Jump to content

Talk:Podgorica Assembly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PaxEquilibrium (talk | contribs) at 09:55, 9 January 2009 (→‎De Salis report about Montenegro in 1919: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The mention of a Greater Serbia is completly irrelevant to the Assembly - and incorrect - so is the POV-ised portraying of the Serbian government. Thus, I am placing a totallydisputed tag.

Moreover, the ridiculous mention of a Montenegrin Autocephalous Orthodox Church (cca 1920s) is unconnected - and it implies that it originates from the 650s... Very interesting for Slavic pagans... The Autocephalous branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Montenegro was founded in the late 18th century, recognized (partially!) and formed throughout the 19th century as well as constitutionalized at the beginning of the 20th century. However, it was reunited with other Serb branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1920 - just as it was its sole goal... Anyway, this is totally irrelevant with the actual assembly. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is biased, but what about the previous one? There was no mention of Montenegrin's resistance to unification, and no mention whatsoever of general Montenegrin's malcontent with way the things were done.

This is no perfect article, and I intend to work on it, but the notion of cute little unification which occured to everyone's approval just bothered me. It is widely accepted that Podgorica Assembly was no legitimate nor it was legal. It did not represent the will of the Montenegrin people. I'm aware this one is too inclined the other way for an encyclopedia, but it's yet to improve...Nije bitno... 20:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's better not to mention it at all, rather then simply mention it wrongly, or aginst Wikipedia's policies. :) ANyway, I think that you can handle this article (can you, or should I take care of it myself?), however you must understand the expression of my face when I saw the year of 650. :0) --HolyRomanEmperor 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert in Montenegrin church, nor am I proffesional historian, but I think I can manage to at least cut out biased and inaccurate parts of the article, and leave a short, but acceptable one. Will get to it as soon as I find time... Nije bitno... 15:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm some sort of a historian - and I'm most definately certain that the Montenegrin Orthodox Church (the non-canonic one) was formed in 1997 and still maintains its quasi-existence today. The autocephalous Montenegrin branch of Eastern Orthodoxy, however, partially existed ever since its formalization in 1894, up to its inclusion into the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1920. I'll leave you to handle the article. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

A lot of sloppy additions to the article. The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are not the same, and the author got them mixed up. Also, Alexander I of Yugoslavia wan't the king in 1918, his father was.--Methodius 00:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Kingdom of Yugoslavia only existed under that name from 1929.--Methodius 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"After the Assembly announced its decisions, they chose a delegation led by Gavrilo Dožić (who would become the Serb Patriarch in 1938), to inform the King of Serbia of the decisions they had made. The delegation handed the decisions to Alexander I of Yugoslavia on 17 December 1918."
Did they hand them to then Prince Alexander or King Peter I?--Methodius 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it was King Peter I of Yugoslavia. I got confused because his son was planned to be the king of the newly-made unified Kingdom... Thanks for pointing it out, though. Sideshow Bob 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem--Methodius 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if we could find a better source than montenegrina.net eventually, since it's hardly the most unbiased site.--Methodius 01:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but Montenegrina.net and Njegos.org put together sort of balance each other out, don't ya think? :) Sideshow Bob 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't generalize. It really depends on which articles. Some of the articles in Montenegrina regarding Montenegrin clans are absolutely brilliant, and on the other hand I'd always choose King Nikola Petrovic-Njegos and/or Petar II Petrovic Njegos over Jevrem Brkovic; regardless on which site they're presented. ;) It is not the problem in Njegos or Montenegrina, but in their parts. Each deserves careful inspection. For example, Montenegrin has an article of an encyclopedia by Matica Srpska which has "Serbs" and then "Dalmatians", "Montenegrins", "Bosnians",... but regardless that it means nothing, it shows that Matica Srpska published it before it was founded.
And I also do not like its administrators. I became wondered that their Guestbook has only several (many-year-spanning) posts which glorify the site, and I decided to make a test. In a weeks' time period, I posted 2 posts in which I declared the site was a Saint, and one on which I criticized its every single bit. And guess what? After 8 days the two positive ones came out on the Guestbook, and the bad one didn't. They're searching through posts and later putting only the good ones at the site, and that is a very dishonest thing. --PaxEquilibrium 12:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know Montenegrina webmaster, we have exchanged quite a few e-mails a couple of months ago.The "administration" of the site is made up of Montenegrin college students, and supported by a number of historians who contribute to it. Also, they have no governmental support whatsoever, so they are somewhat struggling to finance the whole project, which has now expanded to presenting and preserving the entire Montenegrin culture. Also, their monthly newsletter I receive has a number of interesting articles.
BTW, there is a facsimile of the order by Serbian Army after they went in to Montenegro in 1918 to ensure the goal of Podgorica Assembly goes through. There it is. Sideshow Bob 16:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, after the Matica Srpska document, I don't know if I can believe scanned documents in Montenegrina. ;)
It's slightly funny that it says "occupier" when they actually came as the "liberator" (though the text seems to form like martial rule). BTW what are "Yugoslav troops"?!? And also, know that these exactly the same rules were applied for liberated territories of the Kingdom of Serbia (and in the seized border areas, and even later for a time in Vojvodina). Montenegro was no exception, this was just as a means to take control of the whole place (with 3 years of hostile occupation under which the whole population forgot what's law and went to the woods to oppose it). I think this document is quite a bit misrepresented, as it seems it only serves to show that the Central Powers' (terrifying) occupation was nice... --PaxEquilibrium 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

I think we have some New Style/Old Style dates to untangle. According to the Ekmečić article "Скупштина је заседала од 24. до 29. новембра 1918. године." but the fascimile of the Act of the assembly says it was passed at the November 13 sitting.--Methodius 02:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have information that it was held in 11-16 November, and I think that one's authentic. Also, see this. --PaxEquilibrium 12:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but are those the Old Style dates? Either they are, or some of the other sources mistook them for OS dates. Also, I think it would be good if we could get a transcription of the Odluka, chop out some quotes and such. Except I can't hardly read the bloody thing, even when I download it, zoom/sharpen/play around with the contrast etc--Methodius 14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the facsimile? I have no problems reading it.But translating the whole document...I don't think I have time, or patience for something like that. Sideshow Bob 16:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribing = putting into form like this page, not an image file. It's pretty hard on the eyes, wouldn't you agree? It's legible, but the strain of reading such tiny, blurry writing is too much.--Methodius 00:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

This article is pro-Serbian POV because of this reasons:

  • 1) Book writen in reference is speaking about Serbian agents which are working on Montenegro territory for union between state from 1866. This is not allowed to be writen in article.
  • 2) Similar to that books from reference in article are speaking how serbian military has not allowed return of members of Montenegro military and royal family before election has ended. This is not allowed to be writen in article.
  • 3) Question if new state will be federation or Serbia will annex Montenegro is writen in reference books. This is not allowed in background part of article where it is writen only about "dream" of Montenegro population to unite with Serbia. Writing about this in backgroung part of article is not allowed.
  • 4) Writing in article that parliament has voted under serbian military "protection" is not allowed.
  • 5) Writing in article that Italy has wanted independent Montenegro under italian protection is not allowed because "Italians" are bad guys but Serbs which has wanted annexation of Montenegro are good guys.
  • 6) Even fact date questions in article are not allowed. I am really tired of this nationalistic editing.--Rjecina 15:36, 05 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) The link is not necessary a reference, I myself put the external links to every single source, with all versions. Serbia has worked greatly to unite with Montenegro since the beginning of the 20th century (with "agents") and not 1866.
    • 2) It may be written, however carefully because the statement itself is biased.
    • 3) Because that has nothing to do with the Background. :)
    • 4) What does that precisely mean?
    • 5) It falls simply down under the granted mandate. The Italian armed forces went outside their zones in an attempt to occupy the other territories of Montenegro, which would probably mean that they'd enter war with Serbia, Britain, France and America, as well as that they'd have to fight the majority of the population. Similarly to that which happened in 1941, no?
    • 6) Nationalistic editing? What are you talking about Rjecina? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) It is funny how somebody can write book in reference and then say this pages of book are speaking truth, but this other pages are having false claims. Funny :))
      • 2) Do you want to say that Serbian military orders from 1918 are biased ?
      • 3) In background part of article there is many biased statements (example:Montenegro had planned and prepared unification with Serbia for more than a full century)
      • 4) When we edit articles from history we must stop thinking and start writing facts. With that I want to say that our "job" is not to mean but to write without intepretation !!
      • 5) Again this dream how Italian armed forces has wanted to occupy Montenegro. During Italian operation only legal goverment of Montenegro has been king Nicholas goverment. If they have not protested this action then this has not been attack on Montenegro.
      • 6) It is better to say that this has been Greater Serbia style of editing ?
      • 7) For the end I am having 2 more question ? If everybody has liked this sort of annexation why has only 5 of 56 members of 1914 parliament supported this events ? I will not even question slaughter of Montenegrins by Serbian forces ...--Rjecina 8:00, 06 January 2008 (UTC)
        • 1) I don't see what's funny in there. I include all the links available. The Kosovo article has numerous links pro-Serbian and pro-Albanian. Some of the pro-Serbian links go to even madly support of Slobodan Milosevic, while some of the pro-Albanian write nonsensical revisionist histories. But you don't see in the article that Milosevich is one of the greatest heroes in the world, nor do you see how Illyrians lived in Kosovo for thousands of years and continue to live through the Albanians in Kosovo continuously without stop to today from the Iron Age either, do you? :)
        • 2) I said that the claim is biased, because it seems to:
          • a) support a hostile occupying force (the aggressor in a war, the enemy)
          • b) claim that a man who wasn't even there was detained by the Serbian forces
          • c) claim that a supporter of unification who freely returned and joined the Radicals was stopped by the Serbian forces
          • d) claim that a dead man was halted by Serbian forces
        • 3) That is actually true. Official Montenegro planned and prepared it even long before the First Serbian Uprising, when Serbia was created:
            • Here is one example: in the 1876-1878 Ottoman wars the agreement was to renew the Serbian Empire with Milan Obrenovic of Serbia as Emperor and Nikola Petrovic of Montenegro and the Highlands as Patriarch of the renewed Serbian Orthodox Church
          • What other statements do you not agree with?
        • 4) I understand that, but what is "under protection" and why do you want it in the article?
        • 5) They have not protested during the Serbian liberation of Montenegro either. And there is no "dream", that did occur.
        • 7) How do you know that only 5 of 56 supported it? Also, what alleged slaughter of Montenegrins by Serbian forces are you talking about? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • To end this discussion I will write about which facts we agree:
          • 1)We agree that books writen in reference part of article are speaking about serbian agents in Montenegro which are working for union from 1866
          • 2)We agree that Serbian military has not allowed return in country of high ranking state or military officials which has been against union before parliament vote.
          • 3)We agree that there has been different thinking about version of union inside Montenegro.
          • 4)We agree that parliament has been under Serbian military protection during voting.
          • 5)We agree that Montenegro goverment has not protested entry of Italian forces in Montenegro.
          • 7)Data about 5 of 56 is from historical documents (I will show source in right time). About slaughter read you can read Chicago Tribune of 1 september 1919
          • Because you accept that all claims writen by me in article are true your reverts are clear example of vandalism and POV editing because of which I do not see point in futher discussion about this article--Rjecina 14:24, 06 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • 1) Not quite.
            • 2) Of course we do not.
            • 3) Sure. So?
            • 4) Nope.
            • 5) Yes. And? The Montenegrin government in exile also hasn't ever protested/mentioned any slaughter.
            • 7) I don't understand. How come now isn't the right time? That is a journalist article, normally far-fetched - but killings did occur, and they were indeed horrible. According to some (possible overestimates, but still), almost 3,000 Montenegrins died in the tiny civil war. But the Serbian Army itself, had little or none at all part in that conflict.
            • Read again - as I have told you over and over again, I do not accept all those claims, because of n times repeated arguments. And please see WP:VAND, I'm starting to think "Creation of SCS" was right. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Points of dispute

  • In article is writen how Montengro has always wanted union with Serbia but you are deleting all words which are speaking about Serbian agents working in Montenegro for union between states. This is confirmed by sources !!
  • You are refusing to allow writing in article about Serbian orders which has not allowed return of members of Montenegro military forces and royal family until election has been finished. We are having sources which speaks about that
  • In article need to be writen about different opinions of Montenegrins about union. 1 part has wanted something similar to federation and another more or less annexation.
  • During assembly voting he has been under serbian protection.
  • There has not been attack of Italian forces on Montenegro because Montenegro government has not declared this action to be agression. This government has protested slaughter of Montenegro martyrs (words of government protest) by Serbian forces.
  • Fact that 90 % of 1914 Montenegrin parliament (and ministers from all Montenegro governments) has been against this union or better to say annexation is another important fact which need to be in article.
  • We must write in article fact that elections for assembly has been against Montenegro law.
  • "Only" 3000 persons has been killed during "civil war". This has been 1 % of Montenegro population !!!. During Croatian War of Independence number there has been "only" 0.2 % of victims if we look all population. During War in Bosnia and Herzegovina number has been something more of "only" 2 % killed. It is funny how in many Serbian sources all 3 wars has been civil wars.

Because all this historical facts confirmed with sources are not in article my only comments is that today version of article is showing Serbian thinking of this union.

There is no need to be afraid. We will have RFC in near future. --Rjecina (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both the Montenegrin and Serbian political elite (leaders) have always wanted to achieve unification, yes. I don't understand what're you precisely objecting. Perhaps you should cite the wording here at the talk page, which you would desire to be in the article? We could then work it out and include it into the article itself. The one you introduced was POV.
    • Yes, because one of those whom these sources allegedly speak indeed did return (and was a chief proponent of unification IMHO), one was detained as per being Collaborator (and then released and pardoned very soon), another wasn't even in future Yugoslavia and the top jewel is the non-living one. ;D And by the way, the House of Petrovic-Njegos wasn't banned from returning. E.g. the very same sources found on Montenegrina also claim that Nicholas in truth never ever initiated his return, for various reasons. Another important thing is that the Serbian government and the Montenegrin Committee did not explicitly stop him from returning, they just advised him not to return, for his own safety (which was IMHO quite reasonable you'd have to agree - with no guarantees of life given from the two, it would've been dangerous for him and his family - he could've ended up like the Obrenovics in 1903; another reason is that the whole situation was very touchy and could've escalated to god knows what. You should also know that the Petrovic-Njegoss were not barred from returning and that upon crowning King Alexander secured that the Petrovics' property is intact, and succeeds accordingly. You should also remember that Alexander negotiated to privately move Nicholas to Belgrade, but Nicholas' poor health prevented this, among other reasons).
    • And it already is - the White and Green Lists
    • At least ten times I've asked you to explain this to me, and you still didn't. :)
    • I've said it before, and I shall say it again: Italy plainly violated the Allied treaty and went outside of its mandate. Neither Britain, nor Serbia, America or France did that. This has got nothing to do with the events that would later follow.
    • This is not correct. AFAIK it is known that the Montenegrin governments in Exile were constantly disbanded, because Nicholas was simply even running out of men, even his closest supporters.
    • Don't get insulted, but do you even read our discussion? ;) Like I've said numerous times before, it already is in the article.
    • I've never said only, and yes, 3,000 is a terribly gross overestimate. I quoted the highly controversial Montenegrin Association of America website on the number, to show how far even go. Yes, they were all civil wars, and not in only Serbian, but in most sources (but this is off-topic). Also, numbers mean nothing, even a single death of a civilian (e.g. that peasant whose throat has been cut slit in Serbian) is horrible. And most of all, that's another subject. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid? I think you're a little too bit stressed these days. :) Don't get offended, but ease down, man. Also, the edit summary you made isn't civil. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my thinking difference between us is that I am open minded. Show me sources which say different and I will accept them on other side you are refusing to accept even your sources (books writen in references) which are showing "unification" in bad light. Because of that compromise is not possible and there is no point in this discussion. Like I have been saying this will be solved by RFC. --Rjecina (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have the right to have your own opinion. No need to point it out. ;) Wikipedia is about the content, and not the users. I have shown you sources, e.g. the one showing that Radomir Vesovic was a collaborator. If that is your wish. I have invited you to cite sentences in detail, so that we could peacefully formulate them over here. I really do not understand why you reject that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your patronizing and playing with words to downgrade me or other editors. Numbers of editors which has started to understand your way of talking is raising. --Rjecina (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I do not understand what you're talking about. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

