Libmonster ID: RS-594
Author(s) of the publication: A. Z. NYURKAEVA

On the morning of May 29, 1903, Europe was shocked by the news of the "bloody events in Serbia", as a result of which the Obrenovich dynasty was overthrown and physically destroyed. During the coup, King Alexander and Queen Draga were killed. On the same night, the Prime Minister D. Tsintsar-Markovich, the Minister of War M. Pavlovich were killed in their homes, and the Queen's brothers Nikola and Nikodim Lunevitsy were shot at the headquarters of the Danube division. The coup was carried out by officers of the Belgrade garrison, whose anti-dynastic sentiments were known for a long time. The officers ' plot was formed as early as September 1901, 1 and by May 1903 the number of participants in it numbered more than 100 people .2 Directly involved in the coup were 68 officers 3, led by Reserve Colonel A. Mashin, brother of Queen Draghi's first husband, and Lieutenant Colonel P. Mishich, commander of the 6th Infantry Regiment.

The news of the coup d'etat did not come as a surprise to many political figures who stood behind the conspirators. Already at 4 a.m. on May 29, 1903, a new provisional government was formed, in which five of the nine ministers were associated with the conspiracy. According to the Russian Ambassador to Serbia N. V. Charykov, the head of the new cabinet D. Avakumovich, the leader of the liberal party, the Minister of Justice lawyer L. Zhivkovich, the leader of the independent radical party, and the Minister of Trade G. Gencic knew about the intentions of the conspirators, moreover, the latter was a link between the plotting officers and the future King Peter Karageorgievich4 . The Minister of War, General I. Atanackovich, and the Minister of Public Works, Colonel A. Mashin, were participants in the conspiracy and coup 5 . The main task of the provisional Government was to maintain order in the country and prepare for the elections to the People's Assembly, scheduled for September 8, 1903.

As a result of the elections, the People's Assembly, consisting of 160 deputies, looked like this: 6: the radical party, which reflected the interests of the industrial and financial bourgeoisie, received 74 mandates; the independent radical party, which was supported by a small one

1 T. Katslerovih. March demonstration of je and majski transform 1903. Beograd. 1950, p. 65.

2 Archive of Foreign Policy of Russia (AVPR), f. Politarkhiv, op. 482, d. 498, 1903, l. 337.

3 Ibid., d. 449, 1903, l. 153.

4 Ibid., d. 498, 1903, l. 343.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid., d. 499, 1903, l. 193.

page 67

the urban and rural bourgeoisie, as well as the intelligentsia, - 61; the liberal party associated with the big commercial bourgeoisie, - 19; the naprednyak party 7 , which expressed the interests of the top commercial, usurious and agrarian bourgeoisie, as well as the highest official bureaucracy,-1 mandate; the Serbian Social Democratic Party also had 1 mandate; the non - party party belonged to 4 seats. The government majority was 135 votes, which indicated the consolidation of the power of the national bourgeoisie after the coup. Her victory indirectly indicates the support of the people for the coup d'etat on May 29 and the weakening of the position of the monarchy and absolutism in the country.

The new government was formed by one of the leaders of the radical party, General D. Gruich. Another leader of this party, N. Pasic, was not allowed to join the government by independent radicals for his association and pandering to the regime of Alexander Obrenovich. Only in January 1904 N. Pasic became a member of the renewed Cabinet of D. Grujic, taking up the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs, and in November 1904 Pasic himself formed the government. Thus, until the First World War, Pasic was the main figure and ruler of the domestic and foreign policy of bourgeois Serbia. To Pasic's vast political experience, extreme caution, and diplomatic flexibility, Serbia owed the stabilization of its internal political situation and increased influence in Balkan affairs.

Along with the established parliamentary system in the country after the coup, the monarchy was also preserved. On June 2, 1903, at a meeting of the National Assembly, Prince Peter Karageorgievich, grandson of the leader of the First Serbian Uprising, Karageorgia, was elected to the Serbian throne. King Peter Karageorgievich was already 60 years old at that time. As a statesman, he was uninitiative, completely devoid of any real power. A few months before the coup, the plotting officers had secured his written commitment to "govern Serbia constitutionally and democratically." 8 But the main thing that determined the statute of the new king in the political system of the country was the position of the bourgeoisie, which came to power after the coup and did not want to share it with the monarchy, against which it fought so long and hard. So, as a result of the coup d'etat in Serbia, the regime of a constitutional monarchy was established.

The events of May 29, 1903 in Serbia were regarded by most contemporaries as a typical palace coup committed by the military. N. V. Charykov, the Russian envoy to Serbia, then wrote: "The coup was carried out by a military plot on the basis of anti-dynastic agitation... and because of the fear of appointing Lieutenant Lunevits as the heir. " 9 This or a similar explanation of the reasons for the coup was most widely used in the writings of historians. One of the first representatives of modern Yugoslav historiography, T. Katslerovich, an eyewitness to the events, a prominent socialist of that time, in his work specifically devoted to the coup, motivated it only by subjective factors, namely: the despotic regime of King Alexander, the adventurous tendencies of Queen Draghi, an attempt to proclaim Nikodim Lunevits as the heir .10 In Soviet historiography, there are no special studies on these problems, while the fragmentary comments of V. M. Povalyaev and V. L. Glebov are reduced to an assessment of the events of May 29, 1903, as a typical upper-class event.

