Professor at the Department of History at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences University of Split (Croatia)Interested in different aspects of contemporary history of South Eastern and Eastern Europe in the 20th century - especially political, cultural and social history of Dalmatia, Croatia, and the former Yugoslavia.
VIRTUTE REBUSQUE GESTIS Zbornik povodom dvadesete godišnjice Odsjeka za povijest Filozofskog fakulteta u Splitu Uredili: Tonija Andrić Nikša Varezić, 2024
Memories of Civil War: Is a Multi-perspectival historical approach to Memory possible and helpful... more Memories of Civil War: Is a Multi-perspectival historical approach to Memory possible and helpful in understanding the History of the 20th century?
Opposing and irreconcilable differences in the understanding of the history of the 20th century, as well as of the conflicting parties in the ideologically motivated war, which raged in the period between 1917 and 1945 (also called »European Civil War« by Ernst Nolte), are not typical only for Croatia. Contemplating the Spanish example can be useful if we want to understand better how Croatian society deals with this historical period. Starting from the question of how the Civil War in Spain (1936-1939) and its participants entered the collective memory of today’s Spain, where »memory wars« are still being fought, the text puts forth the idea that we can learn some lessons from the Spanish example. And not just learn, but use the knowledge to further understand similar examples from Croatian history, a country which sometimes seems to be suffocating from all its historical burdens. One area where a similar treatment can be useful regards the politics of memory in public spaces during the reigns of Franco and Tito. Both glorified the winning side, while the losing side was not even allowed to mark the graves of the victims, let alone build memorials and monuments. Both societies, Spanish as well as Croatian, are burdened by the existence of conflicting cultures of memory. The results of research into the process of »remembering and forgetting« can provide a necessary counterweight to help overcome these resulting mental patterns as currently exist. The paper advocates a comparative approach that would systematically investigate the way memory politics has been shaped in both Spain and Croatia. The comparison of the two could be useful because a traumatic historical legacy, as well as exclusive and mutually opposing collective memories, characterize both Spanish and Croatian society. Considerable periods of the 20th century can also be seen in Croatia as times of »forced utopia politics and mega-death« (Z. Brzezinski). The culmination of the conflict between formations that were in the service of competing totalitarian ideas took place in the territory of Croatia during the Second World War. This text expresses a belief that by sound understanding of the past, we can better understand our own present, especially through dealing with topics from the – for the most part – bloody Croatian 20th century. However, this is only genuinely possible if the sources one is using are relevant and credible, while at the same time being careful to contextualize the facts one comes across in these sources. Therefore, full availability of archival material is necessary; as one of the main requirements for scientific research. Furthermore, it is also necessary to distinguish images and ideas about the past from history arrived at as a result of methodical research. The author advocates for a scientifically based, and historically responsible way of researching so-called »controversial historical topics«. Only when historians speak about these issues of Croatian history by using the methods of critical historical science and »the language of facts and sources«, will it be possible to reach a clear-sighted and rational judgment of events that led to large-scale harassments in the name of totalitarian ideologies. The acceptance of a »multidirectional« collective memory (Michael Rothberg), based on the principles and values of a democratic constitutional order, seems to be a requirement for mutual understanding and reconciliation in society. This implies the acceptance of multiperspectivity and the obvious fact that disparate memories exist in Croatian society. Writing history according to the model of »winners and losers« does not allow the societies in question to get out of this vicious circle. What seems paramount in the research of Croatian history is to undergo a critical reconsideration of all politicized approaches in determining the number of victims of non-democratic regimes in Croatia. Also, it is a mere civilizational necessity to find and mark all the places of the mass graves of victims of all political regimes in the 20th century. In particular, an interdisciplinary approach seems the most suitable if we want to shed light on the complexity of different memories of the war and its impact on contemporary Croatian society. At the same time, multi-perspective historical memory represents an approach to history that promotes diverse perspectives and interpretations of past events and phenomena. Multiperspectivity as a methodological approach is a guard against the creation of one-sided and/or biased narratives about history, especially when it comes to so-called »controversial« or »sensitive« issues. It can contribute to the promotion of communication and reconciliation within society because it enables a conversation between different groups and individuals, which, in the best scenario, can lead to an understanding of the other’s perspective. A multi-perspective and combined approach to the most controversial issues of the Croatian past seems like a good way to develop a higher level of tolerance and a democratic culture of memory within Croatian society, which seems necessary for Croatian society to overcome inherited historical trauma.
Analizirajući kako se Španjolski građanski rat (1936. – 1939.) i njegovi akteri poimaju u kolektivnome sjećanju današnje Španjolske u kojoj se još uvijek »ratuje sjećanjima«, u tekstu se problematizira stanje u Hrvatskoj koju također guše »povijesni balasti«, odnosno nastoje se izvući pouke vezane za povijesno nasljeđe i odnos prema nedemokratskim režimima. Kulminacija sukoba formacija koje su služile totalitarnim idejama dogodila se u Hrvatskoj u Drugome svjetskom ratu. Autor se zalaže za znanstveno, argumentirano i povijesno odgovorno istraživanje tzv. kontroverznih povijesnih tema. Prihvaćanje »višesmjernoga« (multidirectional) kolektivnog pamćenja (Michael Rothberg), utemeljenoga na načelima i vrednotama demokratskoga ustavnog poretka, čini se kao preduvjet za međusobno razumijevanja i pomirenje. To implicira prihvaćanje multiperspektivnosti i bjelodane činjenice da u hrvatskom društvu postoje pluralna sjećanja. Multiperspektivno povijesno pamćenje jest pristup povijesti koji promiče raznolike perspektive i interpretacije prošlih događanja i fenomena. Multiperspektivnost kao metodološki pristup brana je stvaranju jednostranih i/ili pristranih povijesnih narativa, posebice o tzv. »kontroverznim« ili »osjetljivim« pitanjima, i može doprinijeti dijalogu i pomirenju u društvu jer omogućuje dijalog različitih zajednica, a što u najboljemu slučaju rezultira razumijevanjem perspektive drugoga. Multiperspektivni i pluralni pristup i prema najkontroverznijim pitanjima hrvatske prošlosti čini se kao dobar put kojim bi se u hrvatskome društvu razvili viši stupanj tolerancije i demokratske kulture sjećanja, što se čini nužnim da društvo prevlada naslijeđene povijesne traume.
The paper deals with the question how the Sokol movement in the yugoslav state tried to stage its... more The paper deals with the question how the Sokol movement in the yugoslav state tried to stage its ideas in the region of Dalmatia. Mass gatherings of the members of Sokol in their red shirts, and pictures of these events printed in the Yugoslav press, can be read as an aspect of everyday cultural experience and visual representation in the interwar Yugoslav state.
Mateo Bratanić (ur.): Viški boj 1866. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog 2016. godine povodom 150. obljetnice boja. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru, 2023., 173-185., 2023
The Battle of Vis as a “site of memory”
The memory and remembrance of the Battle of Vis found di... more The Battle of Vis as a “site of memory”
The memory and remembrance of the Battle of Vis found different expressions at different times. From the point of view of historiography as well as other disciplines, it is intriguing why certain events from the past are remembered as historical in some communities, and in the others they are forgotten. In today’s humanistic and historiographical discourse, it has become almost commonplace that our perception of the past is important, some would even say crucial, in creating a collective identity and memory. In various European historiographies, historical sciences have been delving into the phenomena of memory in recent decades, directing historiographical studies towards different sites of memory or sites of remembrance, both possible translations of the French term lieux de mémoire, first used by the French historian Pierre Nora in the 1980s. Holiday celebrations, commemorations, various ceremonies and monuments, and other forms of social remembrance of past events that can be considered part of a society’s collective memory are now being explored as sites of memory. Taking theoretical considerations of the concepts of “site of memory” and “collective memory” as its starting point, the paper raises the question whether such an approach can be applied to commemoration of events such as the battle between the Austrian and Italian fleets that took place on 20 July 1866 near Vis. In his work, Pierre Nora pointed out that a site of memory must potentially have a special symbolic meaning for a certain group in order for it to play a part in the process of creating collective memory, and, consequently, in creating and affirming identity. The paper argues that the process of creating collective memory as a complex system of signs, symbols and practices, could be compared to the process of crystal formation. In crystallization, elementary particles come together in space to form a layered crystal lattice, just as historically conditioned collective memory also emerges and grows, so to speak, in layers, by employing symbolic and functional semantics within a communication community which creates and shares what it considers common historical experience, and what it deems to be a collectively acceptable and desirable interpretation of the past experience. In the age of national movements and nation states, there have been frequent efforts to connect collective memory with narratives of national affiliation and common origin, common values, common history of all the people belonging to a nation etc., so that the culture of memory and remembrance has an important place in the construction of national identities. It is known that the anniversaries of the Battle of Vis were celebrated in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, whereas in the states that emerged in the 20th century from the ruins of Austria-Hungary, i.e. both Yugoslav states, the memory of the Battle of Vis was not commemorated, or at least there was no “official” commemoration. It can be assumed that the construction of a certain culture of memory is being used to shape the historical narrative and memories of the nation in the context of Croatian history as well. Based on the media coverage of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Vis in 2016, the paper proposes that, in the context of the Croatian historical memory in the independent Croatian state, with the Battle of Vis becoming a symbol of “resistance of Croatian sailors and Croatian people”, the memory of the Battle of Vis 1866 can be seen as a kind of site of memory which has found its place in the narrative of the nation in the contemporary Croatian state.