  • Article is writen so that users "understand" how Montenegro is Serbian land. Background is long like all others put together. I am surprised to see that in article is not writen about Serbs coming in VI century. I am afraid that editor has forgot to write about this ??
  • There is no point to write again and again all misleading and false statements in this article --Rjecina (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can look what is writen before but if it is not clear enough I will write this again :)
Background POV: Background is long like all others parts together
Electoral rules: "The compromise is that it wouldn't be based on neither Montenegrin nor Serbian laws, but completely new and more modern ones" It has been compromise between who ? Committee financed by Serbia and who ??
Election: Italian invasion. How is possible to call military action invasion when goverment is not having problem with that ??
Epilogue: Everything. You know very good 2 english language sources but refusing to add them in article because they are destroying you editorial style how only traitors (paid from Italy)has been against union with Serbia. First source is speach of Montenegro general/primeminister on 6 march 1919 during Paris Peace Conference [1] . Second is about Serbs forces which are killing of Montenegrin by Serbian forces [2] . This sources clearly show how POV and false is your article because they are having important statement. Speach of primeminister clearly say that Montenegro has not been called on peace conference but that Montenegro government (king government) is legitimate and recognized by Allies (march 1919). Second source clearly speak that Montenegro is under Serbian occupation (in september 1919). About other stuff there is no need to speak again.--Rjecina (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's no argument. It should be long, to present the...well, background. :) As you see, it does deal with the subject (especially the last bits) and weren't you the one who demanded it to be written? I remember you mentioned something about unification plans from 1866 and constantly insisted on this - well, now there's nothing left not to insist on. ;)
The decision was that neither Serbian nor Montenegrin laws were applied - neutrality. And above all else, the practice of electing electors who appoint deputies, in a very large effort to pertain a modern democratic process.
Just because we haven't found on it anything (yet), it doesn't mean that it didn't. And if you ask me, it's probably because it might've even secretly approved it. Anyway, it was far too insignificant and a quick event that history didn't really want its notification. What you should do is stop referring to the Government of Montenegrin in Exile as some sort of a supreme legal and legitimate body for Montenegro - remember that it was only a group of people whenever, all the time, imposed by King Nicholas - of course, against Montenegrin laws, but this was because the only one was above all laws (including the very Constitution) was the King. And lastly, Montenegro was a sector under Allied occupation. When one component part tries to expel the other components (the Serbians, British and Americans), bringing forth reinforcements from nearby in the style of a true invasion - it is an invasion attempt. The same would be as if the United Kingdom forces, today, marched onto Baghdad, to take over Iraq, risking a conflict against the United States, and dispatching large additional forces from Cuwait without informing General Command of the occupation. Remember that an ultimatum was sent to Italy by the US, France and UK, which threatened with war against Italy. As per the Great Allied Powers conclusion, all Italian forces had to be evacuated (this was also instilled by general Italian expansion eastwards in Istria and similar locations).
Er, no. No one was against unification, the Greens (some) only objected the manner of its conduction. I've already stated about the latter and would you really want that introduced? How about also adding Serbian generals' wording and propaganda? Gvozdenovic was no Prime Minister then. And I see that all the info is in the article already? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is normal neutral article we will have this sort of link

Main article: History of Montenegro

and few lines about that not 45 lines

Montenegrin population has not voted with Montenegrin laws but with election laws writen by organization created and financed by Serbia !!

This has been Montenegro and Montenegro government recognized by Allied forces has not protested Italian "invasion".--Rjecina (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean.
Understandable. For a completely new assembly, for some sort of a supreme legitimate body of a nation, new election rules were needed. And the organization wasn't created just by Serbia, nor was financed just by it. From that same point of view, the complaints of the dethroned King Nicholas, are present in this very article.
As I have said before, we have yet to find that out. Let me repost my last post regarding that issue:
Just because we haven't found on it anything (yet), it doesn't mean that it didn't. And if you ask me, it's probably because it might've even secretly approved it. Anyway, it was far too insignificant and a quick event that history didn't really want its recording. What you should do is stop referring to the Government of Montenegrin in Exile as some sort of a supreme legal and legitimate body for Montenegro - remember that it was only a group of people whenever, all the time, imposed by King Nicholas - of course, against Montenegrin laws, but this was because the only one who was above all laws (including the very Constitution) was the Monarch. And lastly, Montenegro was a sector under Allied occupation. When one component part tries to expel the other components (the Serbians, British and Americans), bringing forth reinforcements from nearby in the style of a true invasion - it is an invasion attempt. The same would be as if the United Kingdom forces, today, marched onto Baghdad, to take over Iraq, risking a conflict against the United States, and dispatching large additional forces from Kuwait, without informing the General Command of its whereabouts. Remember that an ultimatum was sent to Italy by the US, France and UK, which threatened with war against Italy. As per the Great Allied Powers conclusion, all Italian forces had to be evacuated (this was also instilled by general Italian expansion eastwards in Istria and similar locations), which indeed did occur. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For beginning I will write only this:

  • In 1918 legal representative of Montenegro has been King, his goverment and parliament of 1914
  • Parliament has been abolished during occupation but all acts during occupation are not legal
  • All actions of Committe has been against Montenegro laws.
  • Voting for Podgorica Assembly has not been in line with Montenegro election laws.
  • Italia has not attacked Montenegro because King and his goverment have not protested attack.
  • Goverment of Montenegro has been only internationaly accepted goverment until 1920-1921. --Rjecina (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So in essence, you're putting all arguments just into the hands of one man?
    • And that's why a new one was elected in late 1918, instead of a simple vote-less unification/annexation.
    • Please tell me which acts of the Committee were against which of Montenegro's laws (which weren't valid in Montenegro since 1916, but rather international law).
    • Against its (not quite valid though) laws, yeah; just like it's stated in the article. I don't understand what is the problem with this bit (repeatedly)?
    • ..and yet Italian soldiers fought several Allied & Montenegrin units and demolished a couple of roads & the countryside, as well as attempted to misuse its mandate of an Allied co-protectorate in an attempt to seize control of the state?
    • But Rjecina, if that were true, the Kingdom of Montenegro would've been accepted into the League of Nations (which it wasn't), and not the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have all the time of the world. Don't rush, but talk. Let's all of us hear you out. --10:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Rjecina is right in most of the points above, and unfortunately the article in it's current state has a very strong pro-unification POV or bias, which needs to be corrected to achieve NPOV which is wikipedia policy. The laws and election laws of the time have to be pointed out and also the possible legality / illegality of the whole of the Podgorica Assembly. Hobartimus (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21.03.2008 edits

In my thinking even this version is not neutral, but if we look earlier version this is example of NPOV writings. --Rjecina (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it misses about 60% of the data (already in and the one which I'm preparing to add). ;P --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest changes

First of all, while Nicholas indeed called at times for confederacy, he only did later, and in most cases the reason for that was because the vast majority of the Montenegrins cheered the Yugoslav unification. Through support for confederacy and pointing out that he worked with most other Slavs for unification, he indirectly opposed it (Istorija srpskoga noroda, last Tome). An example was his first claim:


You should also not remove that Prime Minister Milo Matanovic was eventually unionist, and that that's why he resigned in the end.

About the second paragraph, most of the info is already in the text (found elsewhere), and it's horribly poor English.

Opened suspicions? Of course. Were suspicions closed when it was proven that the election was watched by other non-Serbian watchers? Yes.

Do not use the erroneous term "Serbian". It could lead to misconceptions that Serbians participated in the fighting, or at least had of some greater importance, totally ignoring the French, Montenegrin, British, Italians and etcetera...