7 From the Serbian "napredak" - progress, success.

8 Ibid., d. 498, 1903, l. 343.

9 Ibid., 500, part 1, 1903, p. 369.

10 T. Katslerovih. Decree, op., p. 62.

page 68

coup 11 . In its interpretation, researchers proceed mainly from the methods of struggle and some of the reasons that lie on the surface of events. The essence of the coup has not yet been revealed. To answer this question, we will try to reveal the objective causes and consequences of the phenomenon under consideration.

By the beginning of the 20th century, major changes in social development had taken place in Serbia. In the 1980s and 1990s, after the complete political liberation of the country from Turkish oppression as a result of the war of 1876-1878, the development of capitalism accelerated in Serbia. According to the unanimous opinion of Soviet and Yugoslav historians, the process of establishing the capitalist mode of production in Serbia ended at the turn of two centuries. The consequence of this was a new alignment of class forces both within the bourgeoisie and between it and the proletariat.

If until the end of the 1980s the bourgeoisie class was almost completely dominated by the large commercial, usurious and agrarian bourgeoisie, which developed during the era of so-called initial accumulation and due to the objective conditions of the development of capitalism in that period (the heavy legacy of Turkish oppression, the lack of full national independence, the territorial disunity of the emerging nation, etc.) having managed to completely free itself from feudal remnants in the economic and political spheres, since the end of the 90s of the XIX century, when capitalism was established in Serbia, conditions were objectively created for the preponderance of the forces of the industrial bourgeoisie. Its political representative, the radical party, which numbered 60,000 members at the end of the nineteenth century, fought with great tenacity for bourgeois parliamentarism and national independence, as opposed to the conservative bourgeoisie (for example, the Middle-class and liberal parties), because of the objective needs of the development of capitalism in the country, and the economic and political interests of the industrial bourgeoisie .12
The monarchy and the dictatorial regime of the Obrenovich dynasty stood in the way of establishing bourgeois democracy. Under the last Obrenovichs, Kings Milan and Alexander, the political reaction in the country reached its peak. In 1898, after the attempted assassination of Milan, all progressive and democratic newspapers and organizations were banned. During the period of rampant reaction and the dictatorship of Alexander, the bourgeoisie lost its influence on state affairs, as the ministerial leapfrog eloquently demonstrates. During the 13 years of his reign (1889-1903), Alexander made five reactionary coups and replaced 24 cabinets in whole or in part . The authoritarian regime of absolutist-monarchical power, along with other remnants of feudalism in the country, was a brake on the development of capitalism. It was cramped in the grip of absolutism and its anti-national policy, so it was natural that the growing Serbian bourgeoisie sought to actively, although sometimes not always consistently, fight the monarchy.

The solution of the problems of democratization and national unification of Serbia took place at a time when the world system of capitalism entered the last, highest stage of its development. In this situation, the underdeveloped Serbia, like other small countries of the Balkan Peninsula, became the object of imperialist expansion in Europe.-

11 V. M. Povalyaev. R. Dragovic's revolutionary activity during the creation of the Serbian Social Democratic Party. "Questions of the history of the Slavs". Issue 1. Voronezh. 1963, pp. 148-149; V. L. Glebov. The capitalist path of development of underdeveloped countries. Novosibirsk. 1970, p. 67.

12 D. Jankovih. On the history of strankama u Srbiji of the XIX century. Beograd. 1951, p. 268.

13. Teplo V. Belgradskoe tsareubijstvo [The Belgrade Regicide], St. Petersburg, 1903, § 3 (separate print from the Russian Bulletin newspaper).

page 69

This made it necessary for the Serbian people to fight not only internal but also external reactions. The social support of foreign interference, especially Austro-Hungarian, in Serbian affairs was the monarchy and the conservative bourgeoisie, closely associated with the Austro-Hungarian market. In 1894, 97% of Serbian cattle were exported to Austria-Hungary, 87.5% - agricultural products, 78% - hides 14 . Serbia's economic dependence on Austria-Hungary was compounded by the anti-national Austrophil policy of the Obrenovich dynasty. The enslaving trade treaty and secret political convention of 1881 with Austria-Hungary, which formulated Serbia's refusal to unite the Serbian lands and pursue an independent foreign policy in order to recognize the Obrenovici dynasty as a royal title, were the pinnacle of national treachery on the part of the ruling dynasty. At a time when the internal reaction was actively supported by the external one, when a significant part of the Serbian bourgeoisie, due to its own weakness and economic and political dependence on foreign capital, became the instrument of this reaction, the decisive word in the struggle for democracy belonged not to bourgeois, but to proletarian and petty-bourgeois democracy.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the potential forces of proletarian and petty-bourgeois democracy in Serbia were quite impressive. In 1900, the country's population numbered 2,493,000, of which 2,142,000, or 86%, were rural residents and 351,000, or 14%, were urban residents .15 In the countryside, 22,000 people , or 7.86% 16, owned land from 15 to 300 hectares or more and formed a layer of the rural bourgeoisie, while the share of landless, small-scale and medium-sized peasants was 92.14%. At the turn of the two centuries, the process of forming the Serbian working class, whose number was 60-70 thousand people, or 2.5% of the total population of the country and 17% of its urban part, was mostly completed .17 Together, the democratic strata of the city and village made up approximately 87% of the population of Serbia.

