kosovo was urban). Thus, as Malcolm put it, is clearMuslims. that Also, the the measuretreaty wasexcluded in the inhabitants of towns (which were mostly Turks - most of the small 206 Banac notes,“a bentonexpellingwashardlygovernment Albanians permitlegal to one national bases within Yugoslavia was unacceptableabsolutely for ruling the elite. state As politically bySerbparties. controlled Every form Albanians organization on political of of exceptionfullythe and from Albaniansremained period the subordinated of 1919-1925, Cemiyet of role the and representation 4.2. Political inunwelcome guests south-Slavic state. the rather but state, of the notto beequal considered lattercitizens were fact that the reveal the period between two wars.” interwar So, from period. Albanians90-150,000 and Muslims other left Kosovoonly in the Nonetheless, ofmigration process the Albaniansof from Yugoslavia continued throughoutthe from being of out. plan WWIIpreventedthe carried andoutbreak the in Yugoslavia family. underfrom of“Turks’, one roof’) apayment receiving Belgrade of 500 Turkish poundsper 40,000 which take families Turkey obliged to (afamily was relations as‘blood defined living Yugoslavia theregionofSouthernSerbiain emigration oftheTurkishpopulationfrom Figures about the number of Albanian emigrants range from some 25,000 (according to official Yugoslav official to (according 25,000 some from range emigrants of Albanian number the about Figures This treaty included only Muslims from Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. It excluded Bosnian excluded It Serbia. and Montenegro Macedonia, Kosovo, from only Muslims included treaty This 206 Political participation of Albanians in the state structures was rather symbolic. With symbolic. wasrather structures in state the Albanians of participation Political The Three Yugoslavias, The Three (Tirana: EncyclopediaPublishing House,1993), 188-191; Leslie Benson, The whole processwas tobe finishedin sixyears internal(until 1944) but problems 207 100. Attempts toapplykinds policies of these state against Albanians (2004), 45-50; Vladan Jovanovi 43 ü , Yugoslavia History, The Truth History, , 67-68; Sabrina ” CEU eTD Collection Hakif Bajrami, deportation)and in ‘southern regions’ and demanded more national rights forAlbanians and See:Turks. Dr. 213 Hakif Bajrami, 212 Ibid. candidates. Cemiyet’s were as advancing newpresident, the national demands linguistic equality)(including rights, brother), (Nexhip’s Draga Ferat fractions, with two into split was already party the this time init 1923 helped Paši for 1921 Constitution the hissupporters ThusCemiyetvoted of policies. centralist land) Cemiyet (mainly for tocompensation deputies confiscated regard intowith turned almostin (14seats). double the 1923elections number and (1920) parliament first in the 8seats win Cemiyed helped This lists). electoral common “Hak”,party’s organ magazine aweekly published which was inandTurkish Serbian. interests, but by 1923 it already took an Albanian nationalist stance. Cemiyet also had its own Muslim religious autonomy, elementary schools in mother-tongue and defense of landlords of JMO) one the with identical almost was program (whose party religious of Radicals Serband radicals (like Puniša Ra 211 210 ( Cemiyet ( political elite in late 19 elements, such as the founder and its first president, Nexhip Draga, who was a well-knownmember of Albanian 209 2007), 84, 382,600, 685, 703-704; nationalisme albanais: La naissance d’unenation majoritairement musulmane en Europe Clayer, Nathalie see: cause, nationalist Albanian the to 1921. regard in with Vienna activities in his He died about more For Prishtina. of Hasan collaborator close and movement Turk of Young member active 208 Association for Defense the ( andJustice and Muslim other landlords from MacedoniaKosovo, and Sandjak established Islamic The organized inreligious basis.Thus, on 1918anumber18 December Albanian of and Turkish functioning of functioning theirnational parties.” of New OxfordYork: University Press, 2001), 230, 271, 314-315. After1923 elections, Ferat Draga would continuously criticize state policies (agrarian reform, colonization 11 Muslims (almost all of them Albanians) from ‘southern regions’ were in favor of the Constitution. See: Dr. Due to the electoral arrangements between Cemiyet and Radicals, it happened that Albanians were on the lists the on were Albanians that it happened Radicals, and Cemiyet between arrangements electoral the to Due Ivo Banac, Though the landlords (both Turk Albanian)and dominated in Cemiyet,there were also Albanian nationalist Ivo Banac, From From 1923Cemiyet closely1919 to cooperated Radicals with (usually competing with Xhemijet The The Rrethanat Shoqërore dhePolitike në Kosovë më1918-1941, Rrethanat Shoqërore dhePolitike në Kosovë më1918-1941, National Question in Yugoslavia National Question in Yugoslavia th inAlbanian and early 20 early and ü to form to a coalition government, including German representatives. By ù ükrü Hanio th century. Among others, he was member of the Ottoman Parliament, Ottoman of the wasmember he others, Among century. andDžemijet þLü 208 –Paši ÷ lu, The only acceptable political association wasone association political Theonlyacceptable , 377. , 301. Preparation for a Revolution ü ø 44 slam Muhafazai known Hukuk Cemiyet), as ’s hitmen forKosovo and assassinthe of Stjepan Radi in Serbian). 211 Paši 209 In principle, Cemiyet was a was Cemiyet principle, In 212, 213,227. 197. ü ’s promises for concessions for promises ’s . The Yong Turks 1902-1908 (Paris: Karthala, (Paris: 210 Aux originesdu fighting for 212 and later 213 and ü ) CEU eTD Collection Turkey 1918–1941,” 61. Noel Malcolm, legally they became citizens of Yugoslavia only in1928 (with the adoptionof Nationality Law in 1928). See: 217 216 Politike në Kosovë më 1918-1941, Serb mayors whereas 50 municipalities had Albanian mayors. See: Dr. Hakif Bajrami, 215 Rothschild, Kosovo downCemiyet’s organ “Hak”. See: Ivo Banac, Gafurri, a leading figure of Cemiyet and deputy in Parliament was assassinated. State authorities also closedAfterelections he was released but then in 1927 was imprisoned again. At the same electionstime, of 1927. Ferad Dragain1927 was imprisoned Nazim(and sentenced to 20 years) just weeks before 1925 elections. Ra Puniša budget. of these promises were kept. Thus, in 1924 Cemiyet definitely broke with radicals when they voted against the (including stop of terror, the deportation, compensationfor land and opening of schools inAlbanian), but none They had joined Paši 214 Paši Croat oppositionleaning for Zijaipushing toward unconditionedand with Qenan cooperation seen with mistrust and suspicion. Certainly, one of the reasons why they were seen so was so seen were they why reasons of the one Certainly, and suspicion. mistrust with seen andwere continuously from state the harsh treatment a they received aspects many In Serbs. banovia ( organization territorial of forms in all Moreover, citizens. class second remaining (municipalities). level in local power controlled also of and inparties as candidates Serb Yugoslav parliament be would represented candidates dismembermentin of 1927. Cemiyet practical ledto the which Draga personally, againstand Ferat Cemiyet a campaign terror of enjoy their rights their enjoy Yugoslavia, Albanians remained politically marginalizedmost andfor of partcouldthe not be asan from crushed.” were alien to firsttreated the population because into of be they politicalnewthe structure incorporated the state not “could Albanians side,in other was in the 1920s,and on because of Kosovo armeda state early revolt leadersmostly of Cemiyet, largelandowners, couldspeak not for most Albanians, since achieved in with Albanians because,on Yugoslavia, politicalthe of engagement the one side, Though Albanians Leslie Benson, Leslie Forexample, in 1937 in local elections in the regionof Kosovo, according to statistics, 77 municipalities had Concerned were increased already in 1923 when Cemiyet run in elections with its own list and won 14 seats. ü . Soon the cooperation between two political parties ended and state initiated authorities state endedand