See the message from 20 January 2008, in case you missed it - Gvozdenovic was merely a general and no Prime Minister. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe that I and others are having small problem in trusting you. What is with your 21 March promise of new article now is 26 June !!!!!! (similar situation in other articles)
Other problems is that I do not see that there has been discussions about your changes os 21 March ? Do you claim that others can't edit article without your blessing but you can edit article ?
Now I am really interested to hear what are problems of sources ( [3] , [4] , [5], [6], [7] ). Before answering you need to know that NYT is respected source and deleting statement confirmed with NYT is ulmost vandalism.
About General Anto Gvozdenovic my only answer is that if we look list of Montenegro prime minsters he is prime minister 17 February 1919 and 1 March 1921. His speach on Paris Peace Conference has been on 9 March 1919 so he is prime minister !--Rjecina (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I promised anyone anything in definite, lol. :-D I said I am working on it, and collection of resources from the Archive and various libraries is an extensive and heavy work. But fine, if you insist - today at noon I shall start total rewrite from scrap, you clean up what I mess up.
Well the NYT probably is, but it's still a paper. ;) Anyways, sure we can use that as a source, as long as we discard that from the Chicago Tribune. I'd personally favor books, rather than journalist reports, especially so incredibly biased like the Tribune.
Lol. :-) Rjecina, I am a Croatian born Yugoslav of Montenegrin ethnicity (descent, whatever), with roots in from Old Herzegovina to the Morača. I know most things anyone could know on Montenegrin tribes, I know almost everything about every brotherhood from myth, custom, to true descent and I know my grandfatherland's history in probably every single point of it for the period of the past 3,000 years. I know most the works of Jovan Vukmanovic, Jovan Erdeljanovic, Jovan Cvijic, Andrija Jovicevic, Petar Sobajic, Zivko Dragovic, Marko Dragovic, Petar II Petrovic-Njegos, Nicholas I, Peter I Petrovic, Marko Miljanov Popovic, Stjepan Mitrov Ljubisa, Vuk Vrcevic, Vuk Karadzic, Vasilije Petrovic, Nikola Vukcevic, Sima Milutinovic Sarajlija, Radoje Roganovic Crnogorac, Nikola Skerovic, Gavro Vukovic, Novica Radovic, Milinko Djurovic, Milovan Djilas and whomever else you can remember. Do you really think that I would actually not know who was at one point Prime Minister of Montenegro? :0)
The Prime Minister of Montenegro article is, simply put, false. Nicholas fired Evgenije Popovic (who wasn't in Neuilly-sur-Seine at all, the Minister of Interior was the acting PM) and, both inspired by the skills he exposed in the Christmas Uprising and in order to pacify the Greens, appointed Plamenac, and not Gvozdenovic. He never in his life appointed Anto for Prime Minister. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to know history of territory from where are your roots but if we future I am sure that we will have similar story about Vojvodina :)
Our history books are overrated because of political influences. You will not agree but it is much better to see original sources from time of events of books latter writen about events. Can you imagine what will happen if I or somebody else start to delete statements of Constantine about Pagania and change that with modern books ???
This article is now having 6 internet sources (2 of Montenegro government, 3 of NYT and 1 of Chicago Tribune) which are writen during time of this event. You have deleted all of them !! Can you please tell me wiki name of your action ? For me is vandalism !
After looking internet I can only tell that Anto Gvozdenović in time of his speach is not primeminister of Montenegro but if I do not make mistake he is ambassador to USA.--Rjecina (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just that, but I have dedicated a huge portion of my life to the study of Montenegro. As for Vojvodina, I'm not sure what you're aiming at, but I think someone competent has yet to show up. At first we argued the representation of peoples for three months, and only then we discovered that its the assembly of the Slavic people, on which only Slavs were registered voters, and the true events are only unfolding right now (though I've abandoned the collection of sources, I have far too little precious time).
I haven't noticed the Montenegrin government anywhere. Please point me the error I made. Also, the Chicago Tribune does not fall under WP:RS, hence it is not a source, but I shall use it in my next version anyway, if you insist, although in a different context.
Those books are the ones precisely I'm referring to. The Archive of the Voice of the Montenegring (the little semi-angered NI pointed me towards it), the 1922 book of Henry Bearlain, of Temperley from the same time, of Sekula Drljevic in 1918, of Andrija Radovic from that period, etcetera. And yes, I agree that it is much better that we use original sources, but the difficulty of actually collecting them is immense - and modern books do sometimes quote. Also, I see that you yourself use two modern books, from Montenegrina, so I am not aware what you are complaining about. I can imagine also the fact that most of the data on the Pagania article are from modern books, including the linguistic research of Ferdo Sisic that they were of Chakavian speech.
No, no, no, he is just general. Ever since 1916 Nicholas has been appointing him to various Allied courts to lobby for restoration of Montenegrin appeal, whereas on one occasion he visited Washington as Nicholas' emissary (consul of the Government in Exile) a certain period of time before the Paris Peace Conference. It should also be noted that Andrija Radovic was in the Conference as a formal representer of Montenegro along with Nikola Pasic of the Serbian delegation, which took part in the Conference. Only through the diplomatic activity of Prime Minister Evgenije Popovic the Allies granted Nicholas to send an envoy to the conference, but only as a watcher. Later he was allowed to read the letter, but that is all. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As For the change from Serbian to Allied, you should stop adding it, because there is absolutely no record of any single Serbian soldier actually fighting in the Christmas insurgency (at all). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that sometimes you are funny. Again you have deleted NYT which is WP:RS and after that you are accusing me for adding 2 modern books like sources ??? Please you can look history of article to see who has added this sources ?--Rjecina (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was referring to the Tribune. I have started rewrite from scratch, if you have not noticed, this will take time and the article shall not look at all like the one before my latest edit.
What two governmental tomes are you talking about? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

This historical records are showing interesting timeline of events which is very different from version writen in this article:

I am interested in hearing your comments--Rjecina (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the info, or actually, all, is already in the article, or is about to be added. If what you aim at is precise citing, I have yet to add all the references. Therefore, I (mysefl) see no problem. As for the third source, it shall be included under the allegations example, but does not fall to WP:RS. The way your edit introduced the sources was somewhat erroneous (e.g. you have changed Allied to Serbian and sourced the unreliable Tribune), hence my rv (aside from the major rewrite). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

15 days ago I have looked documentary Podgorica Assembly on RTCG and on that I have heard that Podgorica Assembly has been against points 2 and 70 of Montenegro constituion.

Official Montenegro position or better to say education what they recieve from television and in school is in line with today version of article. You will agree that any wikipedia article about any state is in problem if is speaking different about official history of that country.


Today Montenegro position is:

Group of citizens financed and military supported by Serbia has abolished Montenegro parliament, writen new election rules and proclaimed election. Winner of this election is that group of citizens.

