Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 February 2009
The fundamental fact in the nationality issue in Croatia in the nineteenth century is that by 1914 the majority of the most influential political leaders of the Croats assumed that the indefinite survival of an independent united Croatia, based on the national principle alone, was a political and international impossibility. Once having accepted this premise, which was based on careful consideration of the conditions of their historical past and their position in Europe, the Croatian leaders were compelled to seek a solution to their political future which was in conflict with the major trend of the nineteenth century, namely, the political unification of ethnically homogeneous people into a sovereign state. Although there was a strong nationalist movement in Croatia, which aimed at the creation of an independent state, it could not deal with the realities of the Croatian position. Practical considerations thus left the Croatians with two alternatives: they could either remain within the framework of the Habsburg empire, in union with Vienna or Budapest or both; or they could join with the Serbs and Slovenes in a federal South Slav state. The story of nineteenth-century nationalism in Croatia centers on the vacillation between these two possibilities. The aim at all times was to find the combination which would best protect the Croatian national individuality, since Croatia alone did not have the necessary prerequisites for a completely independent national existence.2
2 The literature on the nationality problem in Croatia is almost overwhelming. It will not be possible to cite all the works consulted. Instead, reference will be made only to some of the basic, and especially postwar, publications, where new information has been produced. Perhaps the best brief bibliographic references to these problems are found in Jaroslav Sidak's revised edition of Šišić's, Ferdo, Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda [Survey of the History of the Croatian People] (Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1962), pp. 367–370, 422–425, 471, and 477–478Google Scholar; Zwitter, Fran, Sidak, Jaroslav, and Bogdanov, Vaso, Les problèmes nationaux dans la monarchie des habsbourg (Belgrade: Comité Nationale Yougoslave des Sciences Historiques, 1960)Google Scholar; Šidak, Jaroslav, “Hrvatsko pitanje u Habsburškoj monarhiji” [The Croatian Question in the Habsburg Monarchy], Historijski pregled, 1963, No. 2–3, pp. 101–121 and 175–194Google Scholar; the appropriate sections in the two volumes edited by Tadić, Jorjo, Dix années d'historiographie yougoslave 1945–1955 (Belgrade: “Jugoslavija,” 1955), pp. 274–334 and 385–415Google Scholar, and Historiographie yougoslave 1955–1965 (Belgrade: Novi Dan, 1965), pp. 221–378Google Scholar; and von Südland, L. (Ivo Pilar), Južnoslavensko pitanje [The South Slav Question] (Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1943), pp. 437–509.Google Scholar
3 The most recent interpretation of the Yugoslav idea is Šidak, Jaroslav, “Prilog razvoju Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914” [A Contribution to the Evolution of the Yugoslav Idea to 1914], Naše teme, 1965, No. 8–9, pp. 1290–1317Google Scholar. See also Šišić, Ferdo, Jugoslavenska misao [The Yugoslav Idea] (Belgrade: Balkanski Institut, 1937)Google Scholar; and Novak, Viktor, Antologija Južnoslovenske misli i narodnog jedinstva [Anthology of the Yugoslav Idea and National Unity] (Belgrade: Državna štamparija, 1930).Google Scholar
4 Among the many works about Starčević, and PravaštvoGoogle Scholar, see especially Gross, Mirjana, “Osnovni problemi pravaške, politike 1878–1887” [The Basic Problems of the Policy of the Party of Rights], Historijski zbornik, Vol. XV (1962), pp. 61–120Google Scholar; Gross, Mirjana, “Die nationale Idee der kroatischen Rechtspartei und ihr Zusammenbruch (1861 bis 1895),” Österreichische Osthefte, Vol. VI, No. 5 (1964), pp. 373–388Google Scholar; Bogdanov, Vaso, Historija političkih stranaka u Hrvatskoj [The History of Political Parties in Croatia] (Zagreb: Novinarsko izdavačko poduzeće, 1958)Google Scholar; Bogdanov, Vaso, Starčević i stranka prava prema Srbima i prema jedinstvu Južnoslavenskih naroda (Starčević and the Party of Rights’ Attitude toward the Serbs and the Unity of the South Slav Peoples) (Zagreb: “Školska knjiga,” 1951)Google Scholar; and Horvat, Josip, Ante Starčević: Kulturno-povjesna slika [Ante Starčević: Cultural-Historical Portrait] (Zagreb: Antun Velzek, 1940).Google Scholar
5 Horvat, Josip, Kultura Hrvata kroz 1000 godina: Gospodarski i društvovni razvitak u 18 i 19 stoljeću [The Culture of the Croats through a Thousand Years: Economic and Social Development in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries] (2 vols., Zagreb: Ante Velzek, 1942), Vol. II, pp. 9–118Google Scholar; Djurdjev, Branislav et al. , Historija naroda Jugoslavije [History of the Nations of Yugoslavia] (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1959), Vol. II, pp. 998–1117 and 1211–1251Google Scholar. Two volumes of the last work have been published up to now.