parties political two between cooperation the . Soon , 271-272; Dr. Hakif Bajrami, models) inmany Albaniansremained scattered by territorial and dominated units the East Central Europe Between the Two World Wars Kosovo þLü Yugoslavia immediately took revenge and an ‘electoral terror’ started in ‘southern regions’ before regions’ in‘southern started terror’ ‘electoral an and revenge took immediately ü 217 ’s government under thecondition thatmore rights givenare to Albanian and Turks de facto , 266; Vladan Jovanovi (guaranteedwith Minority the Treaty Constitution),and Yugoslav thus , 29. were granted various citizenship rights (voting rights) from the very beginning, very the from rights) (voting rights citizenship various granted were 267. Rrethanat Shoqërore dhe Politike në Kosovë më 1918-1941, ü The , “In Search of Homeland? Muslim Migration from Yugoslavia to 214 National QuestionYugoslavia in However, after However,1927occasionally Albanian 45 215 , 218,, 219,224. Generally speaking, nothing much was much nothing speaking, Generally 216 Thus, throughout interwar throughout Thus, , 378; Noel Malcolm, Rrethanat Shoqërore dhe 232; Joseph oblast and CEU eTD Collection Goran AntoniGoran 219 24-25; Noel Malcolm, Fischer, Jürgen of Mirëdita’ bordering Yugoslavia. For more on this, see: Margaret Macmillan, continued with its policy of intervention in Albania also in 1921 when it attempted to create a satellite ‘Republic as a member in the League of Nations with its 1913 borders. The Yugoslav government of Paši government Yugoslav The borders. 1913 its with of Nations League in the a member as accepted finally was Albania when 1920, late until well control under them kept and Albania northern in towns several occupied had army Serbian Indeed, Sea. Adriatic on access to have state Yugoslav new enable to Powers 218 huge impact that Kosovarhuge chieftains hadin that impact justAlbanian tobe was politics eliminated in Bajramminister Curri Kadriuwar in1920and was minister of justice.Hoxhë was of days), some (for Minister Prime then and parliament the of member was Prishtina Hasan – Albania in scene political in the active also were Curri Bajram and Kadriu Hoxhë Prishtina, Hasan Committee, Kosovar figures of the leading The Committee. Kosovar the members of of Albania. of andwith organization wasthe state the of City centre activities of Shkodra wholeaders were engagedinand Kosovo regions Albanian-inhabited uniting of Macedonia coast. and pushing politicians) northern for territorial expansion AlbaniaAdriatictoward and army (Serb elements with Yugoslav affairs, in each-others interfere to willing were countries both from elements political WWI the of aftermath in the Indeed, nexus’. ‘triadic the called with laterthe playing the role of ‘externalthe national homeland’ form to what Brubaker political developmentsin general and those between Yugoslavia and Albania inparticular, Yugoslavia in Albanians and Albania of state 4.3. The Italy infor supportvariousproviding anti-Yugoslav elements from Kosovo. Albanian also state stimulated the feeling amongnationhood of Albaniansin and Kosovo) because of factors, such involvementthe external of as Albania (geographic proximity of the Noel Malcolm, Yugoslav delegation at the Peace Conference was desperately trying to convince representatives of the Great the of representatives convince to trying desperately was Conference Peace the at delegation Yugoslav 218 The behavior of the Yugoslav state Albanians by wasalsoThe behavior state towards affectedregional Yugoslav the of On the other side, Albanian state became the base of Kosovar political andmilitary Kosovar political became of base the state Albanian side, On other the ü , “Kosovski, komitet i KraljevinaSHS usvetlu jugoslovenskih izvora 1918– 1920,” 38. King Zog and theStruggle for Stability inAlbania Kosovo Kosovo, , 276; Bernd Jürgen Fischer, , 276-277; John R. Lampe, 46 King Zog and the Struggle for Stability in Albania Yugoslavia asHistory (Boulder: East EuropeanMonographs, 1984), Paris 1919 , 157. , 109-124; Bernd ü , however, , 219 , 32; This CEU eTD Collection at: < Fischer, continuously chased by the regime until they were eliminated. See: Noel Malcolm, governments, Zogu retookAlbania powerin six months later.From this moment on Kosovarleaders were forcedand Zogu to fleeresign and to Belgrade. But, with the (bothhelp in troops andmoney) byYugoslav opposition ledby Bishopthe Fan Noli, part of whichwere also Kosovarchieftains, organized an armed revolt neutral zone of Junik between Albania and Yugoslavia. However, the critical point was in 1924. The Albanian Selanik”. Prishtina, meant that the irredentist Kosovarmovement was destroyed finally. See: AlbertKotini, assassinated “Nje vrasjeThessalonica ne in 1933 by a manwho is supposed to have beenpaid by King Zog. The death of Hasan 223 Affairs 1920s, see: H. Wickham Steed, “Italy, Yugoslaviaand Albania,” 222 221 of figures leading ofthe one absence) Prishtinës, Bajram Currit, Hoxhë Kadriut etc). Later in January 1923 Ahmet Zogolli had sentenced todeath (in Slovenes in 1922, Zogolli’s government annulled parliamentary mandates of Kosovar the exponents (Hasan 220 Moreover, many and exileddeported Albanian families from Kosovo found refugee in the Kosovo. Albania and school to materials from other textbooks of andsecret delivery Yugoslavia wasin importantfirst factor, an movementorganization of Kosovarthe irredentist in Tirana. Regardless withfound fewCommittee, never exceptions, astaunchin supporter Albanian the government of this, theminority and get rid of Kosovar irredentistvery movement. existencesubjugate itsAlbanian to Yugoslavia’s hand attempt gave to Kosovaragreat the Committee of the state of Albania in border with two countries. in that 1926 would finally sign a bilateral agreement whichfinally settled theborders between Paši politician emergeto in 1920s and 1930s, AhmetZogolli to become(later King ZogI). lost they when years of couple the sympathyof the Paši and support enemy – the Kosovar Committee. Zogolli’s determination to fight Kosovar leaders won him Italy Bajram Curri was killed by Albanian troops in northern Albania in 1925, whereas Hasan Prishtina was For a detailed analyses of the relations betweenAlbania, Italy and Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in John R. Lampe, John Initially, upon the establishment of diplomatic relations betweenAlbania and the Kingdom of Serbs-Croats- ü www.revistaklan.com/material.php?id=703 222 since early 1920s. Cooperation was easy in a situation when both parts hadstaunch a both parts when ina situation easy was Cooperation 1920s. sinceearly , Vol. 6,No.3 (May,1927), 170-178. , thuscausing in nervousness eliminate hisdetermination to Yugoslavia, King Zog and the Struggle for Stability in Albania In a word, KosovarIn a word, Albanian leaders around Being afraid of losing power in Tirana, Zogolli showed interest in cooperating with 221 Yugoslavia as History Yugoslavia Despite the fact that after 1926 Zogolli would build closer relations with kaçaks 220 ü the internal political battle against the strongest Albanian strongest the against battle political internal the , who supported formerIt was since leaders 1923. these the , whosupported , 157. , Azem, Bejtaand in1923 sent he his troops to fight >[last accessed:13.05.2009]. 47 , 62-70; Albert Kotini, “Nje vrasje ne Selanik,” found Journal of the Royal Institute of International kaçak movement and Kosovar and movement Kosovo , 277; Bernd Jürgen kaçaks 223 leaders of in the in CEU eTD Collection and theMacedonians: HistoryA 225 224 activists IMRO Macedonian with Committee inthough many cases Albanians soughttobuild alliances with minorities other (Kosovar In inAlbania. Yugoslav context, leda broader by Committee those especially Kosovar the resistance (through not always passive victims of the state oppressing policies. Rather, they took up the armed schools andin public proclamations of banned the Communist Party Yugoslavia.of atdomestic law)werenotrespected all. Albanian language could beused in only clandestine Albanian language in schools and in printing materials, (guaranteed by international and possibilitythe Albanians clandestine that would carry nationalistout Rights touse activities. Nonetheless, most strictly religiousthe of institutions which were feared bystate, controlled ‘southern regions’ andAlbanians. over control challenge Belgrade’s ready to werenot parts) northern from these (especially everyone almost that very reason for the successful that not they were parties, opposition in national Yugoslavia.” oppressed group became the“most educationstate through attempts plansassimilative later forexpulsions,and Albanians remained inan position stateunfavorable and subjectto oppressive initial policies. With assimilation. Albanians in Yugoslavia helped latterresistthe state policies of cultural and national territory of Albania. Last, but not the least, Albania role as the ‘external homeland’ of For moreon the activities of IMRO ininterwar Yugoslavia see: Ibid.,307-328; Andrew Rossos, Ivo Banac, In cultural In cultural Albanians themost that aspect, could rights. achievewasreligious In conclusion of this chapter, it must be said that throughout interwar period Albanians The National Question in Yugoslavia kaçaks ) and organized various irredentist political and military irredentistactivities, political and military various ) and organized (Stanford: HooverInstitution Press, 2008), 155-165. , 378. 48 225 ) and Cemiyet politicians with Croat 224 On their side, Albanians were Albanians side, their On Macedonia CEU eTD Collection 227 Englishedition) Edward Allworth (Durham: DukeUniversity Press,1994), 327. perspectives on nationality, politics, and opposition in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia 226 of‘social deislamization’. aprocess Asia’ or ‘returned’ to Catholicism and Orthodoxybe to or asneeded ‘Asians’ who Croats and who Serbs either ‘Islamized’ needed as Serbs and to be Croats ‘sentboth by seen backwas former to the context, this In state. new in the elements hostile as seen were Albanians and Muslims state, traditionally anti-Muslim having astrong andanti-Ottoman both Bosnian orientation, new of the cornerstone asthe With Serbia, in new state. the integrated groups the for anyof newin state. the Albanians and Muslims of Bosnian treatment other group. So, in what in with tooneand of course regard events the the determining wererelevant theseall criteria follows I examine alllanguage, geography,levelhistory, of national etc.emancipation (nationhood) Undoubtedly, these factors and religion,thebutdivided bya criteriaof whole set other and characteristics, suchasethnicity, way they affected the were subject both to expropriation and colonization, a process that aimed at changing ethnic changing aimed at that aprocess colonization, expropriation and to both were subject of – land by largewhich (mainly waywasfinishedAlbanians in estates) the already 1931– more. Whileface Albanians Bosnian position was Muslims hadto confiscation of deteriorated both Muslims from by communitiesYugoslavia. policies, the wereaffected Though these by (such carried deport out and state as agrarian the colonization reform, deportation) shouldbefor getrid this So, various of. purpose, plans andstrategies were designed and seen as ‘remaining of Ottoman Empire’ and as‘irritantelement withinSerbia’’ ‘South which Yugoslavia: acomparison 5. Bosnian Muslims and Albanians in the Kingdom of of thistype [pan-Serb]nationalism treated the Muslims of these [southern] regions –particularly thoseof urkic “ Ivo Banac, Alexandre Popovi In the exhilaration of recovering ‘ancestral lands’ from over five centuries of Ottoman control, the proponents and Albanian origin – as second-rate citizens,much inferior to theSlavic Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina.” To begin faithwith, Islamic common (the both) the element wasnot agood pedigree Bosnian Muslims andAlbaniansin inter-war Yugoslavia were united by common The National Question in Yugoslavia ü , “Islamic Movements in Yugoslavia,” in , 362, 372. 227 49 The latter, on the other side, were generally were side, other the on latter, The Muslim communities reemerge: historical - Alexandre Popovi editor (of the ü 226 - CEU eTD Collection 231 230 229 monarchy. it, on Schopflin rested two mutually notwholly supportive put languageand pillars, Yugoslavia, determining Inter-war their the newsouth-Slavicwithin as state. position Muslimsthe of Yugoslavia. regions’ was almost the same – 80 in the former and 85 in the latter. See: Joseph Rothschild, 232 228 illiterate elites (even comparedschools in Consequently,Serbian. Albanians, whoalready in 1918were shortofintellectual to Bosnian languageinstruction, of be and had sufficedto with schoolsreligious in Turkish orstate Muslims), were slow and death” to speak‘natural’ so in a way forced by of the minoritythe language and culturestate from the state’s school system, sentencingto them to a remain contrary,the Albanians werein denied - ofGuibernau,“denial involveswords exclusion the Bosnian morelinguistic withMuslims advantageous to were and rights regard education. In official language of Kingdom the schools, religious to the position werealleviated communities both rights, respect minority to determination state’s of because of than religious politicians Albanian and Muslim Bosnian both of bargaining political the to due more minority.injustices Serbs tothe done during centuriesof the Turkish rule’.” Recognition for the and of ‘make good Kosovo so change structure to ethnic the spareanyattempts not did of religious equality, right to maintain composition of As composition regions’. Klemen ‘southern of schools. Montserrat Guibernau, 127. ofYugoslavia,” fall and rise “The Schopflin, George Though, itshould be noted that in 1921the level of illiteracy Bosnia andin Herzegovina and ‘southern Matjaž Klemen Matjaž Ustav Kralevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca i Hrvata Srba, Kralevine Ustav Second, different language and ethnic origin of the two communities were essential in communities wereessential two language of the andorigin ethnic different Second, en masse 229 Article 3 of the 1921 Constitution defines ‘Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian’ the Article 1921Constitution the as 3of þLþ and Mitja Žagar, Mitja and shari’a . 232 Nations without States The beonly inAlbanian educated way to was clandestine through courts and other charitable religious institutions were granted to all grantedto were and institutions charitable religious other courts The former Yugoslavia’s diverse peoples 230 . Being Serbo-Croat speakers, there is no doubt that doubt no is there speakers, Serbo-Croat Being . od 28. juna,1921. god. 231 , 63. - their right to have schools with Albanian as the as Albanian with schools have to right -their 50 þLþ and Žagar put it, “The andŽagarput Belgrade authorities , 135. 228 Nonetheless, though Nonetheless, East Central East CEU eTD Collection 234 233 101. Europe Between the Two World Wars Albanian irredentist were attempts by boosted verythe existence of state of the Albania in token, thesame By policies. repressive state’s oppose to away as resistance armed chose Cemiyet, of behavior’ ‘clientele despite Albanians, contrast, In abandoned. never was rights JMO’speriod. strategy of for politicaltrading support economic privileges and religious inter-war the Bosnian Muslims of throughout chapters, wascharacteristic political bargaining major asthe two strategies. struggle andresistance armed cultural areincluded,with within homogenizingthe of whichthey tendencies ways states the to myriad in a respond minorities national general, In state. the by receive will they treatment process. carry madeout this to were agreements in plansand be Turkey. need Hence, ‘resettled’ to intentionally Turkswho represented as continuously denied the national minoritiesexistence of in ‘southern Albaniansregions’. were state’s antipathy toward Albanians was ethnic in Albanians character. wasethnic state’s toward antipathy Sinceclearer. the struggle ininterwarwas more ethnic than Yugoslavia rather religious, Croats and Slovenes. In case of Albanians,in contrast, the difference in terms of ethnicity was preceded thecreation of Kingdom that the of initiatives Serbs, were partof political the Serb unlike Moreover, Albanians,elites. Muslim Bosnian in leaders, smaller though numbers, way they fitted more into the concept of the south-SlavicThis nation both. of state, a symbiosis promoted or Croat, mainly or Serb by be either to claimed politicians and intellectuals not just a way of identification Bosnian was third theidentification Muslimsasof of people’ ‘three-named chapter, the part from the others (Croats and Serbs). ‘three-namedthe Yugoslav] [or people’ not and as aliens. Asitis discussed widelyin the Many Bosnian Muslims Hugh Poulton and Miranda Vickers, “The Kosovo Albanians: ethnic confrontation with the Slav state,” 144. state,” Slav the with Montserrat Guibernau, confrontation ethnic Albanians: Kosovo “The Vickers, Miranda and Poulton Hugh Third, the behavior of minorities toward the state was of great importance for the importance was of great state the minorities toward of behavior the Third, As far as ethnic origin is concerned, Bosnian Muslims were considered to be partof to considered were Muslims Bosnian is concerned, origin As far asethnic Nations without States , 276; Charles Jelavich, “South Slav Education; Was There Yugoslavism,” , 114. 