Poznato je da su se obljetnice Viškog boja za vrijeme Austro-Ugarske svečano obilježavale, dok se u državama koje su nastajale u 20. stoljeću na ruševinama Austro-Ugarske, tj. u obje jugoslavenske države, sjećanja na Višku bitku, takoreći, nisu evocirala. Polazeći od izloženih teoretskih promišljanja o konceptima „mjesta sjećanja“ (Pierre Nora) i „kolektivnog pamćenja“, rad se bavi pitanjem može li se takav pristup primijeniti na obilježavanje događaja kakav je bitka između austrijske i talijanske flote 20. srpnja 1866. godine pod Visom. Historijski uvjetovano kolektivno sjećanje nastaje i raste u slojevima, upotrebom simbolične i funkcionalne semantike unutar jedne komunikativne zajednice u kojoj se stvara i dijeli ono što se smatra zajedničkim povijesnim iskustvom i što se čini kolektivno prihvatljivim i poželjnim tumačenjem prošloga. U doba nacionalnih pokreta i nacionalnih država kolektivno se pamćenje često pokušavalo povezati s narativima o pripadnosti naciji čiji pripadnici polaze od toga da dijele zajedničku povijest, tako da kultura sjećanja i pamćenja ima važno mjesto u konstrukciji nacionalnih identiteta. I u hrvatskom povijesnom kontekstu može se pretpostaviti da se s pomoću konstrukcije određene kulture sjećanja pokušava oblikovati povijesni narativ i sjećanja nacije. Na temelju medijskog odjeka obilježavanja 150. obljetnice Viškog boja, 2016. godine, iznosi se razmišljanje da danas, u kontekstu hrvatske povijesne memorije u samostalnoj hrvatskoj državi, kad je Viška bitka postala simbolom „otpora hrvatskog mornara, hrvatskog čovjeka“, sjećanje na Viški boj 1866. godine možemo shvatiti kao svojevrsno mjesto sjećanja koje je našlo svoje mjesto u naraciji nacije današnje hrvatske države.
Betrachtet man Politik und Vorgehensweise der jugoslawischen Kommunisten gegenüber der römisch-ka... more Betrachtet man Politik und Vorgehensweise der jugoslawischen Kommunisten gegenüber der römisch-katholischen Kirche in Kroatien nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, so ist die Radikalität und Tiefe der Zäsur von 1945 kaum zu überschätzen. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, in einem knappen historischen Abriss einige wesentliche Merkmale des Verhältnisses der kommunistischen Machthaber zur katholischen Kirche in Kroatien in den ersten Jahren nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg aufzuzeigen, welche die Darstellung der politischen Entwicklungen in neueren deutschsprachigen historischen Werken versucht zu ergänzen, da in dieser Themen wie Kirche und Kirchlichkeit (ebenso wie Religion und Religiosität) eher selten Gegenstand eigener Untersuchungen geworden sind. Aus Platzgründen kann im vorliegendem Beitrag nur auf das Verhältnis der römisch-katholischen Kirche zum kommunistischen Regime in den ersten Jahren nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in Kroatien eingegangen werden, und die anderen (in Kroatien deutlich kleineren) Religionsgemeinschaften bleiben ausgespart. Da die Beziehung zwischen dem System, Partei und Staat, einerseits und Kirche andererseits im genannten Zeitraum im Vordergrund stehen soll, müssen auch wesentliche Aspekte des viel umfassenderen und komplexeren Verhältnisses von Religion und Gesellschaft im Rahmen dieses Beitrags unberücksichtigt bleiben.
Rainer Bendel/Robert Pech (Hg..): Christen und totalitäre Herrschaft in den Ländern Ostmittel- und Südosteuropas von 1945 bis in die 1960er Jahre, Boehlau Verlag Wien Koeln Brill Leiden 2023, 357-382. (ISBN 978-3-412-52748-8), 2023
Betrachtet man Politik und Vorgehensweise der jugoslawischen Kommunisten gegenüber der römisch-ka... more Betrachtet man Politik und Vorgehensweise der jugoslawischen Kommunisten gegenüber der römisch-katholischen Kirche in Kroatien nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, so ist die Radikalität und Tiefe der Zäsur von 1945 kaum zu überschätzen. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, in einem knappen historischen Abriss einige wesentliche Merkmale des Verhältnisses der kommunistischen Machthaber zur katholischen Kirche in Kroatien in den ersten Jahren nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg aufzuzeigen.
International Perspectives on Social Policy, Administration, and Practice, 2019
In Aleksandar Jakir’s chapter, he illustrates that while the military were indispensable in Croat... more In Aleksandar Jakir’s chapter, he illustrates that while the military were indispensable in Croatia’s transition to an independent democratic state in the early 1990s, during the Homeland War, contemporary veterans’ transition arrangements remain problematically tied to these events. As a country endeavouring to construct a contemporary Croatian national narrative, agreement on appropriate veterans’ transition arrangements are proving a significant impasse to these aspirations. Jakir’s chapter maps the Croatian public dialogue that oscillates between framing veterans as exacting a heavy toll on an already weak economy and as deserving of care as privileged defenders of the country’s independence, as a response to proposed revisions via the New Veterans Law.
Am Rande Europas? Der Balkan – Raum und Bevölkerung als Wirkungsfelder militärischer Gewalt, 2009
In: Am Rande Europas? Der Balkan – Raum und Bevölkerung als Wirkungsfelder militärischer Gewalt. ... more In: Am Rande Europas? Der Balkan – Raum und Bevölkerung als Wirkungsfelder militärischer Gewalt. Im Auftrag des Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes herausgegeben von Bernhard Chiari und Gerhard P. Groß unter Mitarbeit von Magnus Pahl. R. Oldenbourg Verlag München 2009, 287-300. The Partisan myth in socialist Yugoslavia and current interpretations of the "People's Struggle for Liberation", 1941-45 The Partisan myth played an important role and was used for legitimation purposes as long as socialist Yugoslavia existed. It can be understood as a kind of narrative superelevating the victorious struggle for and foundation of an political era that supposedly began with the first liberated spots and regions during WW II and lasted until the implosion of the socialist regime and state. Today it seems obvious that the partisan movement was not only fighting a war of liberation and resistance against foreign occupation forces and their proxies and allies within the country, but also was engaged in a merciless struggle to obtain political power. In my paper I will try to point out what the functions of the partisan myth were in socialist Yugoslavia, how it was deconstructed after Titos death, and examine how the role of Tito's partisans is now portrayed in some new historiographic works in Serbia and Croatia.
The aim of the paper is to discuss Antisemitism (extending from the definition and approach of Kl... more The aim of the paper is to discuss Antisemitism (extending from the definition and approach of Klaus Holz) in the Yugoslavia of the interwar years, in which Jews accounted for little more than half a percent of the total population. The question arises if we can identify different forms of Antisemitism in different regions of the first yugoslav state? So far there are not many studies dealing with Antisemitism in the Yugoslavia of the inter-war period, although the history of the Jewish communities on the territory of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, since 1929 Kingdom of Yugoslavia, is quite well researched, as can be seen in the works of scholars like Harriet Pass Freidenreich, Ženi Lebl, Melita Svob, Nebojsa Popovic, Pavle Sosberger and Ivo Goldstein. Antisemitism between 1918-1941 has been described as “only one facet of the problem”, although “Antisemitic outbursts were relatively numerous and varied after the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes...
Zbornik znanstvenih radova Vladan Desnica i Split (1920. – 1945.) sadržava clanke koji su nastali... more Zbornik znanstvenih radova Vladan Desnica i Split (1920. – 1945.) sadržava clanke koji su nastali na temelju priopcenja s Desnicinih susreta 2014., održanih u Splitu 19. i 20. rujna te u Islamu Grckom 21. rujna 2014. godine. Potpisani urednici osjecaju potrebu naglasiti da su za uspjesan rad skupa, bitnu pretpostavku za nastanak ovog zbornika, zaslužni kolege s Filozofskog fakulteta Sveucilista u Splitu, a narocito prof. dr. sc. Aleksandar Jakir, dekan Filozofskog fakulteta, koji je i sam bio sudionik skupa. Sedamnaest od devetnaest sudionika preradilo je svoja priopcenja u clanke. Njihovi su radovi prije svega svjedocanstva vlastitih istraživanja, ali oni zrcale i ucinke nerijetko pasionirane pa i vrlo polemicne rasprave na samom skupu. Najvise se raspravljalo, dakako, o Vladanu i dr. Urosu Desnici, potom o drugim, najcesce znamenitim Splicanima tog doba, ali i o splitskim pucanima te o tadasnjoj velikoj urbanoj transformaciji Splita, licu i nalicju kulturnih i umjetnickih inovacij...