6 Šišić, , Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda, pp. 371–378.Google Scholar
7 Ibid., p. 372.
8 Truly outstanding syntheses of Illyrianism can be found in Šidak, Jaroslav, “Ilirski pokret” [The Illyrian Movement], in Enciklopedija Jugoslavije (Zagreb: Leksikografski Zavod, 1960) (6 vols. have been published up to now), Vol. IV, pp. 338–344Google Scholar; Šidak, Jaroslav, “Južnoslavenska ideja u Ilirskom pokretu” [The Yugoslav Idea in the Illyrian Movement], Jugoslovenski istorijski časopis, Vol. II, No. 3 (1963), pp. 31–42Google Scholar; and “Ljudevit Gaj,” Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, Vol. III, pp. 417–420Google Scholar. Among the scores of larger surveys one might compare the older work of Šurmin, Djuro, Hrvatski preporod [The Croatian Renaissance] (2 vols., Zagreb: Dionička Tiskara, 1903–1904)Google Scholar, with the recent treatment by Barac, Antun, Hrvatska književnoat ilirizma [The Croatian Literature of Illyrianism] (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1954).Google Scholar
9 Šidak, , “Prilog razvoju Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 1293–1294.Google Scholar
10 Jonke, Ljudevit, “Osnovni problemi jezika Hrvatske književnosti u XIX stoljeću” [The Basic Problems of the Language of Croatian Literature in the Nineteenth Century], Radovi slavenskog instituta filozofskog fakulteta, Vol. II (Zagreb: Grafički Zavod Hrvatske, 1958), pp. 75–90Google Scholar; “Knjizevni jezik u Hrvata od Gaja dalje” [The Literary Language of the Croats from Gaj's Time and Afterwards], Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, Vol. IV, pp. 523–525.Google Scholar
11 Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 108–109Google Scholar; Horvat, Josip, Povijest novinstva Hrvatake 1771–1939 [The History of Croatian Journalism, 1771–1939] (Zagreb: Stvarnost, 1962), pp. 95–198.Google Scholar
12 Much has been and is still being written concerning these most controversial matters. See, for example, Stranjaković, Dragoslav, “Kako je postalo Garašaninovo ‘Načertanije’” [How Garašanin's ‘Nacertanije’ came into being], Spomenik: Srpske akademije nauka, Vol. XCI, No. 2 (1939), pp. 65–115Google Scholar; Vučković, Vojislav J., “Prilog proučavanja postanka ‘Načertanija’ (1844) i ‘Osnovnik Misli’ (1847)” [A Contribution to the Research on the Origins of the “Načertanije”], Jugoslovenska revija za medjunarodno pravo, Vol. VIII, No. 1 (1961), pp. 49–79Google Scholar; Valentić, Mirko, “Koncepcija Garašaninova ‘Načertanija’ (1844)” [The Conception of Garasanin's “Načertanije” (1844)], Historijski pregled, Vol. VII, No. 2 (1961), pp. 128–137Google Scholar; and Mamužić, Ivan, “Ilirizam i Srbi” [Illyrianism and the Serbs], Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, Vol. IV, pp. 343–344.Google Scholar
13 It is understandable that this subject has been examined most intensively in the postwar era, especially at the time of the hundredth anniversary of the revolutions of 1848–1849. See the bibliographic references in Tadić, , Dix années d'historiographie yougoslave 1955–1965Google Scholar. Bogdanov, Vaso's Društvene i političke borbe u Hrvatskoj [Social and Political Struggles in Croatia] (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1949)Google Scholar and his Hrvatska Ijevica u godinama revolucije 1848–49 [The Croatian Left in the Years of the Revolution of 1848–1849] (Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1949)Google Scholar are traditional doctrinaire Marxian interpretations, whereas Jaroslav Šidak's works are more balanced and judicious. See his “Austroslavizam i Slavenski kongres u Pragu 1848” [AustroSlavism and the Slavic Congress in Prague (1848)], Historijski pregled, 1960, No. 3–4, pp. 204–218Google Scholar; his “Seljačko pitanje u Hrvatskoj politici, 1848” [The Peasant Question in Croatian Politics, 1848], Jugoslovenski istorijski časopis, 1963, No. 2, pp. 3–30Google Scholar; and his “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 112–116.Google Scholar