I remember one nice speach from that documentary. 1 of assembly members has declared: "We must depose King Nikola I Petrović-Njegoš even if he is best of best rules, because we must unite with Serbia" --Rjecina (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you saw it earlier, it was a lot before. Unless you saw the reprise (of which I am not aware)?
You have heard correct, and fact is that this parliament was rendered illegal and its decisions dismissed by the Montenegrin Government in Exile in Paris, calling upon those points and the dictatorial and unalianable nearly limitless powers vested in the hands of the Monarch. However, another fact is that drawing upon the aforementioned-by-me arguments, the Unionist side (paired to the Sovereignist) has also in an identical manner called fort for the Constitution of the Princedom of Montenegro, i.e. the only "vulnerable" point of the otherwise authoritarian jurisdiction of the King (Prince) - and, trully, according to those very spots, King Nicholas has no legitimate - or legal - authority whatsoever, rendered all of his post-1916 acts likewise illegal according to the other viewpoint (that includes the Government, set up by a deligitimized body with no standanding in Montenegrin domestic law).
Rjecina, is there any Wikipedian guideline and/or policy which states that as per to the internal matters of one sovereign Country, we are obliged to follow the understandings and viewpoints publically-promoted, or officially accepted (by the current political administration). Why, that is actually against the very spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality, most articles are AFAIK not such as Kurds in Turkey, or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad just to name some examples). Do you really want me and you to change this article every single day to be in correspondance to the (currently) dominating views of the political elite? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am making mistake, but in my thinking we are having 2 agreement. Our first agreement is statement: "Every revolution is illegal"
Second agreement is statement: "Podgorica Assembly was revolution".
Our only problem is in fact (with which you and I do not agree) that Montenegro revolution (Podgorica Assembly) is created with bayonet of foreign soldiers and because of that is illegal even for revolutions
In our discussion I am going toward Wikipedia:Original research, but only for the sake of argument Hague convection of 1907 is saying: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army". Now there is question if army which has entered Montenegro in fall of 1918 is hostile ? In my thinking answer for that is Yes, because Montenegro population has started Christmas Uprising.
To make long story short we are having 3 version of Podgorica Assembly. First is Montenegrin, second is Serbian and third are in articles from that time period. Problem with Serbian version is that Montenegrin and articles version are very similar.
Similar situation is even today in people thinking. Supporters of Montenegro independence are saying that Podgorica Assembly is illegal. Supporters of Union with Serbia are saying that it is OK. Because majority of Montenegro population support independence it is not right to say that only Montenegro elite is declaring that assembly is illegal
I have looked Podgorica Assembly documentary only on 27 November. I am really interested to hear who from Balkan is looking our satellite programs which are very, very bad. It is possible to say my looking has been good or bad luck because I have discovered that during change of TV channels :)--Rjecina (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether we can fully agree on that. Is your intention to put on the French Revolution article and all those directly connected - that the whole enlightening event is illegal?
Well, Rjecina, I have no doubt of the possibility that for greater causes, the Great Allied Powers ignored (actually, as they did - plenty of them) quite a bit, or perhaps even to say "turned a blind eye", but fact is that non-Montenegrin & non-Serbian factors do not support this view - which was presented by Nicholas himself (and thus, promoted by his officials in exile). Of course, this has to be naturally put into the article - but not as a sourced fact, but as a personal claim of the sovereignist side amongst the "Montenegrin Serbs" as the corresponding archaic term would be.
There is no doubt of that, and fact is that Great Britain, Serbia, America, France, Italy and Montenegro were all signatory Member States of the Hague Convention, but the argument that the Entente were hostile forces (as paired to the Central Powers), really does not stand - in one bit. I shall explain why:
1. The Allies are the ones who liberated Montenegro from the Central Powers (sure, by great part it was already liberated on its own by the chetnik Comitas, but that is not the point).
2. In 1914 a Military Treaty commencing the union of Montenegro and Serbia was activated. The two armies were united into one Army, with one HQ and a single hierarchic command. The Serbian Royal Army was as domestic to Montenegro, as was the Montenegrin Army (actually, wrong terms, since there were the two forces had seized to exist separately in 1914, which was also especially promoted due to the Austro-Hungarian threat) was to Serbia. Therefore, and in the wake of the destruction of the Montenegrin branch of the Serbo-Montenegrin armed forces, the Army of the Kingdom of Serbia has had every legal right to enter the borders of the Kingdom of Montenegro, and commence fights against hostiles, and restore order.
3. In Montenegro there was a Joint Allied Operation (e.g. as one is in Kosovo - it's not American, but also German, and soon there will be too Croatian personnel in there, in case you're not aware). The Serbian Army had occupied some key positions and points in the Montenegrin state, all under the mandate of the Allied High Command (which specified which areas) (revised afterward with the removal of mandate from the Italians, who had to withdraw for planning to outwit the other Allies and seize MNE just for its zone of influence). Do you think that also the French, British, Italian and American armies were hostile? And let me also remind you that, at first, the Montenegrin elite under Nicholas did not object this - nor did they ever call forth for the 1907 Hague Convention (as they did in 1916 under the wake of Austria-Hungary's invasion), which is also an important factor to keep in mind.
4. Of no doubt are the events that followed, precisely in 1919. However, according to your own logic as well, we must refer to the 1918 entrance of the Allied forces - which were, in the same manner, greeted vastly by masses of the people (e.g. in Budva, where the mayor and the people organized special festivities for the arrival of one unit of the Serbian armed forces, just to name an example). Also, you yourself noted before that that which happened later was not an uprising of the people as you wrote to the above - but rather, a part of it. The statement to the above is highly controversial, and quite possibly factually incorrect as well.
Not sure what you're talking about. What versions?
Actually Rjecina, quite on the contrary, it is completely contrary to what you said. The key orchestrator of the restoration of Montenegro's independence was Milo Djukanovic - he obviously does not think it was illegal, else he would not have stated that this referendum reversed its decisions. That is from the Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro, and as for its minor partner - the Socialdemocratic Party of Montenegro - it's the draftee of the Resolution to Abolish the Decisions of the 1918 Podgorica Assembly - why would an illegal act need formal abolition from a formal governmental body (a view only presented on the political scene by the Liberals)?
Djukanovic's and Krivokapic's families - they both were the Whites during the civil conflict. On the other hand, the family of Dragan Soc from the People's Party, were the Greens. Predrag Bulatovic was the leader of the Montenegrin opposition from 2001 to 2006 and the chief of the Unionist Bloc. His ancestor was quite notable and he fought in the Green armed forces, and even resisted afterward. In an interview, Bulatovic was asked about his personal opinion regarding this irony - once fought for extinguishing his own homeland, now fighting to keep it together in a common state with the Serbian state. His response was that if such times were today he'd do it again without any doubt. Predrag noted that his family fought against an injustice done to the Montenegrin state, and that the Greens (at least his family) never ever wanted to secede an independent Montenegrin state - they just wanted to enter the union with respect, with equal norms - which was realized in a common state union with Serbia, as he said. One extreme point was extinguishing Montenegro's sovereignty and making it just another Serbian district - according to him - and another was seceding Montenegro as a separate country. Thus, as he noted, he fights (or fought) against "another injustice for Montenegro".
This irony is quite fascinating - don't you think? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting thing I'd like to add to the bottom of this. The Sovereignist bloc had never ever won. Under all of these conditions:

1) a) With elections organized by official Montenegro

b) With elections organized by the unofficial Montenegrin National Council

c) With elections organized by Yugoslavia

2) a) Before the unification

b) During the unification

c) After the unification

3) a) Supervized by none at all

b) Supervized by an Inter-Allied Commission (victors of WWI) and the Kingdom of Serbia, found no less controversial than the previous elections

c) Supervized by an international commission mandated by the League of Nations (one of its first missions, actually), found free

4. a) election of MPs representing various local Montenegrin administrative units

b) election of Electors

c) election of Montenegro's MPs for the great parliament

...the Unionist Bloc won, and significantly - in 1914, in 1918 and in 1920. To make an assumption as you did (based on sheer force, i.e. a conflict with spilled blood!) over elections is not really standing. I mean, if only there were at least one election with the other political current's victory, then we would have actual grounds for doubt. But this way? There is little to show doubt that a referendum, say a national plebiscite (with Universial Suffrage even) in 1919, would be any different from all these elections. An interesting thing I'd like to add, is that as the Serbian/Yugo-Centrist political parties were losing especially in Croatia, as well as even in parts of Serbia and such regions thereof, as years passed by, they only got stronger year by year in Montenegro. The Montenegrin Federalists (political representatives of the Greens) admitted a defeat when their boycott had failed in the elections for the Constitutive Assembly, and agreed to "play by the book", which was followed by their constant decrease of popularity and disappearance from the political scene. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Let us try to write short timeline of must important events:

  • 1860 - 1914 Montenegro wish of union with Serbia
  • October 1913 elections for Montenegro parliament
  • 1914 negotiations between Serbia and Montenegro about military, economic and foreign affairs union.
  • March 1917 Creation of Montenegrin Committee for National Unification which is financed by Serbia.
  • Fall of 1917 Montenegrin Committee for National Unification has signed Corfu declaration which is speaking about creation of Yugoslavia
  • 15 October 1918 creation of Central Executive Committee for Unification of Serbia and Montenegro. Members of committe are from Serbia and Montenegrin Committee for National Unification and they are finance and logistic support from Serbia.
  • October 1918 Montenegrin king Nicholas is calling gathering of Montenegro parliament on first day after arministice is signed.
  • 25 October 1918 Central Executive Committee for Unification of Serbia and Montenegro supported by Serbia has abolished Montenegro parliament and called for new elections with new election laws
  • 7 November 1918 Montenegrin king Nicholas has declared his wish that Montenegro will become part of Yugoslavia in which each today state will retain its right, institutions, custom and religion.
  • November 1918 Election for Assembly which will vote for union with Serbia is supervised by Serbian officials ????
  • 24 - 29 November 1918 Podgorica Assembly is voting for annexation
  • 7 January 1919 Christmas uprising of Montenegro population against annexation. During uprising all important towns are under siege. Uprising will be defeated it that sort of way that Montenegro will become "bloodiest slaughter spot in Europe"


Tell me please what is wrong with this timeline with is confirmed by sources from that time period (NYT, Chicago tribune and Montenegro diplomatic messages) ?--Rjecina (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite. We should define who, which, when. If we are referring to the elite, they didn't want a union with Serbia - but they wanted to annex Serbia. These anti-Serbian policies (looking for international aid for such means, going inside Serbia's internal affairs of the Monarch) is that which, according to Duke Gavro Vukovic and his brilliant Memoirs (they're like Winston Churchill's for former Yugoslavia, I always like to say) is what created an anti-Montenegrin anxiety in the country of Serbia - amongst people such as Nikola Pasic preparing the desire (also stimulated by the jealousy of Montenegro's and the Petrovic-Njegos' popularity in the Serbian people on the larger scale - a polling during 1903 had shown that the Serbians would like neither the Karardjordjevics, nor the Obrenovics, but the Petrovics to lead them), to annex Montenegro and, what afterward had happened, extinguish its name and several other things.
  • Yes. The progressive Populists ("Serbian agents" as presented in the campaign political propaganda by the conservative Rightists) win, and form a coalition of National Unity government with Nicholas´ concord, which´s one point is the realization of the long-awaited unification with Serbia.
  • Yes. Military completed, others halted because of the war (the first also sped up because of the same reason).
  • Aside from other donors, yeah.
  • Financed and logistic support from Serbia?
  • Interesting. Something similar Ive heard, but never ever acquired data. Could you provide perhaps
  • Abolishes? No, the desire was to create something completely new - neither under Serbian, nor under Montenegrin laws, as well as to import some of the Western-model (not sure whether they really implemented it nicely, lol) ideas (system of electors, fixed number of professions, etc...), to be better. Sadly, the Universal Suffrage was not given as proposed by some of its leading Socialists, and in fact women could vote only in Vojvodina.
  • You must be referring to this, right?

Три године су већ откада нас је раставила тешка судба! Три године мука и искушења за вас у ропству, за мене у изгнанству. Велике су и превелике жртве и муке које црногорски народ вјековима подноси, али ово су биле највеће и најужасније. Тако је то можда суђено било (...) Требало је, ваљда, још и ово мучеништво поднијети, да би нам било признато нешто, што смо одавно заслужили; да би се за нашу мили Отаџбину могло с побожношћу рећи: Црна Гора је највећи мученик свијета, јер никад и нико није веће, идеалније и несебичније жртве подносио од ње за ствар части, за ствар општенародну, за право и слободу.

Кад су 1914. част, право и опстанак Србије били доведени у питање познатим насиљем Аустро-Угарске, први сам био ја, који сам у име ваше и с вама стао на бранику Србије. Сви услови које је Црна Гора тада ставила Србији за своју сарадњу били су ово неколико ријечи, које је моја влада упутила влади Србије: "Ваша судбина је и наша". Ја ипак телеграфисао сам моме унуку престолонашљеднику Александру: "Моји Црногорци већ су спремни на границу да гину за наше заједничке идеале". У току осамнаест мјесеца рата Црна Гора вјерно се одужила у сваком погледу и на сваком пољу дужностима брата и савезника. Концем трагичне 1915. ви сте, моји драги Црногорци, учињели највеће и најславније дјело које сте игда учињели у својој пуној бесмртности, витештва и славе историји. Ви сте вашим голим прсима, голих и искрвављених руку, гладни и ненаоружани, били за скоро читава три мјесеца непробојан бедем и непробојна фаланга на Грахову, Троглаву, Дрини, Вишеграду, Јавору и чак дубоко у Србији, о којој се ломио један за другим сваки вал онда још бијесног непријатеља. Вашим херојством и жртвама, које безгранично чињасте тада, спашена је од ропства војска Србије, јер јој ви, и нико други, сачувасте одступницу преко Црне Горе. Дужност коју смо добровољно тада узели према Србији, ми смо, као и увијек, вршили ревносно, братски и пребратски, и са крајњим пожртвовањем, те смо и постали жртва ње. Црна Гора принијела је тада и саму себе на жртву, ради Србије и ради народне идеје. Ни прошлост ни садашњост, нити иједан народ, или религија, није у стању навести чистије и несебичније жртве од ове наше. Не историја, него садашњост и један нарочито створен суд мораће показати, да ли је ова жртва морала бити толика и ко је кривац за њу. Ја ћу мирно чекати, с увјерењем, да сам тада, као и увијек, испунио дужност Црногорца, Србина и владаоца, и да ће оптужени бити они, који ме, с мало достојанства и чојства, покушавају клеветати. На тај ето начин ја сам био растављен од вас, од вас с којима сам скоро читав вијек дозиђивао гњијездо слободе, не само слободе српске, југословенске него и балканске; од вас с којима сам шездесет година већ писао најљепше странице наше славне историје и чинио с вама дјела која су мученичку Црну гору издигла на невиђену досад висину, и прибавила јој међу цивилизованим народима углед, који још до данас није достигао ниједан мали народ у свијету.

Тежак и најстрашнији и најтрагичнији догађај био је то у мом животу. Ипак ја сам му морао шљедовати, покорити се, те тражити заштиту не ради себе. него ради вас, у наших моћних савезника. Нажалост, наде моје у многоме су ме издале. Ја и ви били смо изневјерени од неког, од кога смо имали разлога најмање надати се, за ког смо жртвовали све и ког смо спасли. Тај неко јесте, не херојски и братски народ Србије, него званична Србија.

Вама је познато, да званична Србија већ одавно у Црној Гори није гледала брата и удругара на заједничком послу, него противника кога се је по неком лудом схватању, требало отарсити, тобож у интересу Србије. Наоружани необјашњивом мржњом према Црној Гори и њеним представницима и лишени солидне моралне основе, извјесни политичари из Београда, поставили су се, у политици према Црној Гори на начело: циљ оправдава средства. Званична Србија заборавила је све жртве, које је Црна Гора учинила за Србију 1914. и 1915. Интриге које је, још док смо били на дому, чинила против Црне Горе у земљи и међу савезницима и које су много допринијеле катастрофи Црне Горе, она је наставила, без резерве, у иностранству. Званична Србија потрошила је милионе на интриге и клевете против Црне Горе и њених представника. Нијесам клеветан само ја, него сва Црна Гора и њени представници. Имали су образа тврдити у савезничкој штампи, између осталога, да су моје владе у Црној Гори за вријеме овога рата "државале тајне пријатељске везе с непријатељем", и да нијесу ништа друго радиле него "онемогућавале напоре Србије"; да је Црна Гора само "форме ради" ратовала, а да, уствари, рат није ни водила. Једном ријечју, вођена је једна најодвратнија кампања којој је био циљ: омаловажити улогу Црне Горе у овоме рату и срушити њен висок углед међу савезницима.

Црна Гора и Црногорци немају неисцрпна богатства, великих градова и вароши, плодних равница, умјетничких споменика. Све што имамо било је, и прије и сада: слобода, част и јунаштво. То је највеће и једино благо Црне Горе и Црногораца. Нестане ли тога, нестало је свега! Мени у изгнанству преостајао је мучан и ничим незаслужен задатак да браним част и углед Црне Горе од биједних синова земље наше, од којих неки бијаху уживали и моје повјерење, а за које се ставише у службу званичне Србије, да за новац клеветају и издају не само мене, него све што је најсветије и најдраже свакоме Црногорцу.