The paper examines the connection between economic development and the genesis of different forms... more The paper examines the connection between economic development and the genesis of different forms of nationalism in socialist Yugoslavia with its specific system of workers self-management. It seems that the pivots of divergent national interests reflecting particular economic situations of industrial concerns in individual republics were engaged, on the federal level, in a fierce competition for the limited economic resources, in other words, national rivalry found expression primarily in economic terms, subsequently to be emotionally charged with the rather familiar historical, linguistic and cultural arguments (as became dear in the movement known as the "Croatian Spring" of 1971). The preliminary results of a research project on "Socialist State Enterprises and the Spread of Nationalism on a Regional Level: the Example of Yugoslavia, 1953-1974" seem to support the view that a national mobilization took place only after economic conflicts had taken hold of lar...
VIRTUTE REBUSQUE GESTIS Zbornik povodom dvadesete godišnjice Odsjeka za povijest Filozofskog fakulteta u Splitu Uredili: Tonija Andrić Nikša Varezić, 2024
Memories of Civil War: Is a Multi-perspectival historical approach to Memory possible and helpful... more Memories of Civil War: Is a Multi-perspectival historical approach to Memory possible and helpful in understanding the History of the 20th century?
Opposing and irreconcilable differences in the understanding of the history of the 20th century, as well as of the conflicting parties in the ideologically motivated war, which raged in the period between 1917 and 1945 (also called »European Civil War« by Ernst Nolte), are not typical only for Croatia. Contemplating the Spanish example can be useful if we want to understand better how Croatian society deals with this historical period. Starting from the question of how the Civil War in Spain (1936-1939) and its participants entered the collective memory of today’s Spain, where »memory wars« are still being fought, the text puts forth the idea that we can learn some lessons from the Spanish example. And not just learn, but use the knowledge to further understand similar examples from Croatian history, a country which sometimes seems to be suffocating from all its historical burdens. One area where a similar treatment can be useful regards the politics of memory in public spaces during the reigns of Franco and Tito. Both glorified the winning side, while the losing side was not even allowed to mark the graves of the victims, let alone build memorials and monuments. Both societies, Spanish as well as Croatian, are burdened by the existence of conflicting cultures of memory. The results of research into the process of »remembering and forgetting« can provide a necessary counterweight to help overcome these resulting mental patterns as currently exist. The paper advocates a comparative approach that would systematically investigate the way memory politics has been shaped in both Spain and Croatia. The comparison of the two could be useful because a traumatic historical legacy, as well as exclusive and mutually opposing collective memories, characterize both Spanish and Croatian society. Considerable periods of the 20th century can also be seen in Croatia as times of »forced utopia politics and mega-death« (Z. Brzezinski). The culmination of the conflict between formations that were in the service of competing totalitarian ideas took place in the territory of Croatia during the Second World War. This text expresses a belief that by sound understanding of the past, we can better understand our own present, especially through dealing with topics from the – for the most part – bloody Croatian 20th century. However, this is only genuinely possible if the sources one is using are relevant and credible, while at the same time being careful to contextualize the facts one comes across in these sources. Therefore, full availability of archival material is necessary; as one of the main requirements for scientific research. Furthermore, it is also necessary to distinguish images and ideas about the past from history arrived at as a result of methodical research. The author advocates for a scientifically based, and historically responsible way of researching so-called »controversial historical topics«. Only when historians speak about these issues of Croatian history by using the methods of critical historical science and »the language of facts and sources«, will it be possible to reach a clear-sighted and rational judgment of events that led to large-scale harassments in the name of totalitarian ideologies. The acceptance of a »multidirectional« collective memory (Michael Rothberg), based on the principles and values of a democratic constitutional order, seems to be a requirement for mutual understanding and reconciliation in society. This implies the acceptance of multiperspectivity and the obvious fact that disparate memories exist in Croatian society. Writing history according to the model of »winners and losers« does not allow the societies in question to get out of this vicious circle. What seems paramount in the research of Croatian history is to undergo a critical reconsideration of all politicized approaches in determining the number of victims of non-democratic regimes in Croatia. Also, it is a mere civilizational necessity to find and mark all the places of the mass graves of victims of all political regimes in the 20th century. In particular, an interdisciplinary approach seems the most suitable if we want to shed light on the complexity of different memories of the war and its impact on contemporary Croatian society. At the same time, multi-perspective historical memory represents an approach to history that promotes diverse perspectives and interpretations of past events and phenomena. Multiperspectivity as a methodological approach is a guard against the creation of one-sided and/or biased narratives about history, especially when it comes to so-called »controversial« or »sensitive« issues. It can contribute to the promotion of communication and reconciliation within society because it enables a conversation between different groups and individuals, which, in the best scenario, can lead to an understanding of the other’s perspective. A multi-perspective and combined approach to the most controversial issues of the Croatian past seems like a good way to develop a higher level of tolerance and a democratic culture of memory within Croatian society, which seems necessary for Croatian society to overcome inherited historical trauma.
Analizirajući kako se Španjolski građanski rat (1936. – 1939.) i njegovi akteri poimaju u kolektivnome sjećanju današnje Španjolske u kojoj se još uvijek »ratuje sjećanjima«, u tekstu se problematizira stanje u Hrvatskoj koju također guše »povijesni balasti«, odnosno nastoje se izvući pouke vezane za povijesno nasljeđe i odnos prema nedemokratskim režimima. Kulminacija sukoba formacija koje su služile totalitarnim idejama dogodila se u Hrvatskoj u Drugome svjetskom ratu. Autor se zalaže za znanstveno, argumentirano i povijesno odgovorno istraživanje tzv. kontroverznih povijesnih tema. Prihvaćanje »višesmjernoga« (multidirectional) kolektivnog pamćenja (Michael Rothberg), utemeljenoga na načelima i vrednotama demokratskoga ustavnog poretka, čini se kao preduvjet za međusobno razumijevanja i pomirenje. To implicira prihvaćanje multiperspektivnosti i bjelodane činjenice da u hrvatskom društvu postoje pluralna sjećanja. Multiperspektivno povijesno pamćenje jest pristup povijesti koji promiče raznolike perspektive i interpretacije prošlih događanja i fenomena. Multiperspektivnost kao metodološki pristup brana je stvaranju jednostranih i/ili pristranih povijesnih narativa, posebice o tzv. »kontroverznim« ili »osjetljivim« pitanjima, i može doprinijeti dijalogu i pomirenju u društvu jer omogućuje dijalog različitih zajednica, a što u najboljemu slučaju rezultira razumijevanjem perspektive drugoga. Multiperspektivni i pluralni pristup i prema najkontroverznijim pitanjima hrvatske prošlosti čini se kao dobar put kojim bi se u hrvatskome društvu razvili viši stupanj tolerancije i demokratske kulture sjećanja, što se čini nužnim da društvo prevlada naslijeđene povijesne traume.
The paper deals with the question how the Sokol movement in the yugoslav state tried to stage its... more The paper deals with the question how the Sokol movement in the yugoslav state tried to stage its ideas in the region of Dalmatia. Mass gatherings of the members of Sokol in their red shirts, and pictures of these events printed in the Yugoslav press, can be read as an aspect of everyday cultural experience and visual representation in the interwar Yugoslav state.
Mateo Bratanić (ur.): Viški boj 1866. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog 2016. godine povodom 150. obljetnice boja. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru, 2023., 173-185., 2023
The Battle of Vis as a “site of memory”
The memory and remembrance of the Battle of Vis found di... more The Battle of Vis as a “site of memory”
The memory and remembrance of the Battle of Vis found different expressions at different times. From the point of view of historiography as well as other disciplines, it is intriguing why certain events from the past are remembered as historical in some communities, and in the others they are forgotten. In today’s humanistic and historiographical discourse, it has become almost commonplace that our perception of the past is important, some would even say crucial, in creating a collective identity and memory. In various European historiographies, historical sciences have been delving into the phenomena of memory in recent decades, directing historiographical studies towards different sites of memory or sites of remembrance, both possible translations of the French term lieux de mémoire, first used by the French historian Pierre Nora in the 1980s. Holiday celebrations, commemorations, various ceremonies and monuments, and other forms of social remembrance of past events that can be considered part of a society’s collective memory are now being explored as sites of memory. Taking theoretical considerations of the concepts of “site of memory” and “collective memory” as its starting point, the paper raises the question whether such an approach can be applied to commemoration of events such as the battle between the Austrian and Italian fleets that took place on 20 July 1866 near Vis. In his work, Pierre Nora pointed out that a site of memory must potentially have a special symbolic meaning for a certain group in order for it to play a part in the process of creating collective memory, and, consequently, in creating and affirming identity. The paper argues that the process of creating collective memory as a complex system of signs, symbols and practices, could be compared to the process of crystal formation. In crystallization, elementary particles come together in space to form a layered crystal lattice, just as historically conditioned collective memory also emerges and grows, so to speak, in layers, by employing symbolic and functional semantics within a communication community which creates and shares what it considers common historical experience, and what it deems to be a collectively acceptable and desirable interpretation of the past experience. In the age of national movements and nation states, there have been frequent efforts to connect collective memory with narratives of national affiliation and common origin, common values, common history of all the people belonging to a nation etc., so that the culture of memory and remembrance has an important place in the construction of national identities. It is known that the anniversaries of the Battle of Vis were celebrated in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, whereas in the states that emerged in the 20th century from the ruins of Austria-Hungary, i.e. both Yugoslav states, the memory of the Battle of Vis was not commemorated, or at least there was no “official” commemoration. It can be assumed that the construction of a certain culture of memory is being used to shape the historical narrative and memories of the nation in the context of Croatian history as well. Based on the media coverage of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Vis in 2016, the paper proposes that, in the context of the Croatian historical memory in the independent Croatian state, with the Battle of Vis becoming a symbol of “resistance of Croatian sailors and Croatian people”, the memory of the Battle of Vis 1866 can be seen as a kind of site of memory which has found its place in the narrative of the nation in the contemporary Croatian state.
