We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
In the beginning of 1916 Bulgaria and Austro-Hungary became neighbours. After a successful campaign in Serbia where both countries obtained favourable strategic positions, a dispute over territories in Kosovo and Albania arose. A crisis in the relations between both countries took place, which threatened to escalate and affect all the countries in the coalition of the Central Powers. Germany tried to be a mediator between its allies, however no unanimity was reached. Whilst the military supported the Bulgarian side, the diplomats of Wilhelmstrasse defended the ambitions of Vienna.After mutual ultimatums caused an extreme rise of tension in the relations and all intentions for a dialogue in order to overcome the crisis failed, general Falkenhayn took the initiative and made a proposal which was accepted by both sides. Still the tension between the countries of the Triple Entente persisted.
More...
The article focuses on one of the key figures within the Slovak politics: Andrej Cvinček (1880 – 1949), Catholic priest, vice president of the Czechoslovak Interim National Assembly and vice president of the Slovak National Assembly. Much has not been scientifically published about him so far. Cvinček, however, is one of those persons who influenced the modern national history of the 20th century. He belongs to a small Catholic elite who alienated himself with the politics of the Slovak People´s Party and forcefully criticized its party leaders. He sided with the thoughts of the Czeck minister Ján Šrámek and become the vice president of the Czechoslovak People´s Party in Slovakia. During the war he did not consent to the politics of the Slovak state and actively offered resistance. After the war, when he was already a member of the Slovak National Assembly, he co-founded the Christian Republican Party as he ceased to work within the presidency of the Democratic Party, which was a result of the April Agreement. He was an important and prominent person and a significant influencer of the political, religious and cultural life in Slovakia.
More...
Stanisław Łazarski was born on 29 November 1849, in Jeleśnia near Żywiec. After graduating from his school, he attended St Anna Middle School in Cracow. However, he didn`t finish the school. After the year 1863 he continued his education in Middle School in Tarnów where on 11 July 1868 he passed his matura exam. Then He studied in Lviv, Cracow, Vienna and Graz. In 1890 he got his PhD in history by Jagiellonian University. He most likely defended his dissertation in Law in Graz. When Stanisław graduated from university He ran the Law offices in Biała and Wadowice. He became famous owing to to his successful defence of Wanda Krahelska- Dobrodzicka in a criminal trial in Wadowice in 1908. The process made him famous in Galicja and beyond. Łazarski was also a politician at the district level in Biała, at the national level in Lviv and at the central level in Vienna. As the representative of the Polish parliamentarians He was remembered as the first member of Parliament who spoke in the Parliament in Vienna. In June 1917 He presented publicly the program of rebuilding of Poland. What is more He almost took up the post of the Minister of the District of Galicja in 1911. Stanisław Łazarski was also involved in the development of Wadowice in the nineteenth century. He proved it when He contributed in the process of establishment of the telephone network and installation of telephone equipment in Wadowice. It was one of the most important stages in the process of Europeanization of the town. In the next few years He supported the process of electrification in Wadowice. He also unsuccessfully tried to found a Trade school for the teenagers from the region. Łazarski spent the last days of his life in his property in Witkowice near Kęty. He died on 18 November 1938. He was buried in Biała which was for him as important as Wadowice.
More...
The part of the Danube within the region of Southeast Europe was often at the center of numerous conflicts and military confrontations during both world wars, as well as the subject of intelligence activities of foreign powers. Therefore, the existence of a modern and strong River Flotilla was of great importance for the Yugoslav state and the defence of its vital interests. The subject of this research is the development of the Yugoslav River Flotilla on the Danube river from the end of the First World War to 1953, analyzing the contents of available literature and documents, while the main aim is to learn whether the investment in equipping and strengthening this unit was comparable to the strategic importance that the Danube had for the great European powers of that time, as well as for other countries in the Danube basin region, but above all for the Yugoslav State. The basic research question is whether the River Flotilla was given strategic importance in terms of equipment and technical condition of ships, considering the challenges that this unit was facing with. The geographical position of the Danube puts it among the most important geopolitical and strategic points on our continent. Through the events in the First and Second World War, history has shown that the Danube played a very important role in combat operations and that the activities of the River Flotillas influenced the further war outcomes. There is no doubt that the Yugoslav State, in the context of the opportunities provided by the Danube with all its tributaries, needed a developed and modern river fleet. However, that did not happen, considering the fact that for the most of the time from the end of the First World War, the renewal of ships and other important means was out of the spot, comparing it to naval units. The conclusion might be that investing in the River Flotilla was inversely proportional to the strategic importance that the Danube had, especially in crucial moments.