14 Bogdanov considers Jelačić, in effect, a traitor to the Croats and in their fight for freedom. See his Društvene i političke borbe u Hrvatskoj, pp. 267–286Google Scholar. This view is disputed by Šidak, Jaroslav, in his “Josip Jelačić,” Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, Vol. IV, pp. 478–480Google Scholar, and his “Prilozi historiji stranačkih odnosa u Hrvatskoj u oći 1848” [A Contribution to the History of Party Relations in Croatia on the Eve of 1848], Historijski zbornik, Vol. XIII, No. 4 (1960), pp. 167–207Google Scholar; and by Hauptmann, Ferdo, in his “Banus Jellačić und Feldmarschall Fürst Windisch-Grätz,” Südost Forschungen, Vol. XV (1956), pp. 373–402.Google Scholar
15 Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 113–114.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., pp. 114–116; Bogdanov, , Historija političkih stranaka u Hrvatskoj, pp. 297–476.Google Scholar
17 Novak, , Antologija Južnoslovenske misli i narodnog jedinstva, pp. 144–145.Google Scholar
18 Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 118–119Google Scholar; Šidak, , “Austroslavizam i Slavenski kongres u Pragu 1848,” pp. 213–218.Google Scholar
19 Šišić, , Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda, pp. 425–429.Google Scholar
20 Bogdanov, , Historija političkih stranaka it Hrvatskoj, pp. 308–322Google Scholar; Bogdanov, , Društvene i političke borbe u Hrvatskoj, pp. 269–325.Google Scholar
21 Šišić, , Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda, pp. 429–433.Google Scholar
22 There is ample evidence that his extreme statements were, in part at least, a reaction to equally inflammatory declarations by Serbs, such as Karadžić, Stefanović's claim “Srbi svi i svuda”Google Scholar (Serbs all and everywhere). Of the many things written about Starčević, see especially Bogdanov, , Starčević i stanka prava prema Srbima i prema jedinstvu Južnoslavenskih naroda, pp. 10–23Google Scholar; Bogdanov, , Historija političkih stranaka u Hrvatskoj, pp. 729–768Google Scholar; Horvat, , Ante Starčević, pp. 117–360Google Scholar; Sidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 120–121Google Scholar; and Kuntić, Ljerka, “Eugen Kvaternik” [Eugen Kvaternik], in Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, Vol. V, pp. 462–464Google Scholar. The argument that Starčević's desire to have the Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes united in a common state was good in principle but that the basis on which it was justified is to be condemned is difficult to accept. Of what value is the idea if it is based upon the denial of the Serbs as Serbs and the Slovenes as Slovenes? Bogdanov, , Starčević i stranka prava prema Srbima i prema jedinetvu Južnoslavenskih naroda, pp. 27, 30, and 53Google Scholar; Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” p. 181.Google Scholar
23 In his excellent study, “Prilog razvoju Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” p. 1305Google Scholar, šidak states that Strossmayer and Rački's Yugoslavism was “Illyrianism adapted to new conditions and experiences.”