Poznato je da su se obljetnice Viškog boja za vrijeme Austro-Ugarske svečano obilježavale, dok se u državama koje su nastajale u 20. stoljeću na ruševinama Austro-Ugarske, tj. u obje jugoslavenske države, sjećanja na Višku bitku, takoreći, nisu evocirala. Polazeći od izloženih teoretskih promišljanja o konceptima „mjesta sjećanja“ (Pierre Nora) i „kolektivnog pamćenja“, rad se bavi pitanjem može li se takav pristup primijeniti na obilježavanje događaja kakav je bitka između austrijske i talijanske flote 20. srpnja 1866. godine pod Visom. Historijski uvjetovano kolektivno sjećanje nastaje i raste u slojevima, upotrebom simbolične i funkcionalne semantike unutar jedne komunikativne zajednice u kojoj se stvara i dijeli ono što se smatra zajedničkim povijesnim iskustvom i što se čini kolektivno prihvatljivim i poželjnim tumačenjem prošloga. U doba nacionalnih pokreta i nacionalnih država kolektivno se pamćenje često pokušavalo povezati s narativima o pripadnosti naciji čiji pripadnici polaze od toga da dijele zajedničku povijest, tako da kultura sjećanja i pamćenja ima važno mjesto u konstrukciji nacionalnih identiteta. I u hrvatskom povijesnom kontekstu može se pretpostaviti da se s pomoću konstrukcije određene kulture sjećanja pokušava oblikovati povijesni narativ i sjećanja nacije. Na temelju medijskog odjeka obilježavanja 150. obljetnice Viškog boja, 2016. godine, iznosi se razmišljanje da danas, u kontekstu hrvatske povijesne memorije u samostalnoj hrvatskoj državi, kad je Viška bitka postala simbolom „otpora hrvatskog mornara, hrvatskog čovjeka“, sjećanje na Viški boj 1866. godine možemo shvatiti kao svojevrsno mjesto sjećanja koje je našlo svoje mjesto u naraciji nacije današnje hrvatske države.
Betrachtet man Politik und Vorgehensweise der jugoslawischen Kommunisten gegenüber der römisch-ka... more Betrachtet man Politik und Vorgehensweise der jugoslawischen Kommunisten gegenüber der römisch-katholischen Kirche in Kroatien nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, so ist die Radikalität und Tiefe der Zäsur von 1945 kaum zu überschätzen. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, in einem knappen historischen Abriss einige wesentliche Merkmale des Verhältnisses der kommunistischen Machthaber zur katholischen Kirche in Kroatien in den ersten Jahren nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg aufzuzeigen, welche die Darstellung der politischen Entwicklungen in neueren deutschsprachigen historischen Werken versucht zu ergänzen, da in dieser Themen wie Kirche und Kirchlichkeit (ebenso wie Religion und Religiosität) eher selten Gegenstand eigener Untersuchungen geworden sind. Aus Platzgründen kann im vorliegendem Beitrag nur auf das Verhältnis der römisch-katholischen Kirche zum kommunistischen Regime in den ersten Jahren nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in Kroatien eingegangen werden, und die anderen (in Kroatien deutlich kleineren) Religionsgemeinschaften bleiben ausgespart. Da die Beziehung zwischen dem System, Partei und Staat, einerseits und Kirche andererseits im genannten Zeitraum im Vordergrund stehen soll, müssen auch wesentliche Aspekte des viel umfassenderen und komplexeren Verhältnisses von Religion und Gesellschaft im Rahmen dieses Beitrags unberücksichtigt bleiben.
Rainer Bendel/Robert Pech (Hg..): Christen und totalitäre Herrschaft in den Ländern Ostmittel- und Südosteuropas von 1945 bis in die 1960er Jahre, Boehlau Verlag Wien Koeln Brill Leiden 2023, 357-382. (ISBN 978-3-412-52748-8), 2023
Betrachtet man Politik und Vorgehensweise der jugoslawischen Kommunisten gegenüber der römisch-ka... more Betrachtet man Politik und Vorgehensweise der jugoslawischen Kommunisten gegenüber der römisch-katholischen Kirche in Kroatien nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, so ist die Radikalität und Tiefe der Zäsur von 1945 kaum zu überschätzen. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, in einem knappen historischen Abriss einige wesentliche Merkmale des Verhältnisses der kommunistischen Machthaber zur katholischen Kirche in Kroatien in den ersten Jahren nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg aufzuzeigen.
International Perspectives on Social Policy, Administration, and Practice, 2019
In Aleksandar Jakir’s chapter, he illustrates that while the military were indispensable in Croat... more In Aleksandar Jakir’s chapter, he illustrates that while the military were indispensable in Croatia’s transition to an independent democratic state in the early 1990s, during the Homeland War, contemporary veterans’ transition arrangements remain problematically tied to these events. As a country endeavouring to construct a contemporary Croatian national narrative, agreement on appropriate veterans’ transition arrangements are proving a significant impasse to these aspirations. Jakir’s chapter maps the Croatian public dialogue that oscillates between framing veterans as exacting a heavy toll on an already weak economy and as deserving of care as privileged defenders of the country’s independence, as a response to proposed revisions via the New Veterans Law.
Am Rande Europas? Der Balkan – Raum und Bevölkerung als Wirkungsfelder militärischer Gewalt, 2009
In: Am Rande Europas? Der Balkan – Raum und Bevölkerung als Wirkungsfelder militärischer Gewalt. ... more In: Am Rande Europas? Der Balkan – Raum und Bevölkerung als Wirkungsfelder militärischer Gewalt. Im Auftrag des Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes herausgegeben von Bernhard Chiari und Gerhard P. Groß unter Mitarbeit von Magnus Pahl. R. Oldenbourg Verlag München 2009, 287-300. The Partisan myth in socialist Yugoslavia and current interpretations of the "People's Struggle for Liberation", 1941-45 The Partisan myth played an important role and was used for legitimation purposes as long as socialist Yugoslavia existed. It can be understood as a kind of narrative superelevating the victorious struggle for and foundation of an political era that supposedly began with the first liberated spots and regions during WW II and lasted until the implosion of the socialist regime and state. Today it seems obvious that the partisan movement was not only fighting a war of liberation and resistance against foreign occupation forces and their proxies and allies within the country, but also was engaged in a merciless struggle to obtain political power. In my paper I will try to point out what the functions of the partisan myth were in socialist Yugoslavia, how it was deconstructed after Titos death, and examine how the role of Tito's partisans is now portrayed in some new historiographic works in Serbia and Croatia.
The aim of the paper is to discuss Antisemitism (extending from the definition and approach of Kl... more The aim of the paper is to discuss Antisemitism (extending from the definition and approach of Klaus Holz) in the Yugoslavia of the interwar years, in which Jews accounted for little more than half a percent of the total population. The question arises if we can identify different forms of Antisemitism in different regions of the first yugoslav state? So far there are not many studies dealing with Antisemitism in the Yugoslavia of the inter-war period, although the history of the Jewish communities on the territory of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, since 1929 Kingdom of Yugoslavia, is quite well researched, as can be seen in the works of scholars like Harriet Pass Freidenreich, Ženi Lebl, Melita Svob, Nebojsa Popovic, Pavle Sosberger and Ivo Goldstein. Antisemitism between 1918-1941 has been described as “only one facet of the problem”, although “Antisemitic outbursts were relatively numerous and varied after the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes...