51 233 In this basis Yugoslav state 234 As discussed in previous CEU eTD Collection University Press, 1963). more on the crisis of 1930s, see: Jacob B. Hoptner, posed toCentral and South-East European countries had a greatimpact ondevelopments in Yugoslavia. For 239 238 237 236 235 ‘securitization of relations’ of ethnic ‘securitization Yugoslav andunlikestate, the Bosnin Muslims werenotco-opted.” their political andcultural emancipation. Thus,“theAlbanians remainedfirmly to the opposed viewedsuspicion feared with great and state the Albanians Hence, with border Yugoslavia. between thetwominorities, Bosnian Muslims and Albanians. relation the to closer looks section following The well. as relations mutual their affected behavior of the state and the way it treats minorities. the dictated state, of the unity tothe authorities) posed state the to (according community for Yugoslavia. international)and insecurity Albaniansgetrigof andgeneral economicto in1930,aperiod (domestic political, of Turks (Yugoslav-Turkish attempts 1938) of Convention by of described intensification the state the colonists.” languagein andbysettlement schools and administration andMontenegrin of Serb Albanian the of use the allowing especially bynot out carried Serbianization, forcedof policy “v inKosovo strategy, Exactlyline with inthis atthebegging) of nationhood. and sense week(especially quite Bosnian Muslims,in whichwereresiding a kin ‘hinterland’ the country,the of without state than state the to threat agreater presented policies, irredentist or in pursuit and of Yugoslavia potential So,Albaniansthreat. with higher then senseofnationhood, ina kinstate borderthe generally they are blamed for “the misfortunes affecting the whole society”. whole the affecting “the misfortunes they blamedfor generally are In the international level, developments with regard to the creation of the ‘Tripartite Axis’ and pressures and Axis’ ‘Tripartite ofthe creation the to regard with developments level, international the In Montserrat Guibernau, Matjaž Klemen Matjaž Hugh Poulton and Miranda Vickers, “The Kosovo Albanians: ethnic confrontation with the Slav state,” 146. state,” Slav the with Will Kymlicka, confrontation ethnic Albanians: Kosovo “The Vickers, Miranda and Poulton Hugh In addition this,itis to followed obvious Yugoslav thatthe state thestrategy of Finally, of attitudes Albanians andBosnian different state the Muslims toward 237 In reality, i þLþ Multicultural Odysseys and Mitja Žagar, Mitja and The Identityof Nations iolent military iolent followedand andpacification occupation aplanned n times of crises minorities receive a much harsher treatment and treatment harsher much a receive minorities crises of n times The former Yugoslavia’s diverse peoples 236 , 186. , which automatically ranks minorities based on their on based minorities ranks automatically which , (Cambridge: Polity Press,2007), 150. Yugoslavia1934-1941 incrisis, 52 239 Certainly, the level of threat that a certain , 135. 235 (New York, Columbia 238 This is best CEU eTD Collection to three different faiths: Islam, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy) among Albanians. Thus, the emergence of emergence 19 late the in Thus, nationalism Albanian Albanians. the among Orthodoxy) and Catholicism Roman Islam, faiths: different three to creationof a distinct national identity. This is mainly because of the threefold religious divide (Albanians of belongAlbanians and Bosnian Muslims. In the case of the former, religiondidn’t play any significant role in the 242 241 more on this see: Ger Duijzings, motto of the Albanian national elite). the became Rather, hence languageAlbanianism” is was the of Albanians main faith unifying“The Vasa elementPashko poet among Albanian Albanians. by the verse (a terms” For 240 Albanians. of layer identity main the not was in self-identification) element strong quite emphasized religion as the main layer of their group particularity. In contrast, religion (though Serbs and Croats and a relatively week sense of ethnic consciousness, Bosnian Muslims with similarities linguistic of Because communities. between two the gap the of prevalence 140; Alexandre Popovi Ramet, “Primordial Ethnicity orModern Nationalism: The Case of Yugoslavia’s Muslims, Reconsidered,” 111-religious identity. Thus, in the case of Bosnian Muslims, religion was nationalized.Bosnian Muslim For morenational see: elites throughout Sabrina Petrathe twentieth century persistedprojects, in the recognitionof their nationalization distinctivereligion Croat and providedof Serb the key targets to a distinct being Bosnian and Muslim Croats, and nationalSerbs identity. with Though group embracing Yugoslavism, linguistic same University Press, 1967). On the otherside, BosnianMuslim identity is built around religion.Karthala, 2007); Being Stavro Skendi, part of the origines dunationalisme albanais: La naissance d’une nation majoritairement musulmane en Europe Serbs.” adopted a Muslims Bosnian most citizens, class assecond treated were lifestyle state Slav in aSouth Slavs waynot of life. As veryanthropologist Gerdifferent Duijzingsby Austro-Hungarian DifferencesEmpire (1878-1918). werealsonotable intraditions and put it, “contrary to the Albanians, from administration Bosnia andHerzegovina’s during obliterated waspartially Ottoman experience who as non- that of consciousness.” andethnic language by divided tradition, each other, Roman Catholic quite apartfrom and“they stood problems, in facedsame initially they onestate the lived Croatscharacterizedby a traditional, cultural and geographic gapbetween them. Despiteor the fact that Orthodox competition religious and relationship 5.1. Mutual There is a striking contrast with regard to the role of religion in the emergence of a distinct Ibid., national identity Ger Duijzings, 241 Albanians and Bosnian Muslims in though Yugoslavia, united by were religion, However, above all, language and ethnic consciousness were essential factors in factors essential were consciousness ethnic and language all, above However, Religion and thePolitics of Identity in Kosovo ü , “Islamic Movements in Yugoslavia,” 322-330. The Albanian national awakening, 1878-1912 Religion and the Politics of Identity in Kosovo th and early 20 early and th century was, to use Guijzings phrase, “clothed in religious in “clothed phrase, Guijzings use to was, century 53 , 128. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton , 1157-175; Nathalie Clayer, 240 Their common Their (Paris: 242 Aux CEU eTD Collection 245 244 Yugoslavia reemerge: historicalperspectives onnationality, politics, and opposition in the former Soviet Union and 243 Serbs and doitbannerCroatians, it underthe of Muslimnation.a specific didn’t Though former managedstrengthenthe to BosnianMuslimfeelingthe from of separateness project. national a formulate to enough strong were Cemiyet nor JMO neither bases, national were placed under the supreme authority of the authority supreme the under were placed (until separate Muslims of ex-Habsburg other (and Bosnia-Herzegovina territories) 1929, all project Albanians for in period. inter-war the functioned abroad and which was declared as enemy of the Yugoslav state, had a real national Albanian let national aloneproject, it carry Thus, Kosovar only which Committee, out. occasionally took the role of an Albanian national leader, Cemiyet was unable even to draft an Slavic-Muslim minorities (above all, Muslimsfrom Sandjak. Despite thefact that Ferat Draga Albanian) Muslimsit included‘southern other from such as regions’, Turks and various included Muslims,predominantly represent. UnlikeJMOthat (though Cemiyet Bosnian only to itnational aimed people the to of question haveregard with aclearstance unable to uniqueness with membership in the and Croatian Serbian nation.” Muslim elite of inter-war period “sought to reconcile preservation of religious-cultural religious and cohesion of exist. Bosnian the ThisMuslims to instead way, of tying its struggle for political culturalimpossible for anational itwas almost areconcerned, loyalties national as far their rights of situation whenBosnian Bosnian Muslim elite (including JMO itself) was quite fragmented and divided Muslims to national unity of Muslims, Bosnian of Serbia and Montenegro were headed bythesupreme of Serbia and Montenegro Radmila Radic, “Religion in a Multicultural State: The case of Yugoslavia,” 199. Ibid., 217. Wolfgang Höpken,“Yugoslavia’s Communists and Bosnianthe Muslims,” in In addition to the fact that Bosnian Muslims and Albanians were not recognized on These differences, combined with state’s strategy of keeping Yugoslavia’s Muslims keeping Yugoslavia’s of strategy state’s with combined Thesedifferences, editor (of the English edition) Edward Allworth (Durham: Duke University Press, 1994), 221. 54 reis-ul-ulema mufti in Belgrade) in Sarajevo, while the Muslims 244 Similarly, Cemiyet was Cemiyet Similarly, Muslim communities 245 widened gap the 243 In a CEU eTD Collection Jugoslovenska Muslimanska u Politi 252 251 250 249 248 247 Nathalie Clayer Eric and Germain (London: Hurst & Company,2008), 258. shari’acourts and Islamic law in Bosnia and Herzegovina1918-1941,” in Popovi policies contributed in weakening the ties of the former Ottoman Empire Muslim subjects. As of Yugoslavia was Historicalobvious. growing experience, senseofnationhood, and state overcome their position as second-rank believers within the Islamic Community.” constitutional guarantees for the existence and jurisdiction of Shari’a courts. See: Fikret Kar Fikret See: courts. Shari’a of jurisdiction and existence the for guarantees constitutional 246 from Sandjak (who were considered to be part of the Bosnian dismembered. was practically Muslims – they were sad to be Bosnian Muslims, they were notsupported politically by JMO even after 1924, when Cemiyet than position in a worse were south the Muslims from that fact the Despite rule. Hungarian had Bosniancontrary Muslims under period arelatively have Austro- to who prosperous – onlookers long the agony and disintegration ultimate of ‘The Sick Man Europe’” of Islam in Yugoslavia” communities.relations betweenbeing With “the andHerzegovina heartlandtwo Bosnia of level of the Bosnian Muslims from Bosnia, something whichdidn’t happen only because of higherthe educational Slavic by dominated always was inYugoslavia Community Islamic the asymmetrical; been clearly have Albanians and Muslims Bosnian between relations aspect, religion-political not embrace (mainlyin Albanians). Muslims andMacedonia Kosovo name, its inMuslim Yugoslav despite Organization the did(JMO), party Muslim Yugoslavia, between both between both communities even more. Political cooperation was missing too. In reality, in 1927 JMO claimed that they didn’t have anything in common with Cemiyet. See: Atif Purivatra, Alexandre Popovi Ibid., 127. Ibid., 116. Ger Duijzings, Leslie Benson, Leslie One of the rare occasions when Cemiyet and JMO agreed was their tacit agreement in 1920 to ask for ask to 1920 in agreement tacit their was JMOagreed and Cemiyet when occasions rare ofthe One ü In addition, the missing of a stronger religious sense of solidarity among all Muslims all among solidarity of sense religious a stronger of missing the addition, In put it, Muslims of ‘southern regions’ “endured – for the most part as helpless Religion and thePolitics of Identity in Kosovo Yugoslavia ü , “Islamic Movements in Yugoslavia,” 326. ulema 249 , 29. , Muslims from , Muslims from ‘southernthe maderegions’ several attempts to . 248 Thus, a kind of Thus,in competition akind hasbeen religious of dominant the 252 þ kom Životum Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca, Nevertheless, JMO always differentiated between Muslims 55 , 128. Islam in Inter-War Europe 247 337 (footnote 73). Moreover, on the on Moreover, þLü , ”The reform of reform , ”The 246 250 Thelargest eds. 251 , CEU eTD Collection Bey Madrasa, MeddahMedressa Bey Madrasa, Council of the Islamic Religious Community located in Belgrade, with two with in Belgrade, located Community Religious Islamic the of Council Islamic Religious Community inThislawwas passed 1930. in Muslims united the Supreme religious institutions shortlywas interrupted in period 1930-1936,the when Lawon the the three in the present widely also were Bosnia 257 Company, 2008), 344-361. Muslims by Stateauthorities,putting themagainst in each-other. initial their attempts to authority. administrative become supreme to Minister Justice the Sarajevoand Skopje,andabolished religious Muslim’s the andeducational autonomy with Theology) in School Islamic of faculty rank of 1937 –High reis ul-ulema were dominating Muslim institutionsreligious inYugoslavia.Apartfrom institutionthe of 254 253 inter-warperiod,” in 256 255 1941,” 261. Kar Fikret See: model. Bosnian on the based created was one a united and abolished were Law ofIslamic application the of systems 1929, when new lawsAfter on the unificationof Ottomans. times the of from law Islamic Islamic Religious tothe Community according were regulated were adopted, Sandjak the and two Macedonia different Kosovo, (including separately governed were regions’ ‘southern Muslims. from Bosnian anddifferent Serbs BosniaandHerzegovina as inwere categorical whooutside Slavic-Muslims considering Sandjak), they couldn’tobserving the in situation Sandjak (in JMO’s paper embrace them politically minorities. national due to the objection and of bloods)) Albanianswere regardedas ‘krv naše and our Turks,who (blood krvi’ of the state officials, Radmila Radic, “Religion in a Multicultural State, 200. Ibid., 344. See: Muhammed Aruçi, “The Muslim Minority in Macedonia and its Educational Institutions during the Ibid., 262. Shari’a Finally, state authoritiesFinally,state relations Albanians tried toaggravate and between Bosnian Though in periodthe 1919-1929Muslims of Bosnia andthoseof and Herzegovina courts in Bosnia were regulated by the model inherited from Habsburg Empire, whereas these ones in ones these whereas Empire, Habsburg from inherited model by the regulated were Bosnia in courts in Sarajevo there was also a Shari’a Law Schools (which was elevated to the Islam in Inter-War Europe þLü 253 , ”The reform of shari’a courts and Islamic law in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1918- Herzegovina and inBosnia law Islamic and courts ofshari’a reform , ”The Though JMO and Bosnian Muslim politicians were constantly were politicians Muslim Bosnian and JMO Though ) in) Skopje. eds. Nathalie Clayer and Eric Germain (London: Hurst & medresa 56 256 However, BosnianMuslims’ in supremacy Pravda ( King Alexander’s Velika Medresa,Isa shari’a there was a special column for 255 257 courts) and religious teachers from teachers and religious 254 Bosnian Muslims Bosnian ulema councils in councils CEU eTD Collection possible aspect – national, religious and cultural diversity, historical experiences as well as well as situation the hadcomplicated this Though complexity etc. its of communities visions political experiences historical diversity, cultural and religious national, – aspect possible Conclusion theirmutual