24 Novak, Viktor, Franjo Rački u govorima i raspravama 1828–1894 [Franjo Rački as seen through His Speeches and Articles, 1828–1894] (Zagreb: Hrvatski štamparski zavod, 1925), pp. ix–xxv, 1–29, 47–53, and 73–74Google Scholar; Šišić, , Jugoslavenska misao, pp. 117–130.Google Scholar
25 Bogdanov, , Historija političkih stranaka u Hrvatskoj, pp. 518–768Google Scholar; Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 175–176Google Scholar; Polić, Martin, Parlementarna povijest kraljevine Hrvatske, Slavonije i Dalmacije [The Parliamentary History of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia] (2 vols., Zagreb: Franjo Suppan, 1899), Vol. I, pp. 106–146.Google Scholar
26 Bogdanov, , Historija političkih stranaka u Hrvatskoj, pp. 487–492.Google Scholar
27 Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 121 and 176–177.Google Scholar
28 With the enactment of the Ausgleich, Austro-Slavism was defeated, despite a last effort by Palacký to save it. Thwarted in Vienna, Palacký left for Moscow to seek Russian support, which he had rejected in 1848 as much as he did any subordination to the Germans at Frankfurt.
29 Polič, , Parlementarna povijest kraljevine Hrvatske, Vol. I, pp. 147–296; Vol. II, pp. 19–145Google Scholar; Šišić, , Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda, pp. 445–448Google Scholar; Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 177–179.Google Scholar
30 Šidak, Jaroslav, “Značenje Rakovičke bune u Austrijskoj politici g. 1871” [The Significance of the Rakovica Uprising in Austrian Politics in 1871], Historijski pregled, Vol. VII (1961), pp. 26–43.Google Scholar
31 Kvaternik not only saw force as the only answer, but he revealed the intensity of his feelings toward Yugoslavism when a list was found which he had compiled designating the people who should be hanged if Croatia became independent. The intellectual father of Yugoslavism, Rački, who has been called “the greatest Yugoslav of the nineteenth century,” was to be one of the victims. Novak, , Franjo Rački u govorima i raspravama, p. xGoogle Scholar. Among the many works concerning Kvaternik, see especially Kuntič, Ljerka, “Kvaternik i ustanak u Rakovici 1871 godine” [Kvaternik and the Uprising in Rakovica in the Year 1871]”, Historijski pregled, Vol. I (1954), pp. 462–464Google Scholar; and Šidak, , “Značenje Rakovičke bune u Austrijskoj politici g. 1871,” pp. 26–43.Google Scholar
32 Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” p. 179.Google Scholar
33 The fascinating topic of the Military Frontier has been the subject of many excellent studies by Rothenberg, Gunther (The Austrian Military Border in Croatia 1522–1747 [Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1960]Google Scholar; “The Croatian Military Border and the Rise of Yugoslav Nationalism,” Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. XLIH [1964], pp. 34–45Google Scholar; and “Jelačić, the Croatian Military Border, and the Intervention against Hungary in 1848,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. I [1965], pp. 45–73Google Scholar) and by Moačanin, Fedor in his “Periodizacija historije Vojne Krajine (XV–XIX st.)” [The Periodization of the History of the Military Frontier (XV–XIX Centuries)], Historijski zbornik, Vol. XIII, No. 1–4 (1960), pp. 111–117.Google Scholar
34 Lakatoš, Josip, Narodna statistika [National Statistics] (2nd ed., Zagreb: Hrvatski štamparski zavod, 1914), pp. 12 and 24Google Scholar
35 Šidak, , “Prilog razvoju Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 1305–1306.Google Scholar