Zbornik znanstvenih radova Vladan Desnica i Split (1920. – 1945.) sadržava clanke koji su nastali... more Zbornik znanstvenih radova Vladan Desnica i Split (1920. – 1945.) sadržava clanke koji su nastali na temelju priopcenja s Desnicinih susreta 2014., održanih u Splitu 19. i 20. rujna te u Islamu Grckom 21. rujna 2014. godine. Potpisani urednici osjecaju potrebu naglasiti da su za uspjesan rad skupa, bitnu pretpostavku za nastanak ovog zbornika, zaslužni kolege s Filozofskog fakulteta Sveucilista u Splitu, a narocito prof. dr. sc. Aleksandar Jakir, dekan Filozofskog fakulteta, koji je i sam bio sudionik skupa. Sedamnaest od devetnaest sudionika preradilo je svoja priopcenja u clanke. Njihovi su radovi prije svega svjedocanstva vlastitih istraživanja, ali oni zrcale i ucinke nerijetko pasionirane pa i vrlo polemicne rasprave na samom skupu. Najvise se raspravljalo, dakako, o Vladanu i dr. Urosu Desnici, potom o drugim, najcesce znamenitim Splicanima tog doba, ali i o splitskim pucanima te o tadasnjoj velikoj urbanoj transformaciji Splita, licu i nalicju kulturnih i umjetnickih inovacij...
The paper examines the connection between economic development and the genesis of different forms... more The paper examines the connection between economic development and the genesis of different forms of nationalism in socialist Yugoslavia with its specific system of workers self-management. It seems that the pivots of divergent national interests reflecting particular economic situations of industrial concerns in individual republics were engaged, on the federal level, in a fierce competition for the limited economic resources, in other words, national rivalry found expression primarily in economic terms, subsequently to be emotionally charged with the rather familiar historical, linguistic and cultural arguments (as became dear in the movement known as the "Croatian Spring" of 1971). The preliminary results of a research project on "Socialist State Enterprises and the Spread of Nationalism on a Regional Level: the Example of Yugoslavia, 1953-1974" seem to support the view that a national mobilization took place only after economic conflicts had taken hold of lar...
Remembering War and Peace in South-East Europe, 2020
In Place of an Introduction
The contributions to this volume that we decided to publish under th... more In Place of an Introduction
The contributions to this volume that we decided to publish under the title Remembering War and Peace in South-East Europe were presented at the workshop Distinction and Unification, Regional and Supraregional Memories, which was held from 24 to 28 May 2011 in Novi Sad. It was the second annual meeting of the international network Media and Memoria in South-Eastern Europe founded in 2010 in Ljubljana. The papers dealt with various phenomena associ¬ated with the construction of memory in different media of remembrance. The methodological aspects were memory with regard to the longue durée, breaks and gaps, se¬lection and suppression, traumatic events and the loss of memory, but also phenomena of nostalgia, haunting and false memory. Examples of memory culture, whether institutional or subversive, made it possible to study strategies of suppression, reactivation, and appropriation, but also rituals, habitus and the traces of memory which survive it, and more specifically various cultures of remembering the World Wars and the Shoa.
The network was intended to intensify the in¬ternational exchange of scholars and ad¬vanced students from different branches – history, political sciences, art history, media studies and literature, across borders between nation-states whose cultural politics were often antagonistic toward each other. The mem¬bers of the network shared a common in¬terest in the diverse transnational and na¬tional memory cultures of South-Eastern Europe, their interference as well as their rivalry. The network, which met annually at workshops and summer schools in Ljubljana (2010), Belgrade (2011), Split (2012) and Sarajevo (2013), published its proceedings in four anthologies: Balkan Memories: Media Constructions of National and Transnational History (2012), ‚Brüderlichkeit‘ und ‚Bruderzwist‘. Mediale Inszenierungen des Aufbaus und des Niedergangs politischer Gemeinschaften in Ost- und Südosteuropa (2014), Europe and the Balkans: Decades of 'Europeanization'? (2015) and Cultures of Economy in South-East Europe: Spotlights and Perspectives (2019).
The workshop in Novi Sad in 2011, where the renowned Serbian writers Dragan Velikić and Sreten Ugričić, as well as the filmmaker Želimir Žilnik, presented their recent work, was attended by around 70 participants who presented their papers in three panels. The first panel, Commemorating the World Wars and the Shoa, dealt with memories of the wars in the Balkans, especially of the First and Second World Wars as well as of the Yugoslavia succession wars of the 1990s. The authors revealed how the media proposed analogies between different kinds of war, as if the same opponents were fatally involved in a perennial conflict lasting for centuries. The second panel, Brotherhood and Unity – Remembrance and Oblivion, investigated how it was possible for the nations in Tito's Yugoslavia to live peacefully together for more than forty years after the Second World War. Integrative and centripetal strategies were discussed in order to gain insights into the question of how the multi-ethnic state was perceived within a country and abroad. The third panel was dedicated to Memory Cultures of Regions and Minorities; it focused on small nations and on specific regions, such as the Serbian province of Vojvodina, where numerous minorities lived and still live.
Based on this ambitious program, an extensive volume of collected essays was planned to be published in collaboration with Miranda Jakiša (University of Vienna), but for various reasons it could not be realized. In the end it turned out that it was not possible to link the various disciplinary cultures into a publication; the symposium in Novi Sad, in the breadth of interests it enthusiastically brought together, proved to have been a unique and somehow utopian event linked to a certain moment in the history of research. While several authors have already published their contributions in other contexts, we want to document the remaining contributions in this small, belated volume. Thereby, we fulfill our commitment to the authors who faithfully entrusted us with their texts, but also to the DAAD, which funded this publication. The encounter in Novi Sad perhaps can also be understood as a rare moment of difficult Euro-optimism before a period of disillusion and skepticism. Therefore, we reprint the program of the symposium after this introduction. The collected papers in this volume might as well be an encouragement for readers also to study other publications that somehow originated in the symposium in Novi Sad.
The cover was designed by Jugoslav Vlahović and shows a bird forming a portrait sculpture out of a stone block. It stands not only for identities – as linked to memories – still taking shape long after the events, but also for the non finito of this work – regrettably also for the non finito of our publication project in the way we had hoped for back than in Novi Sad.
November 2019
Aleksandar Jakir (University of Split) Tanja Zimmermann (University of Leipzig)
Remembering War and Peace in South-East Europe, 2020
The contributions to this volume that we decided to publish under the title Remembering War and P... more The contributions to this volume that we decided to publish under the title Remembering War and Peace in South-East Europe were presented at the workshop Distinction and Unification, Regional and Supraregional Memories, which was held from 24 to 28 May 2011 in Novi Sad. It was the second annual meeting of the international network Media and Memoria in South-Eastern Europe founded in 2010 in Ljubljana. The papers dealt with various phenomena associ¬ated with the construction of memory in different media of remembrance. The methodological aspects were memory with regard to the longue durée, breaks and gaps, se¬lection and suppression, traumatic events and the loss of memory, but also phenomena of nostalgia, haunting and false memory. Examples of memory culture, whether institutional or subversive, made it possible to study strategies of suppression, reactivation, and appropriation, but also rituals, habitus and the traces of memory which survive it, and more specifically various cultures of remembering the World Wars and the Shoa.
The network was intended to intensify the in¬ternational exchange of scholars and ad¬vanced students from different branches – history, political sciences, art history, media studies and literature, across borders between nation-states whose cultural politics were often antagonistic toward each other. The mem¬bers of the network shared a common in¬terest in the diverse transnational and na¬tional memory cultures of South-Eastern Europe, their interference as well as their rivalry. The network, which met annually at workshops and summer schools in Ljubljana (2010), Belgrade (2011), Split (2012) and Sarajevo (2013), published its proceedings in four anthologies: Balkan Memories: Media Constructions of National and Transnational History (2012), ‚Brüderlichkeit‘ und ‚Bruderzwist‘. Mediale Inszenierungen des Aufbaus und des Niedergangs politischer Gemeinschaften in Ost- und Südosteuropa (2014), Europe and the Balkans: Decades of 'Europeanization'? (2015) and Cultures of Economy in South-East Europe: Spotlights and Perspectives (2019).
The workshop in Novi Sad in 2011, where the renowned Serbian writers Dragan Velikić and Sreten Ugričić, as well as the filmmaker Želimir Žilnik, presented their recent work, was attended by around 70 participants who presented their papers in three panels. The first panel, Commemorating the World Wars and the Shoa, dealt with memories of the wars in the Balkans, especially of the First and Second World Wars as well as of the Yugoslavia succession wars of the 1990s. The authors revealed how the media proposed analogies between different kinds of war, as if the same opponents were fatally involved in a perennial conflict lasting for centuries. The second panel, Brotherhood and Unity – Remembrance and Oblivion, investigated how it was possible for the nations in Tito's Yugoslavia to live peacefully together for more than forty years after the Second World War. Integrative and centripetal strategies were discussed in order to gain insights into the question of how the multi-ethnic state was perceived within a country and abroad. The third panel was dedicated to Memory Cultures of Regions and Minorities; it focused on small nations and on specific regions, such as the Serbian province of Vojvodina, where numerous minorities lived and still live.