relations, which, as we have seen, weren’t close or intensive at all. impacted behaving toward) newthe waysconsequently,different (and,state perceiving of maneuvering.Bosnian Muslims’ all andabove Finally, political differences these their to ascompared unity andterritorial political state’s to the threat greater posed resistance) resistance By or newattitude structures. the (including armed Albanians’ sametoken, state the ethnicity is the cornerstone of new nation-state, Bosnian Muslims were co-opted easier within language wherebased ontheconceptofnation-state, modeled and (assumed) common state a In religion. common than their attitude state’s indetermining factors important wide in of Their range andlanguagemoreandaspects contexts. werefar differences ethnicity collectiveidentity amongAlbanians as to opposed ethnicthe national or one. inout institutions,religious these alsoefforts atstrengthening aimed of senseof the religious all. at Albanian 259 258 to replace Albanian inauthoritieseducation necessary state Albanian, in and Kosovo undertook Macedonia steps number of Albanian of number area. the to teachers Muslim speaking Serb-Croat assimilate the Albanian minority through state-sponsored schools, brought tothe area Bosnian Denisa Kostovicova,“’Shkolla Shqipe’ and Nationhood,” 161. Hugh Poulton,“Macedonians and Albanians as Yugoslavs,” 127. It is beyond any doubt that inter-war Yugoslavia was a very complex state in every sum To Albaniansup the argument, Muslimsand Bosnian differently were treated in a 259 Apart from Apart Albanian preventing educational carried activities clandestine mullahs imams with Serb-Croat speaking Bosnian Muslims who spoke no spoke who Muslims Bosnian speaking Serb-Croat with (Muslim Teachers) and Teachers) (Muslim 57 258 Similarly, in a reaction to the increasing the to a reaction in Similarly, imams who embraced the cause of CEU eTD Collection were victimsmarginalization of and, partially,Although in expulsion.forms and different etc., Jews Hungarians, Germans, Turks, Albanians, as such minorities non-Slavic hand, other ‘nationalization’ (like changes of the surnames and religion in some cases). forced system, through centralized educational out werecarried policies, which 261 260 nation their of part thus and Croat, and/or Serb ethnically as minority such groups as Bosnian andMuslims, Macedonians Montenegrins, which were seen south-Slavic side, Onone lot. varied a various minorities toward approach state’s practically), and verbally (both diversity internal in ignoring persistent was state the Though Yugoslavia. minority assimilation Both expulsion of inprocesses or interwar groups. were present (understood in ethnic terms)alienated that smaller minority groups. came to the center of politics.” of center the came to ethnic discourses separate by non-Serbs; andoppressive alien be as came perceived state, to Consequently,environment. as “The argues,Schopflin monarchy, from farlegitimating the homogenous nation-sate out of a profoundly heterogonous national, religious, and cultural a create to attempts and state-centralism from the most the suffered have disempowerment, victims been nationalvarious which andpolitical haveconsequently of cultural groups, that is undeniable it Certainly, Yugoslavia. in interwar developments political of course nation’) and lack of willingness as unity itunity people’,‘three nations’(be ‘south-Slavic understood ‘three-named the of or to accommodatethroughout the thesis,it was the predominant official state ideology of centralism andvarious national nationalargue to as Ihavetried a questionable intoRather, polity. and opposed state rendered the interests, that hasand made the task of managingset the state quite thedifficult, itis not the complexity Hugh Poulton and Miranda Vickers, “The Kosovo Albanians: ethnic confrontation with the Slav state,” 146. state,” Slav the with confrontation ethnic Albanians: Kosovo “The Vickers, Miranda and Poulton Hugh 173. ofYugoslavia,” fall and rise “The Schopflin, George In general, state attempt to ignore and eliminate internal diversity ledeither to internal diversity ignoreandeliminate attempt to In general, state 260 It is state centralism and ideology is centralism Itideology national unity of and state 58 261 , were victims of assimilative of victims were , On the On per se per that CEU eTD Collection nationhood, their struggle was more one of their of nationhood, wasmorecultural resistance,regard aboveall, one to struggle with inMoreover, a whenBosnian Muslims lacked situation still sense of a well developed economic in Belgradeprivileges. andpolitical secure various central and government successful infor mobilizingbe it Bosnian Muslims to partof using and their support the very identity unity Bosnia-Herzegovina.JMO was of territorial retains way,and This receptive Yugoslavia to andYugoslavism it recognizes that provided theirreligious different were in general Muslims action. Bosnian concrete and in both perception state, the toward Albanians Muslimsand in Here again of Bosnian differences attitude the areclear there and deportation. expulsion than evil’ be ‘lesser to assimilation consider I that implies this way in no However, inrid concrete steps them lateget 1930s. state authorities Turks) (and of to undertook in Albanians, caseof the Whereas, assimilation. religious even and slow cultural choosing (this,notdeny however, does factthe many that Bosnian Muslims leftYugoslavia), thus any attemptFurther, was made state noserious expulsekey domain. to Muslims Bosnian in against andwere discriminated rights) and educational (language obligations international rightsfrom continuously eventhose deriving andweren’tgranted Yugoslavia’s denied were whereas thelatter of unification), from very the process (starting institutions So, forimportance thenewfoundmoreparamount state the former spacewithin state. theirwere perceiveddifferently ethnicity origin,due to illustrating ethnic that was of thus are in that focus of thesis. Though this samethe religion,of Bosnian AlbaniansMuslims and the firstlevel of distinction between Bosnian Muslims and Albanians, as the two communities Yugoslavia.inter-war the of creation the after migration forced of victims were communities these all numbers, The second line of difference,is that of the behavior of the minorities toward the state. Thus, in categorization andSlavic south-Slavic non-south of communities represents 59 CEU eTD Collection Bosnian Muslims and Albanians, as well as the relation between themselves. As farasthe themselves. between relation asthe as well Albanians, and Muslims Bosnian and state the between relationship the determining in role a great played mention didn’t I and others factors Allthese former. as the areasrelevant factors many other and geography Different political capacities, differences in possession of cultural and political elites, different Albanians in nevertheless,Yugoslavia, negate Idon’t therolefactors as of well.other to be the main factors which led to differentideology of centralismtreatment and national unityand on oneposition side and minorities’ of attitude Bosnian toward the state Muslims and Yugoslavia. unity of andstate national to the threat greater Albanians posed that understandable intraditionhavingit ofarmedkin-state is oppositionand aYugoslavia’s borders, opposition minoritiesof is issue the security.of state Being nationally more aware, having a religious, pro-Serb, and Albanian national orientations. Another issue related to resistance and elements had whereits different in Cemiyet, best exemplified streams were different These national. and political some and religious, purely being them of some minority, differentgroups, visions putforward by and were claimsthat members of Albanian the various There were unit. single unified and speak of asa them wecannot thestate, opposed Albanians ingeneral though earlier, explained have I as However, Committee. Kosovar cultural andmaincultural resistance armed beingthe struggle by strategies used beginning.inThey ways different homogenizingresponded tothe tendencies with state, the of especially at the newto the state, firmly opposed remained Albanians