36 Polić, , Parlementarna povijest kraljevine Hrvatake, pp. 219–258Google Scholar; Sugar, Peter, “The Nature of the non-Germanic Societies under Habsburg Rule,” Slavic Review, Vol. XXI (1963), pp. 22–24Google Scholar; Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 181–182Google Scholar. An interesting discussion of the problems of Bosnia is in Redžić, Enver, Prilozi o nacionalnom pitanju [Contributions to the National Question] (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1963), pp. 7–126 and 243–256.Google Scholar
37 Lakotoš, , Narodna statistika, pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
38 Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 180–183.Google Scholar
39 Katus, Laszlo, “Hauptzüge der kapitalistischen Entwicklung der Landwirtschaft in den südslawischen Gebieten der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie,” Studia, Historica, 1961, No. 51, pp. 113–165Google Scholar; Tomasevich, Jozo, Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1955), pp. 140–150Google Scholar; Zwitter, , Šidak, and Bogdanov, Les problèmes nationaux dans la monarchie des habsbourg, pp. 127–128.Google Scholar
40 Gross, , “Die nationale Idee der kroatischen Rechtspartei,” pp. 379–387Google Scholar; Gross, Mirjana, “Osnovni problemi pravaške politike 1878–1887” [The Basic Problems of the Policy of the Party of Rights, 1878–1887], Historijski zbornik, Vol. XV (1962), pp. 61–120Google Scholar; Flaker, Aleksandar, “O pravaškom radikalizmu 80–ih godina XIX stoljeca” [Concerning the Radicalism of the Party of Rights in the ‘Eighties of the Nineteenth Century]Google Scholar, ibid., Vol. VII (1954), pp. 85–101; Flaker, Aleksandar, “Pravaštvo i Rusija” [The Party of Rights and Russia]Google Scholar, ibid., Vol XI–XII (1958–59), pp. 105–119.
41 Stojanović, Nikola, “Srbi i Hrvati” [Serbs and Croats], Srpski Književni Glasnik, Vol. VI, No. 1 (08, 1902), pp. 1149–1159.Google Scholar
42 In view of the importance of the events of 1903 in Croatian affairs, this period has understandably received considerable attention from historians. Of the many works, one should especially consult Ibler, Janko, Hrvataka politika 1903–1913 [Croatian Politics, 1903–1913] (Zagreb: Kraljevska Zemaljska Štamparija, 1914)Google Scholar; Bogdanov, Vaso, Hrvatski narodni pokret 1903–4 [The Croatian National Movement, 1903–1904] (Zagreb: Izdavački Zavod Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, 1960)Google Scholar; and Gross, Mirjana, Vladavina Hrvatsko-Srpske koalicije 1906–1907 [The Administration of the Croatian-Serbian Coalition 1906–1907] (Belgrade: Institut društvenih nauka, 1960).Google Scholar
43 Novak, Grga, Prošlost Dalmacije [Dalmatia's Past] (2 vols., Zagreb: Tipografija, 1944), Vol. II, pp. 360–426Google Scholar; Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 182–187.Google Scholar
44 Mirjana Gross presents an excellent synthesis in her Vladavina Hrvatsko-Srpske koalicije 1906–1907, pp. 5–11Google Scholar. The young Soviet scholar Iuri Pisarev gives an interesting account in his Osvoboditelnoe dvizhenie iuzhnoslavianskih narodov Avstro-Vengrii 1905–1914 [The Liberation Movement of the South Slav Peoples of Austria-Hungary, 1905–1914] (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1962)Google Scholar, although one may question some of his premises on the Croatian problem. See also Trumbić, Ante, Suton Austro-Ugarske i Riječka rezolucija [The Twilight of Austria-Hungary and the Fiume Resolution] (Zagreb: U vlastitoj nakladi pisca, 1936).Google Scholar
45 Gross, , Vladavina Hrvatsko-Srpske koalicije 1906–1907, pp. 11–202.Google Scholar