More...
The documents reveal the danger represented by the Hungarian Bolshevism in relation to the Romanian Society. The objectives of the Hungarian communism, convergent to the Russian ones, consisted of transforming Romania into a Bolshevik state, into a "Soviet republic" and aimed at the repossession of Transylvannia. lost in 1918. following the Decision of Alba Iulia.
More...
The documents represent materials included in the research theme The Ideological Origins and the Evolution of the Iron Guard Movement. The Dynamics of Structures, 1919-1930, coordinator dr. Ioan Scurtu. The documents reflect aspects of the controversial trial of Comeliu Zelea Codreanu and events between October 1924 and September 1925: medicolegal report on Constantin Manciu’s body; report of the general Director of the Police and Secret Service concerning manifestations in Buzău.
More...
From the right bank of the Tisa River (today, Ukraine), with credentials, meaning with the right to vote on behalf of the population of the entire Historical Maramureș, five representatives were part of the delegation of Maramureș residents for the Great National Assembly from Alba-Iulia, December 1st, 1918: Ilie Filip, Mihai Dan, Ioan Bilțiu-Dăncuș, Florentin Bilțiu-Dăncuș and priest Ioan Doroș. The parliamentary elections of November 1919, organized throughout Greater Romania, determined the distribution of nine electoral constituencies in the former Maramureș county, corresponding to nine future deputies and, then, four electoral constituencies for future senators, surrounding the cities on both banks of the Tisa River. Maramureș was integrated into the new state of Greater Romania as it existed throughout the Middle Ages and the Modern Era as an administrative unit, established over time, in the natural citadel formed by the mountains and the Tisariver, creating its own metabolism of evolution. Both ethnic Ukrainians and some Hungarians embraced the idea of union with Romania primarily to protect themselves from the prospect of Bolshevization.
More...
Review of: Maria Alexandra Pantea, Relatări din primul război mondial prezentate în presa ecleziastică din Banat (Tales from the First World War in the Banat Ecclesiastical Press) (București: Tritonic, 2017), ISBN 978-606-749-218-7, 302 pp.
More...
The article discusses the fate of Ukrainian prisoners of war who were captured by German troops and interned in the Rastatt military camp (between 1917 and the beginning of 1918). Ukrainian POWs were deployed as laborers by German military command. Camp activists founded the Union for the Liberation of Ukraine which promoted Ukrainian national identity through cultural and educational efforts. The Union ultimately gave rise to the Independent Ukraine movement. Some of its most radical members were covertly transported by the Germans to the frontline, and they became involved in an underground campaign against the Imperial Russian Army. At the same time, German military command supported the Zaporozhian Sich paramilitary organization which grouped Ukrainian POWs and ultimately evolved into the Taras Shevchenko First Infantry Regiment. At the end of 1916, some of the regiment’s soldiers joined the German army and formed their own military units. The number of Ukrainian soldiers in the German army continued to increase in 1917, and by March 1918, all Ukrainian soldiers had joined the First Blue Division (Synozhupanniki) and were transported to Ukraine.
More...
The article includes the edition of three sources to the history of Przemyśl during the First World War by Greek Catholic clergy from Przemyśl: an account of Bishop Konstantyn Czechowicz and Rev. Aleksander Zubrycki and the first part of a memoir by Rev. Miron Podoliński. The texts of those documents have been deciphered from manuscripts kept at the State Archives in Przemyśl, translated from Ukrainian and annotated.
More...
The visit of King Petar I Karađorđević to the Turkish sultan is one of the eight visits in modern Serbian history. Seven meetings of Serbian rulers with sultans took place in Constantinople, except for one that took place in Bulgaria. In the visits made before 1878, the Serbian rulers went as vassals. The meeting between the Serbian king and Sultan Mehmed V Rešad in 1910 was the third in a row since Serbia became an independent state. King Petar I Karađorđević spent the second half of March and the first half of April 1910 travelling. First, he visited Russia, then Constantinople, Mount Athos, and finally Thessaloniki. The trip lasted a little over 24 days, six of which he spent in Constantinople. The Serbian delegation led by the king was warmly received by the sultan, the common people, and the Christian population living in the Turkish capital. Upon their return, the members of the delegation were convinced that Turkey would remain on the path of improving Serbian-Turkish relations, friendly agreement, and strengthening of economic relations. This intention was highlighted in the official statement of the Porte published on the occasion of the visit of the Serbian king. In the announcement, it was expressly emphasized that a complete agreement was reached at the conferences of the foreign ministers of the two countries and that the Turkish side will grant Serbian wishes for strengthening economic and trade relations. It was of great importance for the Kingdom of Serbia to remove the obstacles that existed until that time regarding the construction of the Adriatic railway. In addition, practical results were achieved because Turkish officials expressed their readiness for the greatest possible benefits that would contribute to the export of Serbian goods through Thessaloniki. The visit to Constantinople brought success in the issues regarding religion as well, because after four years of resistance, the Patriarchate and the Synod, just before the king’s arrival, accepted the election of the Serb Varnava Rosić as bishop of the Veles-Debar eparchy. The meeting of the two rulers received great attention in the diplomatic circles of European countries, especially Austria-Hungary. The relations between Serbia and the Ottoman Empire, apart from the economic aspect, soon fell into the shadows due to the Albanian riots and rebellions that engulfed the entire Kosovo vilayet. In that case too, the Serbian state tried not to interfere in Turkey’s internal affairs.
More...
After the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion, the situation in the Far East became increasingly dangerous. The contradictions between Russia and Japan in Manchuria and Korea were growing. To activate its policy in the Far East, Saint Petersburg needed a calm rear in Europe and the Balkans. Meanwhile, the situation in Macedonia threatened to put this rear in jeopardy. Russian-Ottoman relations were threatened by the actions of the VMRO activists and acts of terror committed by Albanians against Russian diplomats. Neither Constantinople nor Saint Petersburg wanted further complications. Nevertheless, Russia was forced to organize a naval demonstration and send its Black Sea Fleet Squadron to the European coast of Turkey. That did not lead to further development of the crisis. Faced with the prospect of a common European diplomatic front, which was based on the Russian-Austrian agreement in Mürzsteg, the Ottoman government took a number of measures against the organizers of terror and accepted a reform program in Macedonia, proposed by Russia and Austria-Hungary.
More...
Review of: Christian Lotz: Nachhaltigkeit neu skalieren. Internationale forstwissenschaftliche Kongresse und Debatten um die Ressourcenversorgung der Zukunft im Nord- und Ostseeraum (1870–1914). (Umwelthistorische Forschungen, Bd. 8.) Böhlau. Wien u. a. 2018. 359 S., Ill. ISBN 978-3-412-50025-2. (€ 60,–.)
More...
Review of: Stephan Lehnstaedt: Der vergessene Sieg. Der Polnisch-Sowjetische Krieg 1919–1921 und die Entstehung des modernen Osteuropa. Verlag C. H. Beck. München 2019. 217 S., Ill., Kt. ISBN 978-3-406-74022-0. (€ 14,95.)
More...
The subject of our study, the priest Alexandru Vidrighinescu, is a clerical figure less known to specialists in church history. For this reason, the present material can be considered as an attempt to recover the memory of a Romanian orthodox priest from Transylvania. After his years of theological studies at the Şaguna Seminary in Sibiu, Alexandru Vidrighinescu was functioning as priest in Ocna Sibiului. Through his intellectual and human qualities, he stood out in the local Romanian community as one of the most representative figures. A true patriot, he soon got involved in the national movement of the Romanians from Transylvania and contributed to the Great Union from December 1st, 1918. He took part, in his official capacity, at the great event from Alba Iulia. During the interwar period, priest Vidrighinescu got involved in the political life of Greater Romania, being a member of the Romanian National Party. Later, he became a military priest in Bârlad and Râmnicu Vâlcea, reaching the rank of major. Unfortunately, many aspects of his life and activity remain unknown at the current stage of research.
More...
The other form of trialism discussed during the First World War by the parliament representatives in Zagreb was Subdualism or the possibility for formation of Slavic states in the Austrian and Hungarian part of the empire. The ideas was strongly supported by the deputies of HSP and SSP.,thinking that the implementation of trialism in the monarchy would lead to the formation of such states. Croatia and the assembly were officially governed by the Croatian-Serbian coalition, which finds it difficult to accept the conflict with Serbia and is not willing to discuss the question about the empire’s reformation. Despite this official stand, the assembly in Zagreb discussed the questions about subdualism, trialism and dualism due to the opposition parties. Most of the party’s deputies consider that the contribution of Croats in the military activities has to be used as an argument for the introduction of trialism in the Habsburg empire. At the same part, the Croats from the bi-national coalition were against trialism and declare themselves for the unification of Croats within the dualism that was introduced. That means that the regions of Istria and Dalmatia had to go from the Austrian part in the Hungarian one and the representatives from the assembly had to truly originate from the regions called officially Croatian-Slavic-Dalmatian ones. In the autumn of 1918 the coalition officially resigned their support for dualism. It became clear then that the reconstruction of the empire would not be made according to a trialism or subdualism plan. This made known political activists from the southern Slavic territories of Austria-Hungary accept the view that Slovenians, Croats and Serbs had to unite themselves in an independent state outside the empire. For that purpose on the 5th of October in Zagreb was created “A national Council of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs”. The political development for the unifications of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs from Austria-Hungary was achieved on the 19th of October 1918 when in the building of the assembly the representative of the National Council declared themselves for the unification of the Slovenians, Croatian and Serbian peoples in their whole ethnicity territory in a single unified sovereign state rejecting the Habsburg empire. This act caused the reaction of the Croatian assembly and on the 29th of October 1918 it ceased relations with emperor Karl, annulated the state and juridical ties with Vienna and Budapest. The Assembly in Zagreb declared the inclusion of Croatian in the common State of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs ( State of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs). The right of the National Assembly to be supreme source of the governance of the State of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs was legitimized by the deputies in the Assembly.
More...
The pastoral care of Poles living in Budapest dates back to 1897. In Köbánya (District Ten), Holy Mass celebrations for Polish labourers started on Sundays and holidays. The venue was the Conti Chapel in Kápolna Place, founded by the Conti family from Italy. Temporary pastoral care was provided by Fr. K. Benedikovics, upon authorisation from the Hungarian church authorities, and subsequently by a Slovak priest, Fr. V. Havlíček. Changes in the organization of the Polish pastoral center followed the visitation of Archbishop Józef Bilczewski, Metropolitan of Lvov. By his authorization, pastoral care of 30 thousand Poles was assumed by Fr. Wincenty Danek in 1908, which in 1910 received an official name: Polish Curatorial Office. For the execution of particular tasks, many social institutions were established, such as the Church Erection Committee, Association for the Erection of “House of the Poor”, and the “Shelter” Association later on. The church in Kőbánya Place hosted the Catholic Association of Female Youth and the “Polish Table” of St. Stanislaus Kostka. In 1925, construction of a church started, which was consecrated by Cardinal A. Hlond on 17 August 1930. Next to the Polish church of Our Lady of Perpetual Help (Ohegy 11 Street), a shelter for the elderly and a rectory were erected. The pastoral care of Hungarian Polonia was supported by priests from diverse religious orders and congregations, Salesians, Paulines, and Poznań-based Elisabethan Sisters. Moreover, very frequently, the Polish pastor would invite priests from Poland to conduct retreat services, assist at Christmas and during Lent.
More...
The intention of this article is to show how the church life of the Orthodox Church in Montenegro went from the abolition of the Patriarchate of Peć (Serbian Church) in 1766, to the end of the process of establishment and unification of the same Church in the period from 1918 to 1922. The Patriarchate of Peć was abolished in 1766 by a decree of the Ottoman Sultan Mustafa III, violently and uncanonically. The Orthodox Church in Montenegro did not recognize that act, but continued its internal life, considering itself the successor of the Patriarchate of Peć. During the 19th century, there was state emancipation in Serbia as well as canonical emancipation in various ways of other Serbian dioceses. Finally, with the end of the First World War, in 1918, the conditions were created for the establishment and unification of the Serbian Church. The Church clergy in Montenegro largely supported the unification as a political act, and the process of the establishment and unification of the Serbian Church that means the return to the situation from 1766, in its entirety. All the hierarchs of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in Montenegro supported this procedure, and led by the head of the Church, Metropolitan Mitrofan Ban, participated in it.
More...