At the turn of two centuries, significant qualitative changes took place in the Serbian labor movement. The process of transforming the Serbian proletariat into a "class for itself" was completed, and class principles were established in its struggle and organization. Numerous studies by Soviet and Yugoslav historians make it possible to conclude that the socialist ideology that spread in Serbia from the 60 - 70s of the XIX century, mainly among the intelligentsia and the craft masses, from the 90-ies of the XIX century was firmly connected with the working class. With the establishment of capitalism in the country, the proletariat clearly realized its class interests, and it was this process that became the material basis for introducing the workers to the ideas of scientific socialism. In addition, the international proletarian movement and the activities of a new galaxy of professional Serbian revolutionaries, such as A. Baikovnc, R. Dragovic, and D. Tutsovic, influenced the turning point in the socialist movement. Qualitative changes in proletarian ideology led in the 90-ies of the XIX century.to its final separation from the radical democratic. The process of merging scientific socialism with the labor movement, which began at that time, ended at the beginning of the twentieth century. (1903-1908) and defined the dominant role of the Marxist trend in the socialist and mass labor movement of Serbia.

14 V. L. Glebov. The final stage of the formation of capitalism in Serbia. Author's abstract of the cand. diss. M. 1972, p. 6.

15 M. Vukomanovich. Radnicka klasa Srbiji in the other half of the XIX century. Beograd. 1972, p. 105.

16 B. N. Evreinov. Statistical sketches of the Serbian Kingdom, St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 43.

17 M. Vukomanovich. Op. ed., p. 331.

page 70

The introduction of the Serbian proletariat to the ideas of scientific socialism, as well as the differentiation of its interests from the interests of entrepreneurs, led to a change in the forms of its organization from the 90s of the XIX century. In the era of so-called primitive accumulation, due to the small-capitalist nature of production, the persistence of patriarchal relations, and the low level of class consciousness of workers, joint organizations with entrepreneurs emerged. These were various societies of mutual assistance in case of illness, death, disability, which appeared in Serbia since the 50s, cooperative partnerships (zadrugi), created since the 70s, mixed associations of artisans and craft and workers ' unions, first formed in the 80s of the XIX century 18 . Since the 1990s, when capitalism was established in the country and scientific socialism in the worldview of the working class, truly class-based workers ' organizations began to emerge in Serbia: trade unions and socialist societies. The Opancar Workers 'Society19, established on January 20, 1896 in Belgrade, was the first professional workers' organization20 . In 1903, there were 17 trade unions and 32 workers ' societies in the country21 . A new stage in the organized development of the labor movement culminated in the creation of the Serbian Social Democratic Party (SSDP) on June 20, 190322 . Under the leadership of the SSDP, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the labor movement in Serbia moved to a new stage, when the determining factor was an organized struggle against the entire system of capitalism, and not its individual sides.

The absolutist-monarchist, police-bureaucratic regime was a brake on the development of not only the Serbian bourgeoisie, but also on the socialist struggle of the proletariat. "The proletariat," wrote V. I. Lenin, "cannot be indifferent and indifferent to the political, social and cultural conditions of its struggle." 23 From 1889 to 1902, workers conducted 47 strikes in reaction .24 The workers ' political struggle in the form of May Day demonstrations, rallies, demonstrations, and petitions was mainly directed against the monarchy and for the democratization of public life. The first political meetings and demonstrations of this kind were held by workers in 1894. It was in this year that King Alexander made a second coup, replacing the Constitution of 1888 with the Code of laws of 1869 on May 9, 1894. The Constitution of 1888 was bourgeois-democratic in character. It provided the Assembly with legislative initiative, the right to control the state budget, established the accountability of ministers to Parliament, and introduced bourgeois rights and freedoms. Under this Constitution, workers were able to form their own organizations. The Constitution of 1869 concentrated legislative power in the hands of the King. He had the right of legislative initiative and final approval of laws. Relying on this reactionary constitution, Alexander established an absolutist regime, and during the period of the" black Vladanovschina " (the reign of Vladan Djordjevic from October 11, 1897 to July 12, 1900) established a regime of authoritarian power.

On January 12, 1894, students of the Great School (University) in Belgrade held a rally to protest against the strengthening of reaction and absolutism, and on January 16, Belgrade workers led by A. Banki held a rally.-

18 Ibid., pp. 55, 166, 193-212.

19 From the word "opanki" - national leather shoes.

20 M. Vukomanovich. Decree op., p. 235.

21 "Синдикални покрет у Србиjи (1903 - 1919 гг.)". Београд. 1958, p. 5, 205.

