Srdja Pavlovic - Balkan Anschluss

Central European Studies

Charles W. Ingrao, senior editor

Gray B. Cohen, editor

At the end of World War I, Montenegro was annexed by Serbia, thus effectively strengthening its position vis-a-vis other South Slavs and its World War I Allies. The unification of Montenegro with Serbia, which was proclaimed on November 25, 1918, in Podgorica by the Great People's Assembly of the Serbian People in Montenegro, represents one of the most important and hotly contested issues of recent Montenegrin history. This event marked the disappearance of the 400-year-old Montenegrin state and formalized its annexation by Serbia, drawing in blood a deep demarcation line between its citizens. These negative consequences for the Montenegrin state were the product of a combination of economic, political, and military factors, both domestic and international. From the time of annexation forward, manifestations of the political and cultural distinctiveness of Montenegro and its peoples were reduced to a minimum and were colored by the events that took place during and after the Podgorica Assembly. In spite of the later divisions along party lines, the common denominator of the Montenegrin political reality was (and to a great extent still is) the passionate disagreement between the so-called Greens and Whites (Zelensi and Bjelasi) or, respectively, the opponents and advocates of the 1918 annexation/unification. The contested character of the decisions made by the Podgorica Assembly affected the Montenegrin political scene, conditioned the nature of the relations between Serbia and Montenegro for decades to come, and defined the character of the common South Slav state. On a broader level the Podgorica Assembly also indicated numerous ailments that characterized the relatively short and somewhat turbulent existence of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia) and raised the question about the viability of any common state in those parts of the Balkan Peninsula.

The policies of the period and the events surrounding the annexation of Montenegro became a contested political issue and over the years acquired the character of a debate among intellectuals, historians, and politicians, both in Serbia and in Montenegro. Montenegrin historiography searched for answers by revisiting the issues of Montenegrin identity and the nature of the ideology of the time, as well as by arguing for or against a particular national paradigm. The debate over the significance of the Podgorica Assembly corresponds somewhat to the modern-day dilemmas of many Montenegrins who, throughout the twentieth century, kept searching for the right place and the optimal legal framework for their state and constantly questioned its structure. While attempting to cope with recent traumatic experiences, many Serbs and Montenegrins used historical memories of events that occurred during the first decades of the twentieth century as the basis of their arguments and counter arguments. This gave a new lease on life to the events from the past and made them the topic of contemporary debates.

The participants in this long and spirited debate were many and could be broadly divided into two groups along the old fault lines separating Greens from Whites. They were politicians, lawyers, economists, historians, and writers, and many were contemporaries of the events they wrote about. The central issues they debated were the questions of the legality of the Podgorica Assembly, the legitimacy of its resolution, and its being a representation of the popular will of Montenegrins.

The body of work on this topic in English is relatively minor. Within the Englishspeaking scholarly environments, the Montenegrin Question and the Podgorica Assembly have been addressed only in passing and in the context of a dynastic struggle between Cetinje and Belgrade. English-speaking authors have been concerned with the larger context of the creation of nation-states among the South Slavs and with the balance of power between the two major players in the region, Serbs and Croats. Montenegro was discussed only as a relatively insignificant segment in the process of much larger geopolitical changes in the Balkans.3 The scarcity of material in English, the general nature of the existing material, and the conflicting assessments of the position of Montenegro among the South Slavs are some of the reasons behind this text and, to a great degree, determine its narrative form. Moreover, the consensus was (and is to this day) that the Montenegrins and Serbs are but one nation sharing a common language, religious beliefs, and traditional values. Many scholars are quick to include Montenegrins together with Serbs and point out that the region was, for centuries, a refuge for the remnants of the defeated Serb nation, whereas the Montenegrin state represented only a "peripheral extension of Serbia."4 Others maintained that the argument about shared religious beliefs denotes a contested territory because "Orthodoxy alone can not for any length of time paper over other factors of division.... Montenegrin Orthodoxy has resisted, and still resists, incorporation within a Serbian church."5 As for the books written on the Podgorica Assembly and published in Serbia and Montenegro, they all shared a common feature: the perception of Montenegrins as ethnic Serbs.