experienceSerbia, with andhistorical recent senseofnationhood of stronger Because ideology their of Yugoslavism. privileges which would help them be receptive toward and co-opted in the state. religious rights. Certainly, they werequite successful invarious obtaining religious and rights Despite the fact that I consider (in)compatibility of the minorities and state official and state minorities of the (in)compatibility consider I factthat the Despite In contrast, Albanians showed little signs of acceptance of the new state and official 60 kaçaks and the and CEU eTD Collection achieve ideal the whichis nation-state. a homogenous national of self-determination, of in to assimilation a state appliedEurope) that and deportation order offorced policies a uniqueYugoslavia,not above allAlbanians, case thewas former Eastern Central (in Thus, despite completely unfavorable position of most of the minorities in inter-war sovereignty. andstate minority rights to with regard especially period, inter-war of context international the in consideration take also I Yugoslavia, of state the by groups minority organization of religious institutions. ineven minorities the aspect whereboth quite were equal autonomy – religious and in it Muslims dominating Bosnin is with was asymmetrical, relation overall concerned, later Lastby notleast, while the strongly argument supporting the treatment of different of 61 CEU eTD Collection Stephen Stephen Clissold. Cambridge Cambridge: University Press, 1966. Darby, H.C. “Macedonia.” In “Macedonia.” Darby, H.C. predominantly Muslim nation in Paris: Karthala,Europe). 2007. majoritairement musulmane enEurope Nathalie. Clayer, University Press, 1955. Claude Jr., Inis L. Boulder:European East Monographs, 1992. Castellan, Georges. Castellan, 1914. Endowment, to inquireintothecauses andconductof theBalkan Wars Peace. for International Endowment Carnegie Contention Burgess, Adam. “National Minority Rights and the ‘Civilizing’ of Eastern Europe.” Cambridge:Europe. Cambridge University 1996. Press, Brubaker, Rogers. Hakif. Bajrami, Germain.& London:Company, Hurst 2008. Historiography Historiographic Discussion.“ In A in “The Nation Bosnia-Herzegovina: of a “Muslim” Formation Fikret. Adanir, Bibliography Failed Ideas1918- Bougarel, Xavier. “Bosnian Muslims and the Yugoslav Idea.” In Leslie. Benson, London: Cornell University Press, 1993. Ivo. Banac, social in circumstances Kosovo 1918-1941). Prishtinë: Instituti i Historisë së Kosovës, 1981. period.”In inter-war during the Aruçi,“The Muhammed. Muslim Minority in Macedonia andits Educational Institutions Antoni Allcock, John B. 1918-1920) 1920.” (Kosovar Committee and Serb-Croat-Slovenein Kingdom light of Yugoslav sources ü , Goran. “Kosovski, Goran. i komitet Kraljevina SHSusvetlu izvora jugoslovenskih 1918– , Vol. No.2, (Winter 5., : 1996) 17-35. The NationalQuestion inYugoslavia: Origins, History,Politics Istorija 20.Veka . Eds. FikretAdan. Eds. Yugoslavia: AConcise History Rrethanat ShoqëroredhePolitike nëKosovë më1918-1941 Explaining Yugoslavia Aux origines du nationalismealbanais: Lanaissance d’unenation Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood andtheNational Question inthe New 1922. Ed. Dejan Djoki National Minorities: AnInternational Problem History of the Balkans: FromMohammed theConqueror toStalin , Issue 1(2006) :27-45. A ShortHistory of Yugoslavia: FromEarly Times to1966 Islam in Inter-War Europe The Ottomansand the Balkans. ADiscussion of Õ r and Suraiyar and Faroqhi. Leiden: Brill, 2002. (On the origin of Albanian nationalism: birth of a . London: Hurst & . London:Company, Hurst 2000. ü . London:& Company, Hurst 2003. 62 Report ofthe International Commission . NewYork:Palgrave, 2001. . Washington, D.C: The . Eds. Nathalie Clayer and Eric Yugoslavism: Histories ofa . Cambridge: Harvard . Ithaca and (Political and . . Ed. CEU eTD Collection Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Hobsbawm, Eric J. London: Saqi, 2007. Attila. Marko Hoare, ManagementVienna, of 2003. of Yugoslavia Hasani, Enver. Oxford University 2001. Press, Hanio Encyclopedia Publishing House,1993. Kosova Hadri, Ali.“The Albanian Population of Kosova between two World Wars.” In Cambridge: Polity 1999. Press, Guibernau, Montserrat. Guibernau, 1996. Francine. Friedman, European Monographs, 1984). Fischer, Bernd Jürgen. Fischer, twentieth-century documents --- ed. Monograph, 1995. Elsie, Robert. 2000. Duijzings, Ger. Duijzings, Hoover Institution Press, 1983. Dragnich, AlexN. London: Hurstand Company, 1994. Donia, Robert J. and John V. A. Fine Jr. University Press, 2007. Djoki Nadezda Gace Djilas, Milovan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. ---. et al. ü ÷ , Dejan. , Gathering clouds: the roots ethnic of cleansing inKosovo and Macedonia -early lu, . The Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Albania – Institute of History. Tirana: A ShortHistory of Yugoslavia from Early timesto1966 ù ükrü. . Vienna: National Defence Academy’s Institute for Peace Support and Conflict History ofAlbanianLiterature . With . With introduction an by Banac.London: Hurst Ivo & Company, 1998. Elusive Compromise:A Historyof Interwar Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity and International Stability: The Case Religion andthe Politics Identityof inKosovo The Bosniak Preparation a Revolution for The First Yugoslavia. Search aViable for PoliticalSystem Nations andnationalism since 1780. Programme, myth,reality The BosnianMuslims:denial of anation The History of BosniaFrom theMiddle Ages tothe Present Day King Zogandthe Struggle for Stabilityin Albania Nations without States.Political Communities ina Global Age . Pejë: Dukagjini, 2002. . Adil Zulfikarpasic in dialoguewith MilovanDjilasand Bosnia and Herzegovina (Volume 1). Boulder: Social Science 63 . The Yong Turks 1902- Yugoslavia. New York: Columbia . Boulder: Westview Press, . London: Hurst & Company, . Ed.Stephen Clissold. : A Tradition BetrayedA 1908. NewYork: . Boulder: East . Stanford: The Truthon . . . . CEU eTD Collection Kotini,Albert. “Nje vrasje ne Selanik.”: < sourcebook Klemen & Hurst Company, 2008. 1918-1941.” In 1918-1941.” Kar Published Seattle: University Washingtonof Press, 1986. --- and--- BarbaraJelavich. StanfordCase. University Stanford: Press, 2003. Historians: Understanding theBalkanWars of1990s Jelavich, Charles.“South Slav Education; Was There Yugoslavism.” In History of Currents ---. “In Search of Homeland? from Muslim Migration Yugoslavia toTurkey 1918–1941.” SerbiaSouth Beograd: 1918-1929). Inis, 2002. Jovanovi Inis,Beograd: 2005. 1941 Janjetovi Institutions Hupchick, P. Dennis Duke University 1994. Press, Sovietformer Unionand Yugoslavia communities reemerge: historical perspectives onnationality,politics, and opposition in the Höpken, Wolfgang. “Yugoslavia’s Communists and Bosnian the Muslims.” In 1963. communist era: a historical ahistorical perspective.” era: communist in post- minority-rights of andstandards of self-determination “Standards M. Maria Kovacs, Fischer. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University 2002. Press, Albanian Identities:Myth and History nativethe language ininterwar and (1918-41) post-autonomy In Kosovo.” (1989-98) Kostovicova, Denisa. “’Shkolla Shqipe’ and Nationhood: Albanians in pursuitof in education Imamovi Macmillan, 2002. Hoptner, Jacob B. þLü (Sultan’s children, king’s shepherds: national minorities in 1918-1941). Yugoslavia , Fikret. ”The reform of shari’a courts and Islamic law in Bosnia and Herzegovina þLþ ü ü ü , Vladan. , , Zoran. , Mustafa. , Matjaž and Mitja Žagar. Mitja and , Matjaž . Sarajevo: Magistrat, 2006. Magistrat, . Sarajevo: . California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2004. Islam inInter-War Europe Deca careva, pastor Yugoslavia incrisis, 1934-1941 (Tokovi istorije), issue: 12 (2008) :56-67. Jugoslovenska Država iJužnaSrbija 1918-1929 Bosnia andHerzegovina: Evolutionof Its Political and Legal The Balkans:Constantinople from to The establishment of the The establishment of Balkan nationalstates, 1804-1920 . Editor of the English edition Edward Allworth. Durham: The former The former Yugoslavia’s diverse peoples:areference . Eds.Stephanie and Schwandner-Sievers J. Bernd þ ad kraljeva Nations andNationalism 9(3), www.revistaklan.com/material.php?id=703 . Eds. Nathalie Clayer and Eric Germain. London: 64 . New York, Columbia University Press, . Nacionalne manjine u Jugoslaviju 1918- . Eds. Norman M. Naimark and Holly communism. New York: Palgrave (Yugoslav State and Yugoslavia andIts (2003) : 433-450. Muslim . > CEU eTD Collection 1994. Yugoslavia historical perspectives on nationality,politics, and opposition in the Sovietformer Union and Popovi 8 Pesic, Vesna. “Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis.” State Pavkovi Turkish Review Balkan Studies,of 9 Oksüz, Hikmet andÜlkü Köksal.