22 For more information, see A. Z. Nyurkaeva. Formation of the Serbian Social Democratic Party. "Questions of the History of the International Labor movement". Issue XI. Perm. 1973.

23 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 17, p. 190.

24 M. Vukomanovich. Op. ed., p. 284.

page 71

than. The rally was attended by more than 1 thousand workers who demanded the restoration of the rights of the Assembly and democratic freedoms. On May 16, 1894, Belgrade workers held another protest rally against the repeal of the Constitution of 188825 .

The working class was able to overcome the consequences of the rule of the "black vladanovschina" only in 1901, when the "Belgrade Workers' Society " emerged and the trade unions were revived, under whose leadership annual demonstrations for higher wages set the proletariat of the whole country in motion. The workers ' struggle for democratic rights and freedoms has also intensified. On November 25, 1901, a 3,000-strong rally was held in Belgrade, where participants declared their determination to seek freedom of the press, assembly, and organization. On August 4, 1902, the Belgrade workers demanded the introduction of labor legislation in the country26 . According to incomplete data, more than 15,500 workers participated in the May Day demonstrations and in the struggle for workers ' legislation in 1901-1902 and in the March demonstration in 1903.27

The culmination of the general democratic struggle of the workers was the events of 1903. The Socialist newspaper Radničke novine (January 11, 1903), in its article "Workers and Constitutionality", analyzed the peculiarities of the general democratic struggle in Serbia and correctly identified the place of workers in this struggle: "The political past of the people who are now fighting for constitutionality repels us from them, but if they demand from us in the struggle for political freedoms help, we are ready to help them." The climax of the workers ' confrontation with the monarchy was a demonstration on March 23, 1903, organized by the Socialists. It had two initial centers: a meeting of students of the Great School and a meeting of Belgrade apprentices. A student rally led by D. Tutsovich and T. Katslerovich, as well as the leader of the nationalist youth L. Yovanovich-Chupa, 28 unanimously condemned the intentions of King Alexander to carry out a new coup and change the constitution. A meeting of apprentices protested against the decree on the new form of their registration. After the rallies at 2 pm, a demonstration began, in which more than 5 thousand people participated. It had a pronounced anti-monarchical character and was held under the slogans: "Long live freedom!", " Down with despotism!", " Down with reaction!" In the evening, troops were thrown against the demonstrators, who opened fire. Eight people were killed and 10 seriously wounded. It is symptomatic that part of the Belgrade garrison (the 6th Regiment under the command of M. Andreevich) refused to shoot at the workers .29 A demonstration against absolutism also took place in Aleksinac on March 23, 1903. The crackdown on demonstrators resulted in the arrest of 123 people. Among the 27 main convicted demonstrators were 17 workers, 9 students and students, and 1 official. [30 ]

Despite the defeat, the March demonstration determined the fate of the Obrenovic dynasty and the place of the monarchy in the social development of Serbia. It was precisely under the influence of the growth of the general democratic movement, in the vanguard of which the proletariat was being promoted, that the Serbian bourgeoisie was forced to resort to a top-level coup. SSDP in Dec-

25 Ibid., pp. 313, 314.

26 Ibid., p. 315.

27 "Први конгрес Сриске соцjалдемократске партиjе и Главног радничког савеза (1903 г.)". Београд. 1953, стр. 60 - 62; "Први Maj у Србиjи (1893 - 1919 гг.)". Београд. 1954, p. 90; T. Katslerovichh. Op. ed., p. 47.

28 L. Jovanovich-Chupa-later one of the founders and ideologists of the organization "Unification or Death", which emerged in 1911, better known as the "Black Hand". This organization set the task of national unification of Serbs by any means, including terror.

29 AVPR, f. Politarkhiv, op. 482, d. 500, ch. 1, 1903, ll. 255, 265.

30 M. Vukomanovich. Op. ed., p. 318.

page 72

The declaration "Social Democracy in relation to the regime of Alexander" of June 13, 1903 indicated that the coup of May 29 was a consequence of the demonstration of March 23, 1903. The declaration shows that the Serbian working class, led by the socialists, was deliberately going to storm the monarchy. "Social democracy could not be indifferent to the intentions of the tyrannical regime, "the declaration emphasized," it gathered discontented elements, revolutionized and excited them in order to direct this discontent at the right moment against the criminal regime of Alexander." The SSDP defined the March demonstration as the beginning of the revolution 31 . This event was indeed the first major political action of the Serbian proletariat against absolutism. The working class showed maturity, an understanding of the tasks of the democratic struggle, and declared itself a decisive force in the struggle against reaction. His political activity, therefore, was not commensurate with his numbers. The political weight of the Serbian proletariat at the beginning of the twentieth century was determined primarily by the objective internal and external conditions of its development and struggle. The difficult situation of the working class, the suffocating political reaction in the country, the dependent nature of capitalist development in Serbia, the political tension in the Balkans caused by the intervention of the great Powers, and finally the beneficial influence of the international labor movement have pushed the Serbian proletariat, despite its small number, to the forefront in the social life of the country.

