Vukovar resolution

Vukovar resolution was the document in which Serbs from Vukovar and neighboring communities, at the end of 1939. requested from central Yugoslav government exemption of Vukovar county from the Banovina of Croatia and its annexation to the Danube Banovina or future Banovina of Serbia.[1]

Political circumstances

With Cvetković-Maček agreement, Banovina of Croatia was created from Sava Banovina, Littoral Banovina, and parts of Vrbas Banovina, Drina Banovina and Zeta Banovina The new creation included large number of areas in which Croats weren't ethnic majority (i.e. were Serbs where ethnic majority),[2] or areas that weren't earlier part of the Croatian state (Prevlaka, Dubrovnik and western Srem). This turn of events provoked outcry in part of the Serbian people because creation of Banovina of Croatia didn't resolve the, so called, Serbian issue.[3] Protests followed, mostly organized or incited by Serbian Cultural Club which demanded revision of Cvetković-Maček agreement, that is, border revision of the newly formed Banovina of Croatia. Serbian Cultural Club claimed that the agreement wasn't signed by all Serb representatives but was in fact the result of bargain struck between the crown and representatives of CPP.[4][5]

Map of Banovina of Croatia, 1939

Through its newspaper, the "Serbian Voice", Serbian Cultural Club, by means of different articles presented opinion on necessity of Serb political autonomy in Banovina of Croatia (in 19 of counties where Serbs were absolute or relative majority) or alternatively, separation from Banovina of Croatia and addition to other banovina level units that were to enter Banovina of Serbia later on.[5]

To implement this, Serbian Cultural Club formed its subcommittees on territory of east Slavonija, Srem, Bosanska Posavina and in the final months of 1939. started collecting signatures for separation of Ilok, Šid and Vukovar county from Banovina of Croatia.[5]

Historical, geographical and other resolution reasons

Historical reasons

As main reasons for the resolution, the document itself names the historical reasons:

"For many years, Vukovar was the seat of the Syrmia County. Together with Banat and Bačka, Syrmia forms Serbian Vojvodina. This is irrefutable, because even the national spirit attests to it through song "Syrmia, Banat and Bačka, the three courageous hearts". We had Serb majority in Vukovar county for several centuries now. Different sources confirm this; for example, one modern German writer from the first half of 18th century says: "Orthodox believers built their church in 1731. for which 50.000 bricks were requested from local nobility. Their requests were easily met for they made the majority of county population and their religion was tolerated as they already had one older church in Vukovar. Furthermore, they benefited from poor demand for the landowner brick.

Summoned by Syrmia-Karlovci metropolitan Vikentije Jovanović, Russians teachers arrived to educate the Serbian youth and one of those teachers stayed in Sremski Karlovci while others leave for Belgrade and Vukovar, so they can found schools there. The fact that in 1733. Timitej Levandovski went to Vukovar and started a Serbian school shows how, even then, Vukovar represented a strong Serbian cultural center. It remained as such through history to the present day. Vukovar gave the first Serbian journalist and polyglot, Zaharije Stefanović Orfelin, predecessor to the Dositej Obradović.

"Dobra Voda", Vukovar picnic resort, where most notable Serbs from Syrmia regularly gathered near the little church of St.Paraskeva, was where Branko Radičević found inspiration for his poems. Svetozar Miletić, returning from Vac, first stops by in Vukovar to visit the Serbian political centar of Syrmia. These examples are not unique, many others can be added to the list. Cultural and educational Serbian societies even today mention Vukovar Serbs action."

Geographical reasons

According to the signatures of the resolution, Vukovar, in economic sense "absolutely and solely gravitates towards Novi Sad and creates one economic unit with Syrmia...Only applicable authority in matters of price regulation of commercial goods on Vukovar market is stock exchange of Novi Sad. Only place where farmer from Vukovar county can buy his tools is Novi Sad. The economic structure of the Vukovar county is identical with that of Danbue Banovina.

Political reasons

Signatories of the resolution stated that Vukovar has always a single political whole with rest of the Syrmia,that is, Danube Banovine back then: "Croats and their political parties didn't once won a election majority in this county, therefore neither was the political representative theirs. During the campaign for the political reorganization of the country, it was requested from the Croats that they honor specific historical individuality. If this individuality was to be taken into an account, Vukovar could be added to the Vojvodina".

Likwise, it was stated that according to the census from 1931. Vukovar county had 51.334 citizens. 26.342 were Serbs, 11.893 were Croats while the rest was comprised from national minorities (Germans, Hungarians, Russians/Rusyns, Czechs, Slovaks, Jews...), therefore, Vukovar county, as area populated mostly with Serbs had no reason or basis to remain part of Banovina of Croatia.

Signatories

Initiators and authors of the resolution were Marko R. Bingulac and Marko Lj. Bugarski. As such they were mentioned as first signatories of the resolution. Afterwards followed signatures by representatives of Serbian Orthodox Church municipalities:

References

  1. ↑ Srpski Glas #1. pp. 7
  2. ↑ Vladimir Ćorović: Istorija srpskog naroda
  3. ↑ Djokić, Dejan; Ker-Lindsay, James (4 October 2010). New Perspectives on Yugoslavia: Key Issues and Controversies. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-93132-1.
  4. ↑ Српски културни клуб
  5. 1 2 3 Regan, Krešimir (October 2008). "Srpski kulturni klub i Banovina Hrvatska". Journal of Contemporary History (in Croatian). Zagreb: Croatian Institute of History. 40 (2).
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/1/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.