Based on this ambitious program, an extensive volume of collected essays was planned to be published in collaboration with Miranda Jakiša (University of Vienna), but for various reasons it could not be realized. In the end it turned out that it was not possible to link the various disciplinary cultures into a publication; the symposium in Novi Sad, in the breadth of interests it enthusiastically brought together, proved to have been a unique and somehow utopian event linked to a certain moment in the history of research. While several authors have already published their contributions in other contexts, we want to document the remaining contributions in this small, belated volume. Thereby, we fulfill our commitment to the authors who faithfully entrusted us with their texts, but also to the DAAD, which funded this publication. The encounter in Novi Sad perhaps can also be understood as a rare moment of difficult Euro-optimism before a period of disillusion and skepticism. Therefore, we reprint the program of the symposium after this introduction. The collected papers in this volume might as well be an encouragement for readers also to study other publications that somehow originated in the symposium in Novi Sad.
U ovom zborniku radova okupljeno je 17 radova sa znanstvenog skupa Hrvatska – put prema teritorij... more U ovom zborniku radova okupljeno je 17 radova sa znanstvenog skupa Hrvatska – put prema teritorijalnoj cjelovitosti koji je, povodom obilježavanja 20. obljetnice vojno-redarstvenih operacija Bljesak i Oluja, održan 26. lipnja 2015. godine u Splitu na Filozofskom fakultetu. U radovima se razmatraju političke, vojne, geografske, društvene i druge odrednice oslobađanja Hrvatske s ciljem postizanja njezine teritorijalne cjelovitosti – od razvoja pojedinih postrojbi Hrvatske vojske, oslobađanja okupiranih područja u operaciji Oluja do prikaza političkih pregovora Hrvatske sa srpskim pobunjeničkim vodstvom i međunarodnom zajednicom. Sakupljeni tekstovi predstavljaju poticaj za daljnja istraživanja i raspravu otvorenih pitanja iz područja povijesti, geografije, politologije, sociologije i drugih disciplina, koja su vezana za zbilju tih ratnih 1990ih kako bi se dobila cjelovitija slika hrvatskog puta prema teritorijalnoj cjelovitosti. Ovaj Zbornik na interdisciplinaran način progovara o različitim aspektima oslobađanja Republike Hrvatske od velikosrpske okupacije 1995. godine. Sabire radove u kojima se razmatraju političke, vojne, geografske, društvene i druge odrednice oslobađanja Hrvatske s ciljem postizanja njezine teritorijalne cjelovitosti – od razvoja pojedinih postrojbi Hrvatske vojske, oslobađanja okupiranih područja u operaciji Oluja, do prikaza političkih pregovora Hrvatske sa srpskim pobunjeničkim vodstvom i međunarodnom zajednicom. Znanstveni doprinos ovog zbornika se upravo u tomu ogleda što daje poticaj za daljnja istraživanja i raspravlja o otvorenim pitanjima iz područja povijesti, geografije, politologije, sociologije i drugih, a koja su vezana za zbilju tih ratnih 1990ih, kako bi se dobila cjelovitija slika hrvatskog puta prema teritorijalnoj cjelovitosti.
Tema ovog djela jest povijest ogranka Matice Hrvatske u Brelima od 1993. do 1997. godine. Tekst j... more Tema ovog djela jest povijest ogranka Matice Hrvatske u Brelima od 1993. do 1997. godine. Tekst je utemeljen na izvorima, originalan je doprinos našoj lokalnoj, regionalnoj i nacionalnoj povijesti. Ogranak MH Brela nastao je kao odraz potrebe lokalne zajednice da se uključi i da svoj doprinos nastanku RH i njezinoj obnovi još za vrijeme Domovinskog rata. Osim što će ova knjiga služiti kao svojevrsna spomenica svojevremenoj aktivnosti tog ogranka MH svakom će čitatelju pružiti mogućnost da shvati i glavnu motivaciju djelatnih članova, odnosno kontekst vremena. Osim analize, u knjizi su prezentirani i brojni faksimili originalnih dokumenata. Tako ova knjiga predstavlja skrupulozan, analitičan, ali istovremeno i zanimljiv pogled u nedavnu prošlost Brela i šireg prostora. (iz recenzije prof. dr. sc. Ive Goldsteina)
Tema ovog djela jest povijest ogranka Matice Hrvatske u Brelima od 1993. do 1997. godine. Tekst j... more Tema ovog djela jest povijest ogranka Matice Hrvatske u Brelima od 1993. do 1997. godine. Tekst je utemeljen na izvorima, originalan je doprinos našoj lokalnoj, regionalnoj i nacionalnoj povijesti. Ogranak MH Brela nastao je kao odraz potrebe lokalne zajednice da se uključi i da svoj doprinos nastanku RH i njezinoj obnovi još za vrijeme Domovinskog rata. Osim što će ova knjiga služiti kao svojevrsna spomenica svojevremenoj aktivnosti tog ogranka MH svakom će čitatelju pružiti mogućnost da shvati i glavnu motivaciju djelatnih članova, odnosno kontekst vremena. Osim analize, u knjizi su prezentirani i brojni faksimili originalnih dokumenata. Tako ova knjiga predstavlja skrupulozan, analitičan, ali istovremeno i zanimljiv pogled u nedavnu prošlost Brela i šireg prostora. (iz recenzije prof. dr. sc. Ive Goldsteina)
Uredili Aleksandar Jakir i Norka Machiedo-Mladinić. Filozofski fakultet, Split 2013.
Spisi obuhv... more Uredili Aleksandar Jakir i Norka Machiedo-Mladinić. Filozofski fakultet, Split 2013.
Spisi obuhvaćaju period od 1900. do 1945. i predstavljaju svojevrstan presjek kroz društvenu povijest Dalmacije i Splita u prvim desetljećima 20. stoljeća.
PRO ORIENTE. Schriftenreihe der Kommission für südosteuropäische Geschichte Herausgegeben von Alo... more PRO ORIENTE. Schriftenreihe der Kommission für südosteuropäische Geschichte Herausgegeben von Alois Mosser. Band 6) PETER LANG Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main · Bern · Bruxelles · New York · Oxford · Warschau · Wien 2014.
Sažetak: U radu se tematizira fašistička represija i antifašistički otpor u Splitu u razdoblju od... more Sažetak: U radu se tematizira fašistička represija i antifašistički otpor u Splitu u razdoblju od travnja 1941. do rujna 1943. godine. Zračnim napadom talijanske avijacije 6. travnja 1941. godine Drugi svjetski rat stigao je u Split. Nakon sloma i okupacije Kraljevine Jugoslavije tzv. Rimski ugovori o određivanju granica između Nezavisne Države Hrvatske (u ugovoru pod " službenim " nazivom Kraljevina Hrvatska) i Mussolinijeve Italije od 18. svibnja 1941. predvi-đali su da i " grad Split uključivši predgrađa " bude dijelom fašističke Italije, odnosno sjedište jedne od triju prefektura unutar provincije pod nazivom Governatorato di Dalmazia (Guverna-torat Dalmacija) pod pokrajinskom upravom (Governo della Dalmazia) u Zadru. Toga proljeća 1941. godine za oko 130 000 stanovnika Splitske prefekture, u kojoj se provodila bezobzirna talijanizacija, započelo je zasigurno najtraumatičnije razdoblje 20. stoljeća. Raspoloživi izvori jasno govore o tome da je većina Splićana u svim fazama ratne kataklizme pokazala trajno antifašističko opredjeljenje, o čemu svjedoči i velik broj poginulih boraca i žrtava fašističkog terora u Drugom svjetskom ratu rođenih u Splitu. Bespoštedni rat koji se vodio na području bivše Kraljevine Jugoslavije bio je višeslojan i uključivao je mnoge aktere. Zbivanja u Splitu za toga najkrvavijeg sukoba u ljudskoj povijesti mogu se podijeliti u dva dijela: prvi dio, od po-četka bombardiranja do kapitulacije Italije 8. rujna 1943., te drugi, od rujna 1943. do listopa-da 1944. i povlačenja njemačkih i ustaških snaga iz grada. U danima kapitulacije Italije snaga NOP-a u Splitu dostiže vrhunac, o čemu svjedoči razoružanje glavnine divizije " Bergamo " .
Summary:
Opposing and irreconcilable differences in the understanding of the history of the 20th ... more Summary: Opposing and irreconcilable differences in the understanding of the history of the 20th century, and then of the conflicting parties in the ideologically motivated war, which raged in the period between 1917 and 1945, which has been also called »European Civil War“ (Ernst Nolte), do not exist at all only in Croatia. Looking at the Spanish example can be useful if we want to come to a better understanding of how society in Croatia deals with this period. Starting from the question of how the Civil War in Spain (1936-1939) and its actors entered the collective memory of today's Spain, where »memory wars« are still being fought, the text asks whether we can learn some lessons from this example when it comes to examining the relationship to the historical heritage of non-democratic regimes for the situation in Croatia, which sometimes seems suffocated by historical ballasts? Obviously, a similar treatment can be observed regarding the politics of memory in public spaces during the reigns of Franco and Tito. Both glorified the winning side while the losing side was not even allowed to mark the graves of the victims, let alone build memorials and monuments. Both societies, Spanish as well as Croatian, are burdened by the existence of conflicting cultures of memory, and the results of research into the process of remembering and forgetting can make an important contribution to the process of overcoming the resulting mental patterns. The paper advocates a comparative approach that would systematically investigate the way memory politics has been shaped in Spain and Croatia. Their comparison could be useful, because a traumatic historical legacy and exclusive and mutually opposing collective memories characterized Spanish as well as Croatian society. Considerable periods of the 20th century can also be seen in Croatia as a time of forced utopia politics and mega-death (Z. Brzezinski). The culmination of the conflict between formations that were in the service of totalitarian ideas took place on the territory of Croatia during the Second World War. Dealing with topics from the especially bloody Croatian 20th century, the belief is expressed in the article that knowledge about the past and a sound understanding of it contributes to a better understanding of our present. However, this is only coherently possible on the basis of relevant and credible sources, while at the same time taking care to contextualize the facts we come across in the sources. Therefore, full availability of archival material is necessary, as one of the main prerequisites for scientific research. Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish images and ideas about the past from history as a result of methodical research. The author advocates for a scientifically based, argumentative and historically responsible way of researching so-called »controversial historical topics«. Only when historians speak about these issues of Croatian history by using the methods of critical historical science and the language of facts and sources, will it be possible to reach a realistic judgment of events that led to mass victims in the name of totalitarian ideologies. The acceptance of a »multidirectional« collective memory (Michael Rothberg), based on the principles and values of a democratic constitutional order, seems to be a prerequisite for mutual understanding and reconciliation in society. This implies the acceptance of multiperspectivity and the obvious fact that plural memories exist in Croatian society. Writing history according to the model of winners and losers does not allow to get out of the vicious circle. A critical review of all politicized approaches in determining the number of victims on non-democratic regimes in Croatia seems paramount. Also, it is a mere civilizational necessity to find and mark all the places of mass graves of victims of all political regimes in the 20th century. In particular, an interdisciplinary approach seems suitable if we want to shed light on the complexity of different memories of the war and its impact on contemporary Croatian society. At the same time, multi-perspective historical memory represents an approach to history that promotes diverse perspectives and interpretations of past events and phenomena. Multiperspectivity as a methodological approach is a barrier to the creation of one-sided and/or biased narratives about history, especially when it comes to so-called »controversial« or »sensitive« issues. It can contribute to dialogue and reconciliation within society because it enables a conversation between different groups and individuals, which in the best case can lead to an understanding of the other's perspective. A multi-perspective and plural approach to the most controversial issues of the Croatian past seems like a good way to develop a higher level of tolerance and a democratic culture of memory within Croatian society, which seems necessary for Croatian society to overcome inherited historical trauma.
Polazeći od pitanja kako su građanski rat u Španjolskoj (1936.-1939.) i njegovi akteri ušli u kolektivno sjećanje današnje Španjolske, u kojoj se još uvijek vode »ratovi sjećanja«, u tekstu se postavlja pitanje da li se za situaciju u Hrvatskoj, koju također guše povijesni balasti, mogu izvući neke pouke kad je riječ o odnosu prema povijesnom nasljeđu i odnosu prema nedemokratskim režimima? Kulminacija sukoba formacija koji su bili u službi totalitarnih ideja dogodila se na području Hrvatske za vrijeme Drugog svjetskog rata. Autor se zalaže za znanstveno utemeljen, argumentiran i povijesno odgovoran način istraživanja tzv. kontroverznih povijesnih tema. Prihvaćanje »višesmjernog« (multidirectional) kolektivnog pamćenja (Michael Rothberg), utemeljenog na načelima i vrednotama demokratskog ustavnog poretka, čini se kao preduvjet za međusobno razumijevanja i pomirenje. To implicira prihvaćanje multiperspektivnosti i bjelodane činjenice da u hrvatskom društvu postoje pluralna sjećanja. Multiperspektivno povijesno pamćenje pri tom predstavlja pristup povijesti koji promovira raznolike perspektive i interpretacije prošlih događanja i fenomena. Multiperspektivnost kao metodološki pristup brana je stvaranju jednostranih i/ili pristranih narativa o povijesti, naročito kad se radi o tzv. »kontroverznim« ili »osjetljivim« pitanjima, i može doprinijeti dijalogu i pomirenju unutar društva jer omogućuje razgovor između različitih zajednica, a što u najboljem slučaju može dovesti i do razumijevanja perspektive drugoga. Multiperspektivni i pluralni pristup i prema najkontroverznijim pitanjima hrvatske prošlosti čini se kao dobar put, kako bismo unutar hrvatskog društva razvili viši stupanj tolerancije i demokratske kulture sjećanja, što se čini nužnim da kao društvo prevladamo naslijeđene povijesne traume.
Polazeći od pitanja kako su građanski rat u Španjolskoj (1936.-1939.) i njegovi akteri ušli u kol... more Polazeći od pitanja kako su građanski rat u Španjolskoj (1936.-1939.) i njegovi akteri ušli u kolektivno sjećanje današnje Španjolske, u kojoj se još uvijek vode »ratovi sjećanja«, u tekstu se postavlja pitanje da li se za situaciju u Hrvatskoj, koju također guše povijesni balasti, mogu izvući neke pouke kad je riječ o odnosu prema povijesnom nasljeđu i odnosu prema nedemokratskim režimima? Kulminacija sukoba formacija koji su bili u službi totalitarnih ideja dogodila se na području Hrvatske za vrijeme Drugog svjetskog rata. Autor se zalaže za znanstveno utemeljen, argumentiran i povijesno odgovoran način istraživanja tzv. kontroverznih povijesnih tema. Prihvaćanje »višesmjernog« (multidirectional) kolektivnog pamćenja (Michael Rothberg), utemeljenog na načelima i vrednotama demokratskog ustavnog poretka, čini se kao preduvjet za međusobno razumijevanja i pomirenje. To implicira prihvaćanje multiperspektivnosti i bjelodane činjenice da u hrvatskom društvu postoje pluralna sjećanja. Multiperspektivno povijesno pamćenje pri tom predstavlja pristup povijesti koji promovira raznolike perspektive i interpretacije prošlih događanja i fenomena. Multiperspektivnost kao metodološki pristup brana je stvaranju jednostranih i/ili pristranih narativa o povijesti, naročito kad se radi o tzv. »kontroverznim« ili »osjetljivim« pitanjima, i može doprinijeti dijalogu i pomirenju unutar društva jer omogućuje razgovor između različitih zajednica, a što u najboljem slučaju može dovesti i do razumijevanja perspektive drugoga. Multiperspektivni i pluralni pristup i prema najkontroverznijim pitanjima hrvatske prošlosti čini se kao dobar put, kako bismo unutar hrvatskog društva razvili viši stupanj tolerancije i demokratske kulture sjećanja, što se čini nužnim da kao društvo prevladamo naslijeđene povijesne traume.
Opposing and irreconcilable differences in the understanding of the history of the 20th century, and then of the conflicting parties in the ideologically motivated war, which raged in the period between 1917 and 1945, which has been also called »European Civil War“ (Ernst Nolte), do not exist at all only in Croatia. Looking at the Spanish example can be useful if we want to come to a better understanding of how society in Croatia deals with this period. Starting from the question of how the Civil War in Spain (1936-1939) and its actors entered the collective memory of today's Spain, where »memory wars« are still being fought, the text asks whether we can learn some lessons from this example when it comes to examining the relationship to the historical heritage of non-democratic regimes for the situation in Croatia, which sometimes seems suffocated by historical ballasts? Obviously, a similar treatment can be observed regarding the politics of memory in public spaces during the reigns of Franco and Tito. Both glorified the winning side while the losing side was not even allowed to mark the graves of the victims, let alone build memorials and monuments. Both societies, Spanish as well as Croatian, are burdened by the existence of conflicting cultures of memory, and the results of research into the process of remembering and forgetting can make an important contribution to the process of overcoming the resulting mental patterns. The paper advocates a comparative approach that would systematically investigate the way memory politics has been shaped in Spain and Croatia. Their comparison could be useful, because a traumatic historical legacy and exclusive and mutually opposing collective memories characterized Spanish as well as Croatian society. Considerable periods of the 20th century can also be seen in Croatia as a time of forced utopia politics and mega-death (Z. Brzezinski). The culmination of the conflict between formations that were in the service of totalitarian ideas took place on the territory of Croatia during the Second World War. Dealing with topics from the especially bloody Croatian 20th century, the belief is expressed in the article that knowledge about the past and a sound understanding of it contributes to a better understanding of our present. However, this is only coherently possible on the basis of relevant and credible sources, while at the same time taking care to contextualize the facts we come across in the sources. Therefore, full availability of archival material is necessary, as one of the main prerequisites for scientific research. Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish images and ideas about the past from history as a result of methodical research. The author advocates for a scientifically based, argumentative and historically responsible way of researching so-called »controversial historical topics«. Only when historians speak about these issues of Croatian history by using the methods of critical historical science and the language of facts and sources, will it be possible to reach a realistic judgment of events that led to mass victims in the name of totalitarian ideologies. The acceptance of a »multidirectional« collective memory (Michael Rothberg), based on the principles and values of a democratic constitutional order, seems to be a prerequisite for mutual understanding and reconciliation in society. This implies the acceptance of multiperspectivity and the obvious fact that plural memories exist in Croatian society. Writing history according to the model of winners and losers does not allow to get out of the vicious circle. A critical review of all politicized approaches in determining the number of victims on non-democratic regimes in Croatia seems paramount. Also, it is a mere civilizational necessity to find and mark all the places of mass graves of victims of all political regimes in the 20th century. In particular, an interdisciplinary approach seems suitable if we want to shed light on the complexity of different memories of the war and its impact on contemporary Croatian society. At the same time, multi-perspective historical memory represents an approach to history that promotes diverse perspectives and interpretations of past events and phenomena. Multiperspectivity as a methodological approach is a barrier to the creation of one-sided and/or biased narratives about history, especially when it comes to so-called »controversial« or »sensitive« issues. It can contribute to dialogue and reconciliation within society because it enables a conversation between different groups and individuals, which in the best case can lead to an understanding of the other's perspective. A multi-perspective and plural approach to the most controversial issues of the Croatian past seems like a good way to develop a higher level of tolerance and a democratic culture of memory within Croatian society, which seems necessary for Croatian society to overcome inherited historical trauma.
The memory and remembrance of the Battle of Vis found different expressions at different times. F... more The memory and remembrance of the Battle of Vis found different expressions at different times. From the point of view of historiography as well as other disciplines, it is intriguing why certain events from the past are remembered as historical in some communities, and in the others they are forgotten. In today’s humanistic and historiographical discourse, it has become almost commonplace that our perception of the past is impor- tant, some would even say crucial, in creating a collective identity and memory. In various European historiographies, historical sciences have been delving into the phenomena of memory in recent decades, directing historiographical studies towards different sites of memory or sites of remembrance, both possible translations of the French term lieux de mémoire, first used by the French historian Pierre Nora in the 1980s. Holiday celebrations, commemorations, various ceremonies and monuments, and other forms of social remembrance of past events that can be considered part of a society’s collective memory are now being explored as sites of memory. Taking theoretical considerations of the concepts of “site of memory” and “collective memory” as its starting point, the paper raises the question whether such an approach can be applied to commemoration of events such as the battle between the Austrian and Italian fleets that took place on 20 July 1866 near Vis. In his work, Pierre Nora pointed out that a site of memory must potentially have a special symbolic meaning for a certain group in order for it to play a part in the process of creating collective memory, and, consequently, in creating and affirming identity. The paper argues that the process of creating collective memory as a complex system of signs, symbols and practices, could be compared to the process of crystal formation. In crystallization, elementary particles come together in space to form a layered crystal lattice, just as historically conditioned collective memory also emerges and grows, so to speak, in layers, by employing symbolic and functional semantics within a communication community which creates and shares what it considers common historical experience, and what it deems to be a collectively acceptable and desirable interpretation of the past experience. In the age of national movements and nation states, there have been frequent efforts to connect collective memory with narratives of national affiliation and common origin, common values, common history of all the people belonging to a nation etc., so that the culture of memory and remembrance has an important place in the construction of national identities. It is known that the anniversaries of the Battle of Vis were celebrated in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, whereas in the states that emerged in the 20th century from the ruins of Austria-Hungary, i.e. both Yugoslav states, the memory of the Battle of Vis was not commemorated, or at least there was no “official” commemoration. It can be assumed that the construction of a certain culture of memory is being used to shape the historical narrative and memories of the nation in the context of Croatian history as well. Based on the media coverage of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Vis in 2016, the paper proposes that, in the context of the Croatian historical memory in the independent Croatian state, with the Battle of Vis becoming a symbol of “resistance of Croatian sailors and Croatian people”, the memory of the Battle of Vis 1866 can be seen as a kind of site of memory which has found its place in the narrative of the nation in the contemporary Croatian state.
Polazeći od teze da je konstituiranje hrvatske republike na kraju Drugoga svjetskog rata izraz po... more Polazeći od teze da je konstituiranje hrvatske republike na kraju Drugoga svjetskog rata izraz povijesnog diskontinuiteta, u prilogu se iznose razmišljanja iz historiografske perspektive o povijesnom značenju formiranja prve Vlade Federalne Demokratske Hrvatske 14. travnja 1945. u staroj Gradskoj vijećnici na Narodnom trgu u Splitu. Kao zanimljiv primarni izvor predstavljena je publikacija koja je objavljena već u ljeto 1945. godine pod naslovom "Narodna Vlada Hrvatske formirana u gradu Splitu dana 14. travnja 1945.".
After the Treaty of Rapallo was signed in the public sphere of the Yugoslav State, the provisions... more After the Treaty of Rapallo was signed in the public sphere of the Yugoslav State, the provisions of the treaty were seen as a “national catastrophe”, foremost among the Slovenes and Croats, especially by the Croats of Dalmatia. It was pointed out at huge rallies as well as in the papers that the agreement had left a large number of Slovenians and Croats in Italy, about half a million, while only about 15,000 Italians had remained in the Yugoslav state. (...) In my paper I would like briefly to address reactions in Dalmatia to Italian aspirations on Dalmatia and to the Treaty of Rapallo. When thinking about the occupation of Dalmatia in 1941 by Fascist Italy we could ask if there is a connection to the fact that the so-called “Adriatic Question” could not be solved during the negotiations in Rapallo by the representatives of the Kingdom of Italy and those of the South-Slav Kingdom. There can be little doubt that Italy’s aspirations to acquire large parts of the Eastern Adriatic Coast played a pivotal role for most of the actions of the leading politicians during this period, including the desperate messages to the Serbian government at the end of WW I to send its army to Dalmatia to protect all “Yugoslavs” living in this area from Italian imperialism, as the papers in Dalmatia frequently wrote those days.
Session Title: The Treaty of Rapallo - a Cause for Anxiety and Rebellion
In my paper I would lik... more Session Title: The Treaty of Rapallo - a Cause for Anxiety and Rebellion
In my paper I would like to address briefly the reactions in Dalmatia to Italian aspirations on Dalmatia and to the Treaty of Rapallo. When thinking about the occupation of Dalmatia in 1941 by Fascist Italy we could ask if there is a connection to the fact that the so-called “Adriatic Question” could not be solved during the negotiations in Rapallo by the representatives of the Kingdom of Italy and those of the South-Slav Kingdom.
Iskustvo života u multinacionalnim državnim zajednicama kao i nasljeđe imperija i razornih ratova... more Iskustvo života u multinacionalnim državnim zajednicama kao i nasljeđe imperija i razornih ratova zasigurno su uvelike utjecali na konstituiranje političko-povijesnog konteksta 20. stoljeća u hrvatskim krajevima. Nakon propasti Austro-Ugarske u Prvom svjetskom ratu, ta su područja ušla krajem 1918. godine u Kraljevinu Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca (od 1929. Kraljevina Jugoslavija) kao novu državnu zajednicu što je predstavljalo povijesni lom i prekretnicu, isto kao što je novi političko-ekonomski poredak nakon 1945. i kataklizme Drugog svjetskog rata i stvaranje stvaranja stvaranja socijalističke jugoslavenske federacije obilježio daljnji povijesni razvoj. Posebnu pozornost kod pokušaja razumijevanja političkih previranja i povijesnih lomova 20. stoljeća, zaslužuju različiti identitetski diskursi, naročito kada su se na političkoj pozornici pojavile ideje nacionalne i socijalne emancipacije. Ideje koje su propagirale pravo svakog naroda na nacionalno samoodređenje, kao i modernizacijski diskursi koji su obećavali iskorak iz teških ekonomskih i socijalnih uvjeta življenja, koji su za veliku većinu stanovništva dugo bili obilježeni neimaštinom, a često i siromaštvom (što se za šire društvene slojeve tek mijenja 50-ih godina 20. stoljeća), u cijelom su predmetnom razdoblju i u svim fazama političkoga razvoja zauzimali ključno mjesto u političkom prostoru. Usprkos tome da je stvaranje jugoslavenskih država, na vrlo različitim temeljima, dva puta u 20. stoljeću završilo katastrofom, u povijesnoj perspektivi ipak se posebno značajnim još uvijek čini nastanak i razvoj jugoslavenske ideje uzrokovan, najkraće rečeno, „kulturnom, državnom i etničko-geografskom razjedinjenošću Hrvata te nastojanjem da se njome prevladavaju regionalne podjele i ideje“. Kako bi se u ovom kratkom analitičkom povijesnom pregledu u obliku sinteze pokušali obuhvatiti društveni i politički konteksti i različite društveno-političke paradigme koje su utjecale na predmetno razdoblje moderne hrvatske povijesti , a time posredno i na nastanak raznorodnih kiparskih poetika u vremenu kad se pojavljuje moderna skulptura, čini se nužnim osvrnuti se na neke