The May coup was caused by the objective consequences of the capitalist development of Serbia. The March demonstration and the May coup are two links in the same chain of events. Although the actions of the conspirators lie on the surface of the coup, its hidden springs lead to the conditions of development of capitalism in Serbia, to the correlation of the forces of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Despite the small size of the proletariat, despite the fact that this was an early stage of its conscious class struggle, it was its position in the specific domestic and foreign political situation of the development of Serbia that determined the outcome of the general democratic struggle. The events of 1903 began to unfold in a revolutionary way, but the two channels of the general democratic struggle (bourgeois and proletarian) did not merge into a single stream due to the fault of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, the struggle for democratization was incomplete, absolutism was eliminated, the hated Obrenovich dynasty was eliminated, and the position of the monarchy was weakened. Despite the incompleteness and limited aims and methods of the bourgeoisie's struggle against monarchy and absolutism, the May revolution reflected the objective needs of Serbian social life and was a progressive phenomenon that cleared the way for the freer development of capitalism in the country.

The nature and essence of a coup are determined not only by its causes, but also by its consequences. After him, a parliamentary regime was established in Serbia, and a radical party came to power for a long time. But was the only alternative to developing the country along the path of a constitutional monarchy? No. Archival materials prove the growth of republican sentiment during the coup. N. V. Charykov's secret telegram of June 2, 1903 and his report of June 4, 1903 speak of the rapid spread of Republican ideas among the people and the socialists ' project to establish a republic in Serbia. The same documents make it possible to establish that the bearers of republican ideas were socialists, reflecting the mood of the workers, university and radical officers ' youth, an independent radical party, which is supported by the State Duma.

31 "Српска социjалдемократска партиjа. Graha (1901-1905)". Beograd, 1966, p. 58.

page 73

the petty bourgeoisie of the city and countryside marched. The socialists and students who had intended to hold a rally and demonstration demanding a republic retreated in the face of the threat of weapons from the conspirators .32 The Serbian bourgeoisie, which was behind the participants in the conspiracy, did not allow the establishment of the republic. It hastily proclaimed June 2, 1903. Peter Karageorgievich was the Serbian king, which was her response to the republican sentiments of the masses and at the same time showed that she was afraid of the democratic movement. Charykov wrote about the reasons for the maneuver of the Serbian bourgeoisie: "Their unanimity and the rapidity of their election are due to the apparent increase in Republican aspirations and the fear of foreign intervention in the event of internal unrest." 33
The possibility of foreign, especially Austro-Hungarian, interference in Serbian affairs in connection with the coup was quite real. Already on the day of the coup, the Austrian envoy to Serbia, Dumba, told Charykov that if "riots occur in Serbia, the Austrian border troops will be mobilized." 34 It is no accident that in this situation the provisional government of Avakumovich hastened to assure the Russian government of its loyalty, wishing to secure its protection in the event of an Austro-Hungarian intervention. Its threat was averted thanks to the patronizing position of Russia and the rapid suppression of revolutionary uprisings in Serbia. But, most importantly, Austria-Hungary showed indecision and hesitation in the first days after the coup, hoping that the unrest and confusion common in coups d'etat would weaken Serbia, delay its political and economic development, and thereby help to strengthen Austria-Hungary's influence in this area of the Balkans .35 However, these plans did not materialize, and Serbia entered the path of relatively independent development.

Bourgeois historiography calls the social development of Serbia in the era of imperialism "the golden age of Serbian citizenship", "the classic era of civil democracy in Serbia". Indeed, this is a "golden time", but only for the Serbian bourgeoisie, which now has not only economic, but also political levers to consolidate its rule. The entire internal policy of the radical party was aimed at the development of industry and the strengthening of the national bourgeoisie. To this end, the Constitution of 1888 was restored on June 5, 1903, with minor amendments. On the same day, a new electoral system was introduced, which was based on the property qualification. Article 10 of the Constitution granted the right to vote to citizens who reached the age of 21 and paid at least 15 dinars of direct tax per annum .36 In 1903, the population of Serbia was about 2,622,000, 37 of which only 20% had the right to vote. As the newspaper Radnicke Novine wrote on April 20, 1912, the property qualification was directed primarily against the working class, 95% of the workers did not have the right to vote. In December 1903, the People's Assembly approved a new law on the press, whose special article on expanding the government's "veto" was also aimed at the working-class movement. In February 1904, Pasic, then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia, said on this occasion: "We will not allow meetings with a revolutionary program, and for this purpose we will not allow any meetings with a revolutionary program.

32 AVPR, f. Politarkhiv, op. 482, d. 498, 1903, l. 360.

33 Ibid., d. 500, part II, 1903, l. 16.

34 Ibid., part I, 1903, p. 369.

35 Ibid., 498, 1903, p. 383.

36 p. NYagul. Sirotinski censorship. Борба Српске социjалдемократске партиjе за опште право гласа. Beograd. 1905, p. 15.