46 Among the works concerning Supilo, Trumbić, and Pribićević, the following provide valuable information: Horvat, Josip, Supilo (Zagreb: Tipografija, 1938)Google Scholar; Horvat, Josip, Frano Supilo (Zagreb: Nolit, 1961)Google Scholar; Šepić, Dragovan, Supilo Diplomat (Zagreb: Naprijed, 1961)Google Scholar; Pavelić, Ante Smith, Dr. Ante Trumbić: Problemi hrvatsko-srpskih odnosa [Dr. Ante Trumbić: the Problems of Croatian-Serbian Relations] (Munich: Knjižnica Hrvatske reyije, 1959)Google Scholar; and Matković, Hrvoje, “Svetozar Pribićević,” Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, Vol. VI, pp. 611–612.Google Scholar
47 In 1913 Nikola Pašić was in touch with the Coalition and cautioned it not to provoke the dual monarchy because Serbia was not prepared for war. Šidak, , “Hrvatsko pitanje Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” p. 192, n. 36.Google Scholar
48 Ibid., pp. 190–191; Šidak, , “Prilog razvoju Jugoslavenske ideje do g. 1914,” pp. 1314–1315Google Scholar; Biber, Dušan, “Jugoslovanska ideja in slovensko narodno vprasanje v slovenski publicistiki med balkanskimi vojnami v Ietih 1912–1913” [The Yugoslav Idea and the Slovene National Question in Slovenian Publications between the Balkan Wars in the Years 1912–1913], Istorija XX veka: Zbornik radova (6 vols., Belgrade: Kultura, 1959), Vol. I, pp. 285–326.Google Scholar
49 Among the numerous works dealing with the activities of the Yugoslav Committee, see especially Krizman, Bogdan, “Ženevska konferencija O ujedinjenju 1918 godine” [The Geneva Conference concerning the Unification of 1918], Istoriski glasnik, 1958, No. 1–2, pp. 3–32Google Scholar; Krizman, Bogdan, “Predsjednik Wilson i jadransko pitanje do primira s Austro-Ugarskom 1918” [President Wilson and the Adriatic Question to the Armistice with Austria-Hungary in 1918], Anali Jadranskog instituta, Vol. II (1958), pp. 81–116Google Scholar; Krizman, Bogdan, “Stvaranje Jugoslavenske države” [The Formation of the Jugoslav State], Historijski pregled, Vol. IV (1958), pp. 167–215Google Scholar; Paulova, Milada, Jugoslavenski odbor [The Yugoslav Committee] (Zagreb: Prosvetna nakladna zadruga, 1925)Google Scholar; Šepić, , Supilo DiplomatGoogle Scholar; Šepić, Dragovan, “Srpska vlada i počeci Jugoslavenskog odbora” [The Serbian Government and the Beginning of the Yugoslav Committee], Historijski zbornik, Vol. XIII (1960), pp. 1–45Google Scholar; Šepić, Dragovan, “O misiji Lj. Stojanovića i A. Belića u Petrogradu 1915 godine” [Concerning the Mission of Lj. Stojanović and A. Belić in Petrograd in 1915], Zbornik historiskog instituta Jugoslavenske akademije, Vol. III (1961), pp. 449–497Google Scholar; and Šepić, Dragovan, “Oktobarska revolucija i Jugoslavensko pitanje u Austro-Ugarskog 1917/8” [The October Revolution and the Yugoslav Question in Austria-Hungary, 1917–1918], Historijski zbornik, Vol. XI–XII (1958–1959), pp. 7–47Google Scholar. Also consult Budisavljević, Srdjan, Stvaranje države Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca [The Formation of the State of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes] (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija umjetnosti i znanosti, 1958)Google Scholar; and Marjanović, Milan, Londonski ugovor iz godine 1915 [The London Agreement of the Year 1915] (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija umjetnosti i znanosti, 1960).Google Scholar
50 For an excellent analysis associated with the problems of the peace settlement which finally ratified the formation of the South Slav state, see Lederer, Ivo J., Yugoslavia at the Paris Peace Conference: A Study in Frontier Making (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1963).Google Scholar
