塞尔维亚驻伦敦公使Mateja Boskovic,南斯拉夫委员会,一战期间塞尔维亚的南斯拉夫政策(1914-1916)

D. Bakić
{"title":"塞尔维亚驻伦敦公使Mateja Boskovic,南斯拉夫委员会,一战期间塞尔维亚的南斯拉夫政策(1914-1916)","authors":"D. Bakić","doi":"10.2298/balc1950173b","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper seeks to examine the outlook of the Serbian Minister in London, Mateja Mata Boskovic, during the first half of the Great War on the South Slav (Yugoslav) question - a unification of all the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in a single state, which was Serbia?s war aim. He found himself in close contact with the members of the Yugoslav Committee, an organisation of the irredentist Yugoslav ?migr?s from Austria-Hungary in which two Croat politicians, Frano Supilo and Ante Trumbic, were leading figures. In stark contrast to other Serbian diplomats, Boskovic was not enthusiastic about Yugoslav unification. He suspected the Croat ?migr?s, especially Supilo, of pursuing exclusive Croat interests under the ruse of the Yugoslav programme. His dealings with them were made more difficult on account of the siding of a group of British ?friends of Serbia?, the most prominent of which were Robert William Seton-Watson and Henry Wickham Steed, with the Croat ?migr?s. Though not opposed in principle to an integral Yugoslav unification, Boskovic preferred staunch defence of Serbian Macedonia from Bulgarian ambitions and the acquisition of Serb-populated provinces in southern Hungary, while in the west he seems to have been content with the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, part of Slavonia and an outlet to the Adriatic Sea in Dalmatia. Finally, the reception of and reaction to Boskovic?s reports on the part of the Serbian Prime Minister, Nikola Pasic, clearly shows that the latter was determined to persist in his Yugoslav policy, despite the Treaty of London which assigned large parts of the Slovene and Croat lands to Italy and made the creation of Yugoslavia an unlikely proposition. In other words, Pasic did not vacillate between the ?small? and the ?large programme?, between Yugoslavia and Greater Serbia, as it has been often alleged in historiography and public discourse.","PeriodicalId":80613,"journal":{"name":"Balcanica (Rome, Italy)","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Serbian minister in London, Mateja Boskovic, the Yugoslav committee, and Serbia’s Yugoslav policy in the Great War 1914-1916\",\"authors\":\"D. Bakić\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/balc1950173b\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper seeks to examine the outlook of the Serbian Minister in London, Mateja Mata Boskovic, during the first half of the Great War on the South Slav (Yugoslav) question - a unification of all the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in a single state, which was Serbia?s war aim. He found himself in close contact with the members of the Yugoslav Committee, an organisation of the irredentist Yugoslav ?migr?s from Austria-Hungary in which two Croat politicians, Frano Supilo and Ante Trumbic, were leading figures. In stark contrast to other Serbian diplomats, Boskovic was not enthusiastic about Yugoslav unification. He suspected the Croat ?migr?s, especially Supilo, of pursuing exclusive Croat interests under the ruse of the Yugoslav programme. His dealings with them were made more difficult on account of the siding of a group of British ?friends of Serbia?, the most prominent of which were Robert William Seton-Watson and Henry Wickham Steed, with the Croat ?migr?s. Though not opposed in principle to an integral Yugoslav unification, Boskovic preferred staunch defence of Serbian Macedonia from Bulgarian ambitions and the acquisition of Serb-populated provinces in southern Hungary, while in the west he seems to have been content with the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, part of Slavonia and an outlet to the Adriatic Sea in Dalmatia. Finally, the reception of and reaction to Boskovic?s reports on the part of the Serbian Prime Minister, Nikola Pasic, clearly shows that the latter