37 "Statistichki godishnak kraljevine Srbije". Kn. XI. Beograd. 1908, p. 229.

page 74

Instead, we have introduced an article in the new law on the press extending in this sense the government's "veto", thanks to which students, workers, socialists, etc., not only cannot pass from words to deeds in such cases, but also have no right to put up proclamations, print advertisements, etc. " 38 Thus, the Constitution and the laws resulting from it were placed exclusively at the service of the bourgeoisie and condemned, as before, the working class to political disenfranchisement.

Among other administrative and economic measures of the radical government, the most important was the law on the construction of two railways: 1) Belgrade-Valjevo (100 km) and 2)Parachin-Zaecar (80 km) 39 , the former being of economic importance, the latter of strategic importance. One of the main directions of the protectionist policy of the radicals was the steps towards economic independence from Austria-Hungary, for which initially, in 1904, a customs tariff was introduced, and later, from 1906 to 1911, a customs war was successfully waged with it .40 Consequently, the main result of the revolution of 1903 in domestic life was the clearing of the way for full political and economic independence from Austria-Hungary and the stabilization of bourgeois statehood.

The political situation that developed in the country after the coup was exploited by the working class. Legal conditions helped to complete the process of forming the Proletarian party in the summer of 1903, to embark on the path of improving professional organizations in March 1904, and to activate all directions and forms of struggle of the working class.

The May coup had a positive impact not only on the internal life of the country, but also on its international position. A direct consequence of the coup was Serbia's changed position in Balkan and pan-European affairs. The coup d'etat in Serbia provoked responses in Bulgaria, where, from 1903, there were aspirations to end the Saxe - Coburg dynasty and the monarchy. In a secret letter dated July 2, 1903, Muravyov-Apostol-Korobyin, adviser to the Russian Embassy in Serbia, reported that three Bulgarian officers had come to Belgrade to study the events of May 29. Their real aim was "to branch out the existing conspiracy in the Bulgarian army to follow the example of the Serbian army and kill Prince Ferdinand, in order to immediately proclaim King Peter I King of Serbia and Bulgaria, to unite the two armies, which amounted to about 450,000 well-armed troops, and to put an end, by peaceful means or by war," to the Turkish possessions in The Balkans 41 . The Romanian newspaper Universul reported on the existence of a conspiracy against Ferdinand at that time, and on July 15, 1903, Muravyov-Apostol-Korobyin again confirmed this news .42
The plot in Bulgaria was indeed prepared, moreover, its participants timed their performance to coincide with August 15, 1903, but Prince Ferdinand on July 11, 1903 hastily left Bulgaria for Hungary with his family .43 The plot was not implemented, but its very existence indicates the desire of at least part of the Bulgarian bourgeoisie to democratize public order in the country and get rid of Austro-German influence. But the main goal of the Serbian and Bulgarian conspirators was to create a real force to eliminate the tu-

38 AVPR, f. Politarkhiv, op. 482, d. 504, 1904, l. 56.

39 Ibid., l. 170.

40 For more information, see D. Borbevichh. Царински рат Аустро-Угарске и Србиjе 1906 - 1911. Beograd, 1962.

41 AVPR, f. Politarkhiv, op. 482, d. 499, 1903, l. 23.

42 Ibid., ll. 58, 63.

43 Ibid., l. 23; d. 500, part II, 1903, l. 189.

page 75

Retsky possessions in the Balkans. The participants of the May coup in Serbia were patriots of their country and supporters of the national unification of Serbs with the most decisive measures. One of the main leaders, Colonel P. Mishich, in September 1904 stated:: "The Eastern question, with which Serbia's most vital interests are linked, has entered its final phase, when diplomatic notes will be replaced by iron and lead." 44 The sincere commitment of the participants of the May coup to the idea of national unity is also indicated by their subsequent active role in the creation and operation of the organization "Unification or Death" .45
The May 29 coup improved the political situation in Serbia, and on this basis a favorable situation developed for a real rapprochement between Serbia and Bulgaria, as well as for the revival of the old idea - the creation of a Balkan Union. Even during the lifetime of King Alexander, with the assistance of Charykov, the question was raised about the desirability of expanding economic ties between Serbia and Bulgaria, but then, due to the extreme dependence of the Obrenovich dynasty and the Serbian bourgeoisie on Austria-Hungary, no real steps were taken in this direction. "But then came the coup d'etat of May 29," Muravyov - Apostol-Korobyin noted in a report dated July 15, 1903, "and with it the sudden metamorphosis of the above question." 46
The political situation in the Balkans in 1903 was extremely tense. As a result of the events in Serbia, the culminating development of the liberation movement in Macedonia, which resulted in the Iliden Uprising on August 2 of the same year, the signing of the Murzsteg Agreement between Russia and Austria-Hungary in September 1903 on the implementation of reforms in Macedonia in favor of the Slavic population, and finally the aggressive aspirations of the Serbian and Bulgarian bourgeoisie towards Macedonia the process of rapprochement between Serbia and Bulgaria. Moreover, politicians in both countries considered it necessary; for example, A. Nikolic, the Serbian Foreign Minister, in August 1903 spoke of the fatal inevitability of a Serbian-Bulgarian union .47 The leaders of the Western powers were clearly aware of the real possibility of a rapprochement between Serbia and Bulgaria and the growing role of the Slavs led by Russia in Balkan affairs; for example, the German Emperor Wilhelm II spoke about this .48
The rapprochement between Serbia and Bulgaria had a twofold goal: to stop the expansion of Austria-Hungary and Germany behind it in the Balkans, and to radically solve the problem of Turkey's European possessions. It was a two - pronged task-defensive and offensive. In the first case, Serbia and Montenegro were more interested and won, and in the second - all the Balkan countries. In April 1904, Serbia and Bulgaria signed a secret treaty under which they agreed to support the Murzsteg reform program in Macedonia and provide mutual military assistance in the event of an attack by one of the parties. The Contracting Parties considered it possible to attract Montenegro to this union, with which Serbia actively sought rapprochement starting in the autumn of 1903 and in the summer of 1904 entered into negotiations on the conclusion of an agreement, guided by the principle of "The Balkans for the Balkan peoples" .49 In the final protocol to the Serbian-Bulgarian Treaty, Bulgaria recognized Serbia's claims to the Novo-Pazar Sanjak, which was considered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria.-

