by Naile Mala.
Summary
In this final instalment, Trotsky exposes Russian political and media circles that were pushing the Balkan countries towards conflict in pursuit of their own adventurist interests. He highlights Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pašić’s decision to avoid a devastating confrontation with Austria and illustrates the enormous human and material cost of the war through striking figures, such as the loss of almost all the horses belonging to the Šumadija Division during its march from Prizren to Durrës.
He recounts how the Serbian army struggled to reach Durrës after leaving Prizren with only 80 of its original 3,000 horses, the rest having perished along the way. He also discusses the disappointment of Russian public opinion, which demanded that Russian diplomacy intervene in Serbia’s interests, while the Russian diplomatic establishment failed to act in accordance with these demands concerning the Adriatic Sea. Trotsky further describes the immense hardships endured by the Serbian army on its advance towards Durrës, as well as the warmongering speech and arrogance of Beryanshaninov.
In the context of the Balkan Wars, Serbia’s attempt to secure access to the Adriatic Sea through Albanian territories was one of the most sensitive diplomatic issues of the period. Russia, as Serbia’s ally and supporter, viewed the strengthening of its position in the Balkans—as it does today—as a means of expanding its regional influence and diminishing Austro-Hungarian influence. For Serbia, access to the Adriatic was of considerable economic and strategic importance, as it would free the country from its almost complete dependence on trade routes passing through territories controlled or influenced by Austria-Hungary.
However, this is precisely where one of the contradictions criticised by Trotsky emerges. While Russia presented its policy as support for the Slavic peoples and protection of its Balkan allies, its actions were also shaped by the longstanding rivalry among the great powers for influence in the Balkans. Support for the Serbian advance towards the Albanian coast directly conflicted with the Albanian question, as the establishment of the Albanian state and the determination of its borders became subjects of intense international pressure.
Since Trotsky returns to Russia in almost every instalment of the series, it is clear that he did not view the conflict merely as a confrontation between Balkan armies, but as part of a broader diplomatic struggle: Russia acting through Serbia, Austria-Hungary opposing Serbian expansion, and the other great powers attempting to preserve the European balance of power.
Translation
“Leon Trotsky: Serbia, Autumn 1912 (30)
ADVENTURERS OF THE WORST KIND
I did not take shorthand notes of Mr Beryanshaninov’s lengthy speech (I do not know shorthand), but I have presented its general character and expressed purpose here with complete accuracy. “Russian public opinion” has demanded that Russian diplomacy intervene actively in Serbia’s interests. Yet Russian diplomacy has either failed to respond to this appeal altogether or has refused to support Serbian claims to the Adriatic coast.
I was thoroughly embarrassed to hear this Tolstoyan-style monologue (Nika!) in Politika, and I kept asking myself: Why is this man doing this to my compatriots here? He would have been better off staying at home!
ARROGANCE AT THE BANQUET
Naturally, none of the prominent members of the old Radical Party attended the banquet. This was the party that behaved so timidly and cowardly in response to Berchtold’s slogan concerning the disregard of “Russian public opinion.”
The politicians I spoke with belonged mainly to two Serbian parties: the Progressives and the Young Radicals. Since both parties were in opposition to the government—the Independent Radicals on the grounds of formally defending parliamentary rights, and the Progressives because of their disagreement with Pašić’s “overpopulation”—all the banquet participants nevertheless felt, or at least appeared to feel, offended as they listened to Beryanshaninov’s reproaches.
Is it really necessary to disregard the realities of the present situation so completely that Mr Beryanshaninov’s bellicose speech can combine unprecedented arrogance with reckless courage that is utterly irresponsible and, I would even say, completely insane?
Ultimately, the Serbs are not under the influence of “Russian public opinion.” What this actually means is that certain vocal groups and newspapers have done everything possible to secure possession of strategic footholds on the Adriatic as quickly as possible.
“Just carry out this task as soldiers,” the diplomats from Novoye Vremya and Russkoye Slovo, along with certain influential salons, told the Serbs, “and we will not betray you!”
The hardships and sacrifices involved in the Serbian advance to the sea can be seen, for example, in the following extraordinary episode: the Šumadija Division reached Durrës on the nineteenth day after leaving Prizren, with only 80 of its original 3,000 horses remaining. The others had disappeared along the way…
But now, after the coast has been occupied, Austria is demanding that the Serbs withdraw. And, of course, there can be no doubt that such a demand was foreseeable, in one form or another, even before it was made.
