Politika
- Disarmament
- Ten years ago: Kajmakčalan
The front page pairs Kellogg’s proposed extension of naval arms limits with a ten-year Kajmakčalan retrospective. Readable passages distinguish a diplomatic hope from announced measures and a remembered battle from current news.
Two main articles, with selected clear sentences only. Heavy scan noise prevents a dependable continuous transcription; omitted sentences are marked rather than reconstructed.
Translation
Disarmament
Secretary Kellogg states that “the United States would gladly cooperate with the other naval powers to extend the principles of the Washington Treaty to the other classes of warships.” He also publicly and openly expresses the hope that “the necessary measures to this end will be taken soon.”
He says nothing about the “necessary measures” themselves.
Ten years ago: Kajmakčalan
Ten years ago.
Kajmakčalan.
From the notes of war correspondent Đ. Lazarević—Uncle Đoka.
[…]
When one surveys all those positions, one need not be an expert to realize how important they were to the Bulgarians.
[…]
No, that is wrong. The Bulgarians did not abandon Kajmakčalan. The Bulgarians stayed there.
Context
What the Washington settlement limited
The Washington Naval Conference of 1921–22 produced limits on capital ships and aircraft carriers for the principal naval powers. It established tonnage ratios rather than abolishing naval forces. Kellogg’s proposal looks beyond those categories, towards ships left outside the same system of quantitative limits. That explains why extending the treaty’s principles still mattered several years after the agreement.
Arms control depended on agreement among rivals
A naval limit is useful only if states accept restrictions in relation to one another. The Washington negotiations had made the relative strength of the participating fleets central to the bargain. Kellogg’s call for cooperation therefore raised a practical diplomatic question: how could further categories be brought under common rules that the other naval powers would accept? Politika’s closing observation points to the distance between endorsing that aim and choosing a way to negotiate it.
The battlefield as a remembered place
The Kajmakčalan piece is framed as a war correspondent’s recollection ten years later. Its focus on the terrain asks readers to imagine the difficulty of holding or taking the positions. The emphatic correction—insisting that the Bulgarians stayed—resists a tidy account of an enemy simply leaving a place. In these surviving lines, remembrance works through the landscape and the narrator’s voice, giving the battle a human weight beyond a record of advances and withdrawals.
Original
Разоружање
Секретар Келог наиме изјављује да би „Сједињене Државе радо ступиле у сарадњу са осталим поморским Силама ради проширења принципа Вашингтонског Уговора на остале класе убојних бродова“. При том још јавно и отворено изражава наду да „ће потребне мере у ту сврху бити ускоро предузете“.
О самим „потребним мерама“ не говори.
Пре десет година. Кајмакчалан
Пре десет година.
Кајмакчалан
Из бележака ратног дописника г. Ђ. Лазаревића-Чика Ђоке
[...]
Кад човек све те положаје прегледа, не треба да буде стручњак па да увиди колико су они за Бугаре били важни.
[...]
Не, то је погрешно. Кајмакчалан нису Бугари напустили. Бугари су ту остали.