44 Ibid., d. 504, 1904, l. 211.

45 For more information, see Yu. A. Pisarev. Serbia and Montenegro in the First World War, Moscow, 1968, pp. 26-32, 238-243.

46 AVPR, f. Politarkhiv, op. 482, d. 499, 1903, l. 56.

47 Ibid., 500, part II, 1903, p. 226.

48 Ibid., d. 499, 1903, l. 56.

49 Ibid., d. 504, 1904, d. 183.

page 76

It was intended as a counterbalance to Austro-Hungarian expansion in the area .50 The Serbian-Bulgarian Treaty of 1904 was an important step towards the creation of the Balkan Union. On the basis of this treaty, the joint convention on the extradition of criminals in criminal matters, the postal and telegraph Convention, the coin Convention, and finally, in July 1905, the customs agreement, which entered into force in March 1906, were developed. But the military-political treaty of 1904 and the customs agreement of 1905 did not become effective due to the countermeasures of Austria-Hungary. On January 12, 1906, it closed its border to the import of livestock from Serbia. The latter, for its part, banned the import of Austrian industrial goods into the country. Thus began the well-known "pig", or customs, war.

The Bulgarian Prince Ferdinand was responsible for revealing the maps of the Balkan countries ' policy to Austria-Hungary, who decided to put the tariff agreement to the People's Assembly for discussion without consulting Serbia. This rash move has cooled relations between the two countries. But much more serious was another reason that made the policy of creating a Balkan Union in 1903-1905 untenable: the clash of interests of the Serbian and Bulgarian bourgeoisie in deciding on the division of Turkey's European possessions. Austria-Hungary took advantage of the deterioration of relations between the two Slavic countries. Russia, which was engaged in the Russo-Japanese war at that time, paid less attention to Balkan affairs, moreover, it was then unprofitable for it to aggravate relations with Austria-Hungary. Together, all these factors indirectly influenced the pace of rapprochement between the Balkan countries. Despite the fact that the Balkan union did not develop in 1903-1905, it is quite obvious that objective and subjective factors were quite ripe for its creation at the beginning of the twentieth century, the main ones being the needs of capitalist development in both countries and the new foreign policy orientation of Serbia after the May coup.

The coup d'etat of 1903 in Serbia led to a change in the balance of forces in the Balkans. The struggle of the Serbian national bourgeoisie for the constitutional regime in the country was inextricably linked with the Russophile foreign policy, which was always supported by the broad masses of the people, not only because of the ethnic community, Russia's assistance to the Serbian people in their struggle for independence, but also because, in contrast to the Austro-German policy of expansion, seizure of Serbian lands, suppression of national- liberation movement, division and incitement of hatred:Russia has made efforts to unite the Balkan countries and reconcile their differences. Objectively, Russia's policy was aimed at preventing the enslavement of the South Slavic peoples by Austro-Hungarian imperialism, weakening its position in the Balkans, and this was in the national interests of the Balkan peoples.

After the coup d'etat, when the national bourgeoisie came to power, Serbia took a course of rapprochement with Russia. Three days after the coup, Charykov reported that Avakumovich's government had assured him of its loyalty to Russia. On June 15, 1903, the new Serbian King Peter Karageorgievich expressed in a conversation with the Russian Ambassador the hope that"the most cordial and friendly relations will be established between Russia and Serbia." 51 Indeed, right up to the First World War, Russian-Serbian relations developed on an ascending line. Serbia was then the only country on the Balkan Peninsula that consistently supported Russia's policy towards Austria-Hungary. This position was determined by

50 Ibid., l. 146; V. A. Zhebokritskiy. Bulgaria on the eve of the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. Kiev, 1960, pp. 116-117.