Encouraged, however, independently of Russian diplomacy—which presents itself as the authentic voice of Russian interests—the Serbs have entered into a conflict with Austria.
When the situation became seriously aggravated, and the searchlights of Austro-Hungarian warships began illuminating the royal palace in Belgrade at night, rumours also began circulating that Serbian ships were about to be subjected to hostile treatment.
We must suppose that the openly anxious Mr Pašić asked the Russian ambassador, Mr Hartwig:
“What is going to happen now?”
And Mr Hartwig, who enjoyed a reputation as the principal pillar of the unofficial policy of “genuine Slavic solidarity” in the Balkans, undoubtedly replied:
“Do not count on us… No, I mean, you know where I stand—go to St Petersburg… Nothing will happen…”
Pašić then left the embassy after this carefully considered conversation, presumably observing every rule of diplomatic courtesy. Yet, on his way home, he was sending messages to Masaryk, Kramář, or someone else, indicating that his government was prepared to reach an agreement with Vienna. In other words, Serbia would accept the Austrian demand, regardless of whether it was presented in the form of a European decision.
“If Europe decides that we must withdraw our army from Albania, we will withdraw it,” representatives of the government declared.
This was no easy decision.
As for Serbia’s “rights” in Albania, that is a separate question. All of Serbia had confidently hoped that its demands would receive support. Serbia could have obtained a port in a neutral zone without sacrificing lives; the only price it would have had to pay was to keep its hands off Albania.
The responsibility for Serbia’s having taken a different course rests with Russian diplomacy, both official and unofficial, whose interests Serbia serves.
And the only thing this “other friend” had demonstrated was that there was no way forward. Pašić recognised this in time and turned towards an agreement with Vienna.
THE PATRIOTIC MOVE
Serbia’s position should not have allowed it to surrender its positions on the coast. Had such a surrender taken place, Mr Beryanshaninov’s words would not have been repeated here.
His threats were echoed by numerous officers, particularly younger ones. Several Serbian newspapers expressed the same position, albeit in different ways and with considerable noise: Politika, Pravda, and Stampa.
In general, I see neither a sound basis nor any reliable means of determining whether this position will be put into practice.
The tradition of “independent political action by officers” is deeply rooted and firmly established in Serbia. In this particular matter, which directly concerns the officers and in which the course of events depends exclusively on their actions, the temptation is especially great.
A major political party in Serbia—the so-called Nationalists, formerly the Liberals and servants of Milan’s disorderly despotic regime—is now attempting to use political agitation to encourage the officers to undertake a “bold patriotic move.” Its intention is then to overthrow Pašić’s Radical government and seize power itself, regardless of the consequences for the country’s foreign relations.
This closely connected nationalist group, a faction combining court intrigue with crude demagoguery, is now employing inflammatory and bombastic language in its newspaper, called Crne stotine (“Black Hundreds”—?).
The newspaper calls for the destruction of the existing political system, “by any means necessary.”
Perhaps, by a “patriotic move,” the Nationalists mean provoking a war with Austria, apparently counting on support from Bulgaria as well, or launching an attack towards Monastir, Veles, and Prilep.
But should the worst come to pass, the Nationalists have also raised the slogan: “Do not surrender Durrës!”
Their principal objective is to push the original issue into the background: to exploit discontent among the officers, create external and internal chaos, and overthrow the government standing in their way.
It must not be forgotten that the extensive agitation conducted by certain Russian newspapers and “salons,” which promise to give away what does not belong to them, plays an imaginary and deceptive role in Serbian politics. Ultimately, it serves the purposes of a particular clique of adventurers of the worst kind.
The Kiev Newspaper (Kievskaya Mysl), No. 360, 20 December 1912.
End“
Concluding Summary
Throughout Leon Trotsky’s feuilletons, Russia emerges as a decisive factor in the developments of the Balkan Wars, not only as a supporter of its Slavic allies but also as a power seeking to expand its political influence in Southeastern Europe.
The efforts to secure Serbian access to the Adriatic Sea through Albanian territories demonstrate the interweaving of Balkan national aspirations with the strategic interests of the great powers. In Trotsky’s critical assessment, this policy reveals that behind the rhetoric of solidarity among peoples lay calculations of power, diplomatic rivalries, and geopolitical ambitions that would profoundly influence the fate of the Balkans.
— Translator of the feuilletons.