was determined to persist in his Yugoslav policy, despite the Treaty of London which assigned large parts of the Slovene and Croat lands to Italy and made the creation of Yugoslavia an unlikely proposition. In other words, Pasic did not vacillate between the ?small? and the ?large programme?, between Yugoslavia and Greater Serbia, as it has been often alleged in historiography and public discourse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":80613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Balcanica (Rome, Italy)\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Balcanica (Rome, Italy)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/balc1950173b\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Balcanica (Rome, Italy)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/balc1950173b","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文试图考察塞尔维亚驻伦敦公使Mateja Mata Boskovic在第一次世界大战前半部分对南斯拉夫问题的看法-将所有塞尔维亚人,克罗地亚人和斯洛文尼亚人统一为一个国家,即塞尔维亚?美国的战争目标。他发现自己与南斯拉夫委员会的成员密切接触,该委员会是南斯拉夫统一主义的一个组织。在奥匈帝国,两名克罗地亚政治家弗朗诺·苏皮罗和安特·特朗比克是主要人物。与其他塞尔维亚外交官形成鲜明对比的是,博斯科维奇对南斯拉夫统一并不热衷。他怀疑克罗地亚移民。在南斯拉夫方案的诡计下追求克族独有的利益,特别是苏皮罗。由于站在一群“塞尔维亚的朋友”英国一边,他与他们的交往变得更加困难。其中最著名的是罗伯特·威廉·西顿-沃森和亨利·维克汉姆·斯蒂德的克罗地亚移民。虽然原则上并不反对南斯拉夫的统一,但博斯科维奇更倾向于坚定地保护塞尔维亚马其顿不受保加利亚野心的影响,并在匈牙利南部获得塞尔维亚人口聚居的省份,而在西部,他似乎对吞并波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那、斯拉沃尼亚的一部分和达尔马提亚通往亚得里亚海的出口感到满意。最后,对博斯科维奇的接受和反应?塞尔维亚总理尼古拉·帕西奇的报告清楚地表明,后者决心坚持他的南斯拉夫政策,尽管《伦敦条约》将斯洛文尼亚和克罗地亚的大部分土地划归意大利,使建立南斯拉夫成为不可能的提议。换句话说,帕西克并没有在“小”和“小”之间摇摆不定。而大项目呢?正如在史学和公共话语中经常指称的那样,在南斯拉夫和大塞尔维亚之间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Serbian minister in London, Mateja Boskovic, the Yugoslav committee, and Serbia’s Yugoslav policy in the Great War 1914-1916
This paper seeks to examine the outlook of the Serbian Minister in London, Mateja Mata Boskovic, during the first half of the Great War on the South Slav (Yugoslav) question - a unification of all the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in a single state, which was Serbia?s war aim. He found himself in close contact with the members of the Yugoslav Committee, an organisation of the irredentist Yugoslav ?migr?s from Austria-Hungary in which two Croat politicians, Frano Supilo and Ante Trumbic, were leading figures. In stark contrast to other Serbian diplomats, Boskovic was not enthusiastic about Yugoslav unification. He suspected the Croat ?migr?s, especially Supilo, of pursuing exclusive Croat interests under the ruse of the Yugoslav programme. His dealings with them were made more difficult on account of the siding of a group of British ?friends of Serbia?, the most prominent of which were Robert William Seton-Watson and Henry Wickham Steed, with the Croat ?migr?s. Though not opposed in principle to an integral Yugoslav unification, Boskovic preferred staunch defence of Serbian Macedonia from Bulgarian ambitions and the acquisition of Serb-populated provinces in southern Hungary, while in the west he seems to have been content with the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, part of Slavonia and an outlet to the Adriatic Sea in Dalmatia. Finally, the reception of and reaction to Boskovic?s reports on the part of the Serbian Prime Minister, Nikola Pasic, clearly shows that the latter was determined to persist in his Yugoslav policy, despite the Treaty of London which assigned large parts of the Slovene and Croat lands to Italy and made the creation of Yugoslavia an unlikely proposition. In other words, Pasic did not vacillate between the ?small? and the ?large programme?, between Yugoslavia and Greater Serbia, as it has been often alleged in historiography and public discourse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Italy in the writings of Slobodan Jovanovic The second eastern crisis (1875-1878): Echoes, volunteers and Italian interests Three votive plaques from Upper Moesia Experiencing disease and medical treatment in renaissance Italy: Cardinal Pietro Bembo and his circle The Yugoslav perspective on Italian Eurocommunism in the second half of the 1970s
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1