51 AVPR, f. Politarkhiv, op. 482, d. 498, 1903, ll. 345, 382.

page 77

not only the political and national interests of Serbia, but also the strong friendly feelings of the Serbian people towards Russia. On June 2, 1904, Muravyov-Apostol-Korobyin wrote in a report: "It is with pleasure possible to note for us Russians that whatever the political circumstances and whoever is at the head of the government, the Serbian people remain true to their love for Russia."52 . Just as the hatred of the Balkan peoples for Austria-Hungary and Germany , which stood behind it, was an essential factor in interstate relations in the Balkans, 53 the friendship and attachment of these peoples to Russia corrected the political situation in this region. The stability of friendly Russian-Serbian relations and the closeness of the goals of both states in Balkan politics after the May coup in Serbia predetermined the preponderance of Russia's influence in the Balkans at the beginning of the XX century. The tendency towards rapprochement of Serbia with Bulgaria and Montenegro, on the one hand, and the strengthening of Russia's position in the Balkans, on the other, favored the development of the Serbian nation and created a real opportunity to solve the problem of national liberation and unification of Slavic peoples, which was partially achieved as a result of the Balkan wars.

Thus, the coup d'etat carried out on May 29, 1903, by representatives of the Serbian national bourgeoisie under the pressure of the broad masses of the people, the growth of the general democratic movement and republican sentiments, cannot be regarded only as a typical palace coup. The objective prerequisites, internal and external political consequences of the revolution, as well as its social base, give grounds to characterize this revolution as a whole as a progressive bourgeois phenomenon in its essence. In view of the fact that the May revolution was a direct consequence of the March demonstration, it should be regarded as a manifestation of the influence of the working-class movement on bourgeois politics. The destruction of the Obrenovici dynasty and the establishment of a constitutional regime, which weakened the position of the monarchy and reaction, were among the results of the first significant impact of the proletarian struggle on the development of this state in the history of Serbia.

52 Ibid., d. 504, 1904, l. 179.

53 K. B. Vinogradov. Bosnian crisis of 1908-1909-prologue of the First World War, L. 1964, p. 39.

page 78


© library.rs

Permanent link to this publication:

https://library.rs/m/articles/view/THE-MAY-REVOLUTION-OF-1903-IN-SERBIA-ITS-CAUSES-AND-CONSEQUENCES

Similar publications: LSerbia LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Andrija PutnikContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://library.rs/Putnik

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

A. Z. NYURKAEVA, THE MAY REVOLUTION OF 1903 IN SERBIA (ITS CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES) // Belgrade: Library of Serbia (LIBRARY.RS). Updated: 19.01.2025. URL: https://library.rs/m/articles/view/THE-MAY-REVOLUTION-OF-1903-IN-SERBIA-ITS-CAUSES-AND-CONSEQUENCES (date of access: 19.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - A. Z. NYURKAEVA:

A. Z. NYURKAEVA → other publications, search: Libmonster SerbiaLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Andrija Putnik
Белград, Serbia
55 views rating
19.01.2025 (31 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
Заснув в сафьянах книг Мы пробудились поздно Нам нами не зажгут сиреневые звёзды В лесах росу не раскачает лень полуденных дерев Дрозды уснут в полях всех перепев... И шепот деревень загасит пламя дня Наступит ночь, как видно без меня Осталось мало Нас, сотрудников Земли Уходим, уводя Надежды корабли...
Catalog: Филология 
«Вздор!.. Гений не совершает ошибок. Его блуждания намеренны, они врата – открытия» (Джойс Д. Улисс. стр. 202). Писано в брутальные времена...
Jean Eiffel and Innovations Derivatives
Catalog: Экономика 
The Question of Changing the Global Matrix in Russia and in the World
Catalog: Экономика 
"A WORD ABOUT IGOR'S REGIMENT" IN THE "EXPERIENCE OF NARRATION ABOUT RUSSIA" BY I. P. ELAGIN
18 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
DRUZHINA AND THE GENESIS OF FEUDALISM IN RUSSIA
Catalog: История 
18 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
Many of you and your associates are operating in the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions y.e. This is about your transactions... Direct or Indirect or Potential. Not so long ago, many of you became players in "Cybereconomics". In a fundamentally new transformation of the digital world, about which many of us are still little known.. Purchase and exchange of fiat money, work on the transformation of fiat money into cryptocurrency. Buying a car, apartments, loans from financial institutions... Et cetera. There are lucky people who work in their own business or act as investors.
Catalog: Экономика 
LITTLE-KNOWN HERO OF BORODIN
Catalog: История 
21 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
THE IDEA OF SLAVIC UNITY IN THE SOCIAL THOUGHT OF PRE-REFORM RUSSIA
21 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
A. M. STANISLAVSKAYA. POLITICHESKAYA DEYATEL'NOST ' F. F. USHAKOV V GREKE [POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF F. F. USHAKOV IN GREECE]. 1798-1800
21 days ago · From Andrija Putnik

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

LIBRARY.RS - Serbian Digital Library

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

THE MAY REVOLUTION OF 1903 IN SERBIA (ITS CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES)
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: RS LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Serbian Digital Library ® All rights reserved.
2014-2025, LIBRARY.RS is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Serbia


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android