“Emigration from Turkey Yugoslavia to (1923-1960).” and in colonization Kosovo 1918-1941). Prishtina, 1981. Obradovi (National Freedom), July 1931). 13, (Geneva, Novakovi Yugoslav Multinational Setting.” Mulaj,Klejda. “A Recurrent Tragedy: Ethnic Cleansing as a Tool of State Building in the Princeton: The Darwin Press Inc., 1995. Justin. McCarthy, Mazower, Mark. Mazower, the Leagueof Mair, L. P. Lellio. Anthem NewYork: 2006). Press World warsbased onmyth?“ In ---. “Is the complaint about the Serb state’s deportation policy of Albanians between the two ---. Malcolm, Noel. Malcolm, 2002.House, Margaret. Macmillan, 1918-1922 ---. “The Two Yugoslavias as Economic Unions.” In University Press, 2000. Lampe, John R. Diversity Kymlicka, Will. . Washington D.C.: United. Washington Institute States of Peace, 2005. Kosovo: AShort . London: Macmillan 1997.Press Ltd., ü , Alexandre. “Islamic Movements in Yugoslavia.” In ü . Oxford: Oxford University 2007. Press, , Alexandar. ü ü , Milorad. . Ed. Dejan Djoki , Kosta. “The Colonization and Serbianization of Kosovo.” . Editor of the English edition Edward Allworth. Durham: Duke University Press, The ProtectionMinorities. of TheWorking andScopeof MinorityTreaties under Nations. London:Christophers, 1928. Bosnia: AShortHistory Yugoslavia as History: Twice therewas acountry Multicultural Odysseys Multicultural The Balkans. A Short The Balkans.A Death andExile:TheEthnicCleansing ofOttomanMuslims 1821-1922 History. London: Macmillan, 1998. Agrarna reforma ikolonizacija naKosovu 1918-1941 The Fragmentation ofYugoslavia: Nationalismin a Multinational Paris 1919:six months that changed theworld ü . London: Hurst &Company, 2003. The Case for Kosova:The Case Passage for toIndependence Nationalities Papers, Vol.34,No.1, (2004):145-177. History. York”Modern New Library, 2002. . . London:. Papermac, 1994. Navigating the New International Politics of 65 Yugoslavism: HistoriesaFailed of Ideas Muslim communitiesreemerge: . Cambridge: Cambridge . New York: Random (March 21-50. 2006) : Liria Kombëtare (Agrarian reform Peaceworks No. Peaceworks . Ed. Anna Di . CEU eTD Collection Publications Inc.,2003. Sajti, Enik Encyclopedia Publishing House,1993. The Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Albania – Institute of History. Tirana: Rushiti, Liman. “TheOutlawin Movement Kosova (1918-1928).” In Failed Ideas1918-1922 Rusinow, Dennison.“Yugoslav Idea before Yugoslavia.” In Press, 1974.Washington Rothschild, Joseph. Press, 2008. Rossos, Andrew. Rossos, Press, 2004. Greenwood Rogel, Carole. Affairs of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress, 1943. Robinson, Jacob et al. et Jacob Robinson, WilsonWoodrow Press, 2006. ---. 1994. Yugoslavia perspectives onnationality,politics, andopposition inthe Sovietformer Unionand Yugoslavia’s Muslims, Reconsidered.” In Ramet, Sabrina Petra. “Primordial Ethnicity or Modern Nationalism: The Case of a Failed Histories of Ideas 1918-1922 In The caseof Yugoslavia.” in State: Radmila.a Multicultural “Religion Radic, Appropriateness.” Radan, Peter. andCroats Slovenes). Svjetlost, Sarajevo: 1977. Slovenaca “Yugoslavia’s Atif. Purivatra, Hurst &Company,in association with Islamicthe Council, 1997. Internal Borders as International Borders: A Question of In --- and Miranda Vickers,“The Kosovo Albanians: ethnic confrontation with the Slav state.” Failed Ideas1918-1922 Hugh.“MacedoniansPoulton, andAlbanians as Yugoslavs.” In Muslim Identityand the Balkan State The Three Yugoslavias: and State-Building Legitimation 1918-2005 (Yugoslav Muslim inOrganization politicalthe life of Kingdom the of Serbs, Ę . Editor of the English edition Edward Allworth. Durham: Duke University Press, A. The Breakup ofThe Breakup Yugoslaviaandits Aftermath Hungarians in theVoivodina1918-1947 Jugoslovenska Muslimanska uPoliti Macedonia and theMacedonians:A Macedonia and East EuropeanQuarterly, XXXIII, No.2 East Central EuropeBetween theTwo World Wars Were theMinorities Treaties aFailure? . . Ed. Dejan Djoki Ed. Dejan Djoki . Ed. Dejan Djoki . Eds.Hough andPoulton SuhaTaji-Farouki. London: ü ü Muslim communities reemerge: historical . London:& Company, Hurst 2003. . London: Hurst & Company,. London:Hurst 2003. 66 þ kom ŽivotumKraljevine Srba, Hrvatai History. Hoover Stanford: Institution ü . Boulder: Atlantic Research and . London: Hurst & Company, 2003. (1999):137-155. . Westport and. Westport London: Yugoslavism: Histories of a Yugoslavism: Historiesof New York: Institute of Jewish Yugoslavism: Histories ofa The TruthonKosova . Seattle: University of University . Seattle: . Washington D.C.” Yugoslavism: CEU eTD Collection < Declaration,20July1917 The Corfu The Constitution oftheKingdom of Yugoslavia Kosova The Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Albania – Institute of History. International Affairs H. Wickham.Steed, “Italy, and Albania.” Yugoslavia StanfordCase. University Stanford: Press, 2003. Historians: Understanding theBalkanWars of1990s ideological, and Cultural Causes of the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia.” In Suppan, Arnold. “Yugoslavism versus Serbian, Croatian and Slovene Nationalism: Political Press, 1991. in Yugoslavia after the First World War.” In Verli, Marenglen. “The Colonizing Agrarian Reform inKosova and Albanian other Regions Fred. Singleton, Westview Press, 1982. Hugh. Seton-Watson, 1942.Torchbooks, http://digital.nb.rs/razno/ustav/swf.php?lang=eng&direct=RA-ustav-1921 Gece Kona, 1921. Kingdom andof Serbs-Croats Slovenes of 29 June Beograd 1921). : Izdava Ustav Kralevine Srba,HrvataiSlovenaca bourgeoisie).Prishtinë: Rilindja, 1975. borgjezisë sërbe < Germain-en-Laye, 10September1919. St. State. and Serb-Croat-Slovene Powers the AlliedandAssociated between Principal Treaty the Schumpeter, Joseph A. regulation Schopflin, George. “The rise and fall of Yugoslavia.” In andPrinceton Oxford: Princeton University 2006. Press, Saskia. Sassen, Tucovi Dordrecht :M. Nijhoff, 1994. ed. Snežana Trifunovska, http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/greaterserbia_corfudeclaration.htm http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1920/14.html ü . Tirana: Encyclopedia Publishing House,1993. , Dimitrije. . John McGarry and Brendan O’Leary.London and New York: Rowtledge, 1993. Territory, Authority,Rights.From Medieval toGlobalAssemblages (Serbia and Albania: a critical contribution on the hegemonic politics of Serb A Short History the Yugoslavof People Sërbia dheShqipëria: njëkontribut për kritikën epolitikës pushtuese të , Vol. 6,No.3(May,1927) :170-178. Eastern Europe Between theWars 1918-1941 Capitalism,Socialism and Democracy Yugoslavia through its documents: from creation toitsdissolution , od 28.juna, 1921.god. The Truth onKosova 67 , Belgrade, September 3,1931. . Eds. Norman M. Naimark and Holly Journal ofthe Royal Institute of . Cambridge: Cambridge University The politics of ethnicconflict . New York: Harper . NewYork: > The Academy of Sciences (The Constitution of the of Constitution (The . Boulder and London: Yugoslavia andIts > þ The Truthon ka Knjižarnica . . CEU eTD Collection www.aacl.com/expulsion2.html Kosovës, 2001. www.firstworldwar.com/source/greaterserbia_skupshtina.htm Gazmend. Zajmi, Company, 1998. Vickers, Miranda. 1993. of Republicthe Albania of –Institute of History. Tirana: Encyclopedia Publishing House, Vepra Between Serb and Albanian: Ahistoryof Between SerbandAlbanian: 2 (Works 2). Prishtinë: Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve të 68 Kosovo. London: Hurst &