The Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) submitted an author's text by its member, historian Dragutin Papović.
We transmit the text in its entirety:
"Montenegro is now occupied by a strong force of Serbian troops... In no sense were the elections legal... The Assembly [of Podgorica] convened by any competent or accepted authority... The annexation of Montenegro, the declared aim of the Serbian Government, was a question to be decided... The Assembly made its decisions under the bayonet of Serbian troops... After the Assembly there was a strong [Christmas] uprising which, but for the help of the Serbian army and the support of France, would have overthrown the transitional government elected by the Assembly... The prisons are full. The leaders of the opposition to the present regime are either in strict custody or on the run. If they are not with them, their loyalists are out in the hills, while their houses are exposed to destruction at the hands of gangs or youth armed by the authorities... There can be no question of free expression". This is how the head of the British mission, diplomat and Earl John Francis Charles de Salis, after his stay in Montenegro from May to August 1919, described the political situation resulting from the decisions of the so-called Podgorica Assembly. Count de Salis, who was otherwise very reserved towards King Nikola and independent Montenegro, actually concluded that Serbia had carried out a violent annexation of Montenegro.
When he learned of this report, King Nikola sent a letter to French President Raymond Poincaré in Paris on December 1, 1919, stating, among other things: "A few months ago, the governments of Great Britain and the United States of America sent to Montenegro an Investigative Commission headed by the Honorable Count de Salis... The said Commission, after a few months of stay in our country, concluded that the will of the Montenegrin people was forged; that the Serbian troops violated the sovereignty of the country, that the annexation of Montenegro by Serbia was violent; that the Montenegrin people want the re-establishment of their country." King Nikola clearly stated that Serbia had carried out a violent annexation of Montenegro. This was the official position, as it is popularly said today, of Traditional-Njegošev Montenegro on the so-called Podgorica Assembly. Given that France played a huge role in the forced annexation of Montenegro, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Montenegro published a collection of official documents about it in Rome in 1921 and titled the collection "Le rôle de la France dans l'annexion forcée du Monténégro" or "The Role of France in the Forced Annexation of Montenegro".
The head of the official British mission, Count de Salis, concluded that Serbia had in fact carried out a forcible annexation of Montenegro in 1918. King Nikola concluded the same literally, and the Montenegrin royal government, or rather its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, titled a collection of official documents that way. Traditional-Njegoš Montenegro thus officially and for all time recorded that Serbia had carried out a forcible annexation of Montenegro in 1918. This historical fact was acknowledged in 2011 when the Parliament of Montenegro adopted the Law on the Status of the Descendants of the Petrović-Njegoš Dynasty, and the first article stated that the Petrović-Njegoš dynasty was dethroned contrary to the Constitution of the Principality of Montenegro, by an act of forcible annexation of the state in 1918. A century after the violent annexation, the director for continental Europe at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Florence Mangin, apologized because "in the euphoria of victory in 1918, the Kingdom of Montenegro was sacrificed for Yugoslavia to what were then higher interests."
Then, in 2025, PES MPs Gordan Stojović and Miloš Pižurica proposed amendments to the Law on the Status of Descendants of the Petrović-Njegoš Dynasty so that the term “forcible” in front of annexation would be deleted and stated that it “is not aimed at revising historical facts”. Their justification is futile and transparent. Given that the term forcible annexation was used in official documents of the Kingdom of Montenegro and represents a historical fact, the proposal of the Stojović – Pižurica tandem is a textbook example of anti-scientific revision of history. Their shallow explanation that the term forcible annexation is a pleonasm cannot be accepted either, so they, as well-known linguistic purists, only wanted to correct a spelling error. In 1918, the term forcible annexation meant forcible annexation, so it marked the essence of the decision of the so-called Podgorica Assembly and Serbia's policy towards Montenegro. Therefore, the use of the term forcible annexation in this context is appropriate and necessary because it is a historical fact and maintains the original meaning of the term from 1918. This is not a spelling issue, but a substantive one, which Stojović and Pižurica themselves openly admitted because they pointed out that the deletion of the term “forcible” is a key change to the law. In fact, these deputies believe that the annexation was not forcible, but voluntary, and this is precisely the thesis of the organizers, participants and followers of the Podgorica Assembly. Thus, Stojović and Pižurica carried out an anti-scientific revision of history in order to rehabilitate the decision of the Podgorica Assembly, which is the essence of their change to the law.
They tried to justify this move by “overcoming the negative connotations and reducing the polarization of society that the use of this term has caused so far”. In other words, Stojović and Pižurica assessed that the truth about the violent annexation of Montenegro in 1918 causes difficulties for contemporary polarized whites, because it reminds them of the betrayal of their political ancestors, and therefore the truth needs to be sacrificed in order to rehabilitate the treacherous white ideology. They then pointed out that by doing so, they actually want to “promote dialogue and reconciliation in society”. This is a classic example of false reconciliation according to the model of PES and other clerical fascists of the 30th of August. They allegedly carried out the reconciliation between the Partisans and the Chetniks by erecting a monument to the villain and coward Pavle Đurišić, and they will carry out the “reconciliation” with the whites by falsifying historical facts to erase the violent annexation of 1918. They explained that they were doing this “while preserving respect for the common historical heritage of Montenegro.” Given that their proposal refers to the violent annexation carried out by the Podgorica Assembly, it turns out that for Stojović and Pižurica, the Podgorica Assembly is a historical heritage that they respect.
In this way, PES officially adopted the Bjelaš ideology. If we take into account that PES, by cooperating in the erection and concealment of the monument to Pavle Đuršić, officially adopted the Chetnik ideology, we can unequivocally conclude that PES has become the Bjelaš-Chetnik branch of the New Serbian Democracy. Since the Bjelaš-Chetnik leader Andrija Mandić and his followers justify themselves by such a policy by respecting Traditional-Njegošev Montenegro, it would be good to remember what the ruler of that Montenegro, King Nikola, wrote about their ideological role models, the Bjelaš. On Christmas Day 1918 (according to the old calendar), the traditional-Njegošev King Nikola declared: "In exile, I was left with the painful and undeserved task of defending the honor and reputation of Montenegro from the wretched sons of our country, some of whom had enjoyed my trust, and who put themselves in the service of official Serbia, to slander and betray not only me for money, but everything that is most sacred and dear to every Montenegrin". PES and other contemporary Biała servants of the Belgrade regime will be easily recognized in the words of King Nikola".
Bonus video:
