Whatever people are inventing, just to secure a moral superiority over the enemy! Sometimes a similar "casus belli" (a legal term from the times of Roman law: a formal reason for declaring war is "a case (for) war", "a military incident") leads to a real confrontation between states. True, the "Fiuma incident" of 1910, well-known to historians, did not lead to a war between Russia and Austria-Hungary. Articles have been written about this "casus belli", it is mentioned in books. But the speech in them is about an event that, alas … in fact did not happen.
For the honor of the Andreevsky flag
If we get acquainted with information on this issue on the Web, then the whole picture will be as follows:
“On August 19, 1910, a detachment of Russian ships of Rear Admiral N. S. Mankovsky as part of the battleship "Tsesarevich", the cruisers "Rurik", "Bogatyr" and "Admiral Makarov" arrived at the roadstead of the Montenegrin port of Antivari to participate in the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the reign of King Nicholas I of Montenegro, while on board the flagship "Tsesarevich" was the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich with his retinue. When the celebrations were over, the detachment set off on the return journey, going along the road to Fiume (Rijeka, Croatia). When approaching the fortress, Russian ships fired a salute to the nations, but no salute was sounded from the fortress. The Grand Duke and his retinue went ashore and on the same day set off by train through Austria to Russia. In the evening, an Aastro-Hungarian squadron under the flag of the commander of the naval forces, Vice Admiral Monteccucoli, came to the Fiume raid."Tsarevich" again fired a salute, and again no return shots followed. Rear Admiral Mankovsky went to Monteccucoli on a visit, but the flag-captain of the Austro-Hungarian admiral was greeted at the gangplank, who said that "the commander cannot receive, since he has guests." When the Russian admiral departed from the flagship, the salute that was due according to international rules was not sounded again.
The patience of the Russian officers was overflowing. A boat with flag-captain Mankovsky departed from the "Tsarevich", who appeared for an explanation of the incident "offensive for the Andreevsky flag cases." The Austrians tried to justify all this as an annoying oversight. However, the Russian side demanded that the next day, together with the raising of the flag, both the fortress and the squadron fire the required salute. In response, the Austrians said that the fortress would fire a salute to the Russian detachment and its admiral, but the squadron could not do this, since at four in the morning (that is, even before the flags were raised) it had to urgently go to sea. What was followed by a calm notification: Russian ships will not release the Austro-Hungarian squadron from the raid without salute."
Source of information - Rudensky's memoirs
Promotional video:
“After that, the combat alert was broken on the Russian ships, the guns were loaded and sent to the Austrian flagship ship, and the cruiser Rurik, as the most powerful of the ships in the squadron, stood at the exit from the bay. Twice Austrian representatives came to the "Tsarevich" with explanations of the need for the squadron to leave early in the morning, but Rear Admiral Mankovsky was adamant. The Russian sailors spent the whole night near the cannons.
At dawn, the Austro-Hungarian ships began to separate pairs, but seeing that the Russian detachment did not intend to yield, and the servants were stationed at them, they did not dare to move from their place until eight in the morning. When flags were raised over the ships of both squadrons, a salute to the Russian admiral was fired from the fortress and the Austro-Hungarian squadron. After that, the squadron weighed anchor and headed towards the exit from the bay. Seeing her off, sailors on all Russian ships lined up on decks, and orchestras played the Austro-Hungarian anthem. In response, the Russian anthem sounded.
The dignity of Russia and the honor of the Andreevsky flag were protected, and the incident, which could well have served as a pretext for war, was over. On September 4, the Russian detachment left Fiume. On November 1, on the way to Kronstadt, Rear Admiral Mankovsky was met by the commander of the Baltic Sea Fleet, Admiral N. O. Essen. When it came to the incident in Fiume and the risk to which the Russian ships were exposed, Mankovsky briefly replied: "The honor of the Andreevsky flag is worth the risk!"
This is how the authors describe the events on the Web. At the same time, on one of the sites I found information that the source of information for materials about the "Fiuma incident" was the memoirs of Captain 1st Rank D. I. Rudensky, who died in France in 1952. They were published in 1960 …
However, something nevertheless alerted me. The fact is that not long before that I had been looking through Russian newspapers and magazines just for 1910, and … none of the media mentioned anything like this, although the visit itself was signed in great detail.
Documents testify
For the sake of fairness, I will say that there were other materials on the Internet, and with reference to the report of Admiral Mankovsky himself, - the document is stored in the archive of the Navy in St. Petersburg. I asked the archive for copies of the papers I needed, and they were kindly sent to me. It was then that it became clear that the Fiume secret was not even worth a damn, and many of those who wrote about all this were just victims of one of numerous historical hoaxes! However, historians themselves are to blame here, because they simply have to check any statement with the help of archival documents.
The first document is the report of the admiral himself dated September 3, 1910 (RGAVMF, Fund 417, op. 1, file 4002, l.194-200), in which the entire voyage is described in great detail, up to the message to whom in each specific case and how many shots who saluted. Report sheet 199 also contains a description of the incident with the Austrian admiral, but all of the above looks not at all dramatic, and there is no talk of any military preparations on our ships.
Encryption to the minister and pages of the logbook
There was also an encrypted message to the Minister of the Navy (Fund 417, op.1, file 4002, l. 158) with the following content: - Yesterday I paid a visit to the Austrian Admiral Montekukuli (as in the text. - Author's note). It was not accepted under the pretext that guests were having breakfast at the admiral's. I did not receive a salute when I rolled it off Three hours later, the admiral paid a visit, I did not accept, saying through the flag-captain that I was not on the ship. The admiral said that he did not salute me due to the time of rest and asked him not to salute. After waiting until the flag was lowered, he demanded a salute, which he received today at eight in the morning. Details Ambassadorial Valizoy. No. 137. Mankovsky . Moreover, the admiral's report says only one Austrian cruiser, and not a whole squadron …
As for such a document as the pages of the logbook of the flagship Tsesarevich for August 28-29, 1910, judging by the records available there, neither the 28th nor the 29th combat alert was announced on the ship, no one near the guns did not spend the night, and ammunition was not issued to them. On Saturday the 28th morning began with prayer. At 9.00, the galley was closed, and then the ship received 36 pounds of white bread, 90 potatoes, 3 pounds of onions and the same amount of fresh cabbage, as well as 30 pounds of tomatoes. Vigil was in the evening. On the 29th they prayed again, had breakfast, they raised steam on boat No. 3, kept boilers N-6 and 7 under steam, gave admiral's signals, and … EVERYTHING!
Lying like an eyewitness
Well, then what about the eyewitness accounts, to the texts of which some authors of messages about the "Fiuma incident" refer? No way! Firstly, one should not exclude the desire of emigrants to make money on some sensational memories of events that allegedly took place at one time. And secondly, there is also a subjective perception of reality, it is not for nothing that it is said: "He lies as an eyewitness!" But we cannot afford to be content with information from third parties, especially when archival documents are, in general, quite accessible to us.
Magazine "Secrets of the XX century" № 16. Vyacheslav Shpakovsky, candidate of historical sciences, associate professor