ABSTRACT
While the immediate conditions allowing for the creation of Yugoslavia were directly related to the outcome of the First World War and were not anticipated, Yugoslavism was a recognizable discourse that had framed political action and cultural initiatives for much of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century.1 Starting with Ljudevit Gaj’s Illyrian movement in the 1830s, the South Slav intellectual and political elite within the Habsburg Monarchy sought to unite diverse groups into a single ‘nation’ large enough to assert a claim for political autonomy within the Monarchy or political independence in a new state, either alone or together with Serbia. Despite its difficulties in competing with alternative nationalisms, perhaps the greatest obstacle for Yugoslavism and the Yugoslav movements was the challenge that it posed to the Habsburg Monarchy as any version of the desired Yugoslav state meant a loss of territory and power for the Monarchy. This placed the Yugoslav movement and the probability of its success or failure within an international context structured by power relations within Austria-Hungary and by its relationships with other states. The First World War provided the opportunity to challenge the power of Austria-Hungary and allowed national movements such as the Yugoslav, Czechoslovak, and Polish movements to press for independence from the Monarchy and establish independent and sovereign states. On behalf of the Yugoslavs, the Yugoslav Committee sought to negotiate the complex geopolitical and international context created by the outbreak of war in order to challenge Austria-Hungary and to gain support for an internationally recognized nation-state. The Yugoslav Committee and the formation of Yugoslavia in 1918 provides
an excellent case study in which to examine ways that a state-seeking national movement seeks to gain support for the establishment of an internationally recognized nation-state. State-seeking national movements often use nationalism as a way of building and mobilizing support for its goals. Nationalism should be seen in part as a discourse that draws upon available symbols and images to create a new historical narrative capable of conferring legitimacy upon a particular national movement and/or its goals by both its international and domestic audiences. Importantly, by addressing international audiences, the movement actors aim to create symbolic alliances with other nations and
states as they navigate an international context structured by military and political relationships between states and reinforced by treaty-making and international law.2