Због интрига и клевета о којима је ријеч, поред свих мојих напора, народ у земљи био је лишен заслужене помоћи од стране наших моћних савезника, исто тако и интерни, који би, да није било једног племенитог енглеског и једног америчког друштва, остали без икакве помоћи. Моја влада, пак, није могла пружити помоћ, јер, нажалост, није имала чим. Моји непријатељи хтјели су, да тијем што ми онемогућаваху рад на помоћи народу у земљи, изазову мржњу народа против мене. Ипак, поред свега овога, на многобројне представке моје и моје владе, савезници су, цијенећи жртве које је Црна Гора учинила, пристали напошљетку да исхрањују народ црногорски; чекао се само још пристанак владе аустро-угарске на постављене услове. У међувремену дошла је и пропаст наших непријатеља.

Поред свијех клевета, влада Србије није успјела да дипломатски уништи Црну Гору. Требало је уништити на други начин, који неће изазвати гнушање код цивилизованог свијета, кога је требало увјерити да уништење и обешчашћење Црне Горе желе сами Црногорци. Кад је непријатељ сломљен силним ударцима удружених савезника, напуштио нашу милу Црну Гору, окупирала ју је, у име владе Србије, њена војска. Она је ушла не с гранчицом мира и братске љубави него с намјером да сруши највеће добро сваког народа и државе - суверенитет њен, и уништи њено државно биће, које је тековина вјековних напора и крвавих борба Црногораца. Да би се пред свијетом, као Пилат, могла од овога богомрског и у историји незапамћеног злочина правдати и претурати га на народ црногорски она је фалсификовала вољу народну. Скупила је такозвану Велику народну скупштину и на један насилнички начин, чије одлуке немају никакве важности, јер Велика народна скупштина и не постоји као установа по нашем Уставу, акамоли да је надлежна да рјешава о судбини Црне Горе! Па и овакав злочин извршен је препадом, кукавички лишавајући од учешћа у рјешавању о судбини земље неколике хиљаде мученика и хероја, који се још не бијаху вратили из ропства.

Зашто све ово? Зато што желе створити од Црне Горе један или два округа србијанска, којима ће они господарити, а не равноправног брата. Зато што знају да је жеља сваког Црногорца да ступи у јединство југословенско на равној нози са Србијом, а никако друкче, и што би да им се дала слобода одлуке, изгласали овакво уједињење, а не које понижава част и достојанство Црне Горе.

Драги моји Црногорци,

Од званичне Србије и њених агената оптужен сам као противник јутословенског јединства. Међутим, ниједан појединац у српству и југословенству није више радио на њему од мене, настављајући у томе дјело мојих бесмртних предака.

Не, нијесам ја противан њему, али не дам да Црна Гора уђе у југословенску заједницу оклеветана и на начин, који не доликује њеној славној прошлости, њеном достојанству и њеним битним интересима. Не, она неће улазити мучки и лупешки у тај величанствени храм, коме је она поставила темељ, и на који је она прва развила заставу своју са Душановим бијелим орлом, чије гњездо бјеше вјековима само на Ловћену. Она то није заслужила. Сјени славних предака наших, палих за идеју слободе свег нашег народа, буниле би се против тога.

Небројене и несебичне жртве вјековима подношене, потоци племените крви наших најбољих синова, проливене не само низ наше суро стијење већ и на бреговима Бојане, Неретве, Миљацке, Дрине, Мораве и Брегалнице, траже друкчији и свечанији улазак наш у југословенску заједницу, а не какав јој је припремила влада Србије. Тај моменат морају поздравити с побожношћу, с капом у руци, сви поштени Јутословени.

Моји славни преци и ја радили смо с вама цијелог вијека на дјелу народног уједињења. Ја сам тај, који сам на њему радио с књазом Михаилом и владиком Штросмајером, настављајући у томе рад Рада владике с баном Јелачићем. Чим су се пак границе Србије и Црне Горе додирнуле, ја сам 1914. предложио између њих унију. У изгнанству моја је влада 1916. и у јулу 1917, чинила кораке код владе Србије за братски и споразумни рад у питању народног уједињења. Ја, пак, лично, изјавио сам своју готовост у име Црне Горе, да ступам у југословенску заједницу мојим рескриптом од 1. јула о. г. (1918-Џ) и прокламацијом Јутословенима од 7. октобра о. г. (такође 1918-Џ), истичући да облик владавине и унутрашње уређење будуће југословенске заједнице треба да буде препуштено искључиво вољи народа, која мора бити суверена над свим осталим. Нажалост, влада Србије одговорила је на њих раније Крфском декларацијом, а сада начином и насиљем какаво не памти историја цивилизованих народа. Поред свега тога овај акт одобрен је и званично од владе Србије. Она је 28. децембра 1918. опозвала свога посланика, до тада акредитованог код моје владе, сматрајући тај насилни акт као легалан. Међутим, тај акт нити је икад био признат од макоје цивилизоване државе, акамоли од којег савезника.

Црна Гора је Црногораца. То је било, то ће и бити. Наши велики савезници и даље су заступљени посланицима при мом двору. Црна Гора ће бити успостављена, са свим њеним правима. То је свечано, у неколико пута до сада било прокламовано од стране моћних савезника наших. То је једна од дужности савезника, коју су великодушно узели на себе, исто тако као и обавезу о садашњој исхрани народа, коју су на себе узеле владе наших племенитих савезника. О томе су моју владу обавијестиле владе: Енглеске, Француске, Италије и Америке, а иза којих није изостала ни руска влада из Омска (Сибирија), вјерна вјековним традицијама и очинској љубави Русије према Црној Гори. У исто вријеме, савезници су узели обавезу о финансијској помоћи и економском успостављању Црне Горе, што је предмет сталних брига мојих и моје владе.

Сами Црногорци, и нико више, одлучиће слободно, законским путем, о будућности Црне Горе, која ће, увјерен сам, бити достојна своје прошлости. Ја ћу ту одлуку први поздравити каква год она била. Ни ја ни моја кућа нијесмо се попели ни држали на пријесто Црне Горе силом; нећемо на њега ни остати ако то захтијевају интереси Црне Горе и југословенских народа. Права воља народа била је и биће за нас закон. Сачекајте час који тек што није наступио, кад ћете моћи слободно и достојанствено рећи, како приличи Црној Гори и Црногорцима, вашу ријеч о будућности Црне Горе. Увјерен сам да ће право побиједити силу и истина лаж, те да Црној Гори и Црногорцима неће изостати заслужно и достојно признање, не само нашег цијелог народа, него и наших савезника, за надчовјечанске жртве, које су подносили скоро шест вјекова за начела која данас триумфују. Због тога ја сам задовољан што ви могу рећи: Срећан ви Божић и Христос се роди! те пожељети ви срећну Нову годину, која ће - над у Бога - бити почетак срећније и заслужније ере у државном и националном животу нашем!

But that´s not the date you wrote to the up...?

  • I´m sorry?
  • Nope. There was no vote for annexation, if you refer to the decision to form Serbo-Croato-Slovene unification, then it was discussed on the last day, and not throughout the entire session.
  • The claim is incredibly far fetched, and outside the fact that it comes from an unreliable source, doesn´t have much support.

I have checked in the meantime, and it doesn´t follow the NYT, apparently - only ´´selectively´´ does so, i.e. in a POV manner, presenting only one viewpoint, over the other. For an example, you also included the Chicago Tribune, and you could likewise also include some Belgian dump paper which talked how Switzerland organized a national plebiscite, in which 100% of all Montenegrins women, men (and children D ) voted to be completely melted into Serbia... If Montenegro´s diplomatic message are used to source this article, so do others (e.g. of the Montenegrin National Council, or of Serbia, or even the French response) for the sake of the same neutrality.

Cheers, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian officials has declared that because 2/5 of deputies of Montenegro parliament were refugees abroad it became necessary to elect new one (parliament)
"This election has been absolutely unconstutional as no opportunity is given for the gathering of the old parliament which has been order to reassemble by royal decree on the day after armistice was signed"
Serbian officials are hurried from Belgrade to supervise elections !
Assembly was elected on 19 November and 5 days latter they have voted annexation of the country to the Serbia
Source for all this statements is NYT which is wikipedia reliable source. --Rjecina (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By Serbian officials it's also primarily included "Montenegrin officials who are in favor of union with Serbia"...?
True as it may be, that claim of Nicholas and his men should be included in the article, but the fact also remains that the enacted royal decree was likewise absolutely unconstitutional as it was drafted by a body with no legal authority in the field whatsoever.
Indeed. As well as the rest of the foreign watchers from the Inter-Allied Commission (e.g. the French).
Does that really say in the Decisions? "Annexation of our country by Serbia"?
And we are also a bit straying off the main subject of our discussion - we should return to it, as presented in the section above this one.
I don't understand, are the NYT articles such as the one noting that the Inter-Allied Commission had established that the elections were no less irregular than the ones held before used as sources in this article?
Regards, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but article is clearly saying Serbian officials with help of French military. Article is not speaking about Montenegrin officials.
Nicholas call for parliament is not claim. If his call has been absolutely unconstitutional we can know only with full knowledge of Montenegro constitution, but fact without question is that head of state is having much, much, much greater right to call parliament of any foreign power to abolish parliament.
Article is saying that serbian officials are hurried from Belgrade to supervise elections. Article is not saying about allied officials. On other side there is not even 1 percent of chance that in November 1918 during end of WWI anybody will send officials from France, Great Britain or ... which will come in only 20 days.
Article is using words annexation and absorption
In 1922 UK has blocked publishing of report about situation in Montenegro and about 1918 "elections" [9], but now we are having full report.
I do not understand you.
If we cannot discuss that Nicholas and his authorities have had no legal (or legitimate) power to conduct that which they upheld, we must also assert that the Podgorica Assembly wasn't illegal at all, too. Do you not agree? What do you mean by much, much, much greater right? Are you referring to a powerless Head of State? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Where is the full report? It'd be interesting to read it. As for the blocking, there is a bit mistery as to the reasons, but a frequently mentioned thing is the Italian origin of De Salis' findings. With the Fascists in power, no wonder why that was not ever published, to tell the truth. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my thinking point about which discussion or compromise is not possible is right of foreign state or any civil organization to abolish parliament. If we look laws only legal Montenegrin parliament is that from end of 1913.
When I speak about Head of State I am speaking about head of states in 1918 and not modern law.
My advice about de Salis report is to look serbian wikipedia...
Report is writen in 1919. With that I want to say that it is writen before fascist takeover in Italy. Even when report has been declared secret parts has become public knowledge which is possible to see in 1919 UK parliament discussions
Serbia has been so happy about this report that de Salis has been arrested next year--Rjecina (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De Salis report about Montenegro in 1919

  • 1) Montenegro is under occupation by strong Serbian force. Officials of Montenegro nationality are changed with officials of Serbian nationality.
  • 2) Serbia has been called in April 1919 to leave Montenegro (by allied forces ?) but it has refused saying that this is Serbian national territory because of Podgorica Assembly decisions.
  • 3) Election for Podgorica Assembly are illegal. Election has been against Montenegro laws. Elections has been made under bayonet of Serbian army. Assembly has voted under threats of Serbian army which is protecting criminals of Central Executive Committee for Unification of Serbia and Montenegro. "Government" created by "elections" has survived uprising only because of French and Serbian military protection.
  • 4) People of Montenegro has supported union with Serbia, but annexation has created revolt. Only problem with union has been serbian Greater Serbia project which is refusing union and demanding annexation
  • 5)Prisons are full
  • 6) In 1916 Serbian government has recognized Montenegro government in exile and because of that it is not possible in 1918 or 1919 for Serbian government to declared that king government is illegal.
  • 7) Today (1919) regime in Montenegro is hated.

If you read this report you can see that our article is very, very nice

Regards --Rjecina (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are different reports. What I think you did not realize so far in our discussion is that - history will give you anything. Support any argument, anything, if you're looking for it. Ergo, use of one-sided sources (for example, relying primarily on findings American analysts during the Iraqi war, and ignoring that British who presented a totally different view) gets one to a - biased & POV article. And aside, the problem of this article is not primarily what is written in it, but that which is not (e.g. historical intro, etcetera). Such happens when not using differing sources. For one thing, I am not saying that a source about Yugoslavia of Italian origins dating back to 1918, 1919 or even 1920 is automatically irrelevant (far from it), but the facts stand. It'd be also nice to get a hold of the entire report, and review whether the sources are Official Italy, for one thing.
By the way, I have read only parts of it and through other sources (Temperley's critics, false data given from the Podgorica Assembly, notification that nearly all the sources were either Italian or none, etc). Where did you read it yourself? Can I have it?
I'd also like your reply opinion on some of the interesting issues raised to the above:

An interesting thing I'd like to add to the bottom of this. The Sovereignist bloc had never ever won. Under all of these conditions:

1) a) With elections organized by official Montenegro

b) With elections organized by the unofficial Montenegrin National Council

c) With elections organized by Yugoslavia

2) a) Before the unification

b) During the unification

c) After the unification

3) a) Supervized by none at all

b) Supervized by an Inter-Allied Commission (victors of WWI) and the Kingdom of Serbia, found no less controversial than the previous elections

c) Supervized by an international commission mandated by the League of Nations (one of its first missions, actually), found free

4. a) election of MPs representing various local Montenegrin administrative units

b) election of Electors

c) election of Montenegro's MPs for the great parliament

...the Unionist Bloc won, and significantly - in 1914, in 1918 and in 1920. To make an assumption as you did (based on sheer force, i.e. a conflict with spilled blood!) over elections is not really standing. I mean, if only there were at least one election with the other political current's victory, then we would have actual grounds for doubt. But this way? There is little to show doubt that a referendum, say a national plebiscite (with Universial Suffrage even) in 1919, would be any different from all these elections. An interesting thing I'd like to add, is that as the Serbian/Yugo-Centrist political parties were losing especially in Croatia, as well as even in parts of Serbia and such regions thereof, as years passed by, they only got stronger year by year in Montenegro. The Montenegrin Federalists (political representatives of the Greens) admitted a defeat when their boycott had failed in the elections for the Constitutive Assembly, and agreed to "play by the book", which was followed by their constant decrease of popularity and disappearance from the political scene. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing is that the Serbian-Orthodox Church in Montenegro was also behind the event, as well as 5 of the 6 Prime Ministers that Montenegro had ever had. As for the MPs (I've noticed that you've referred to the national assembly as some supreme element before) - of the totally 150 still living (that had not died yet by 1918) MPs from all Montenegrin parliaments since the introduction of parliamentarism & constitutionality in 1905 (or, in total, with those in the Podgorica Assembly, 318), 135 had supported unconditional unification (either Greater Serbia or Yugoslavia), 15 supported Montenegrin autonomy (mostly a Federal view, within another autonomous Serb federal unit) and 0 independence. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is agreement between me, you and ulmost all sources that majority of Montenegro population has wanted union with Serbia. Problem is that they have not wanted to loose all autonomy (we are having disagreement about that).
saying for de Salis report or New York Times "There are different reports. What I think you did not realize so far in our discussion is that - history will give you anything" is not helpfull, because first reports is writen on demand of great powers and other is wikipedia reliable source.
All the best in 2009!--Rjecina (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The problem is that, before 1918, no one actually discussed how was that to be done. In 1914 discussions went on for a Political, Economic and Military State Union (in these three factors - common foreign policy, single market and currency and one army) and it was clearly specified that this was the beginning - what was the next no one ever spoke of. And before that, there were overextensive but a bit unrealistic patriotic dreams of relieving the Serbian Empire, or all sorts of ideas - all gave their imprint to the national struggle in the wake of the Ottoman Empire, but remained just written words on paper and nothing at all.
I'm not sure I understand that about De Salis' report? I noted that there are all sorts of reports - the commander of the British forces wrote one of his own, for example.
Likewise! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Podgorica_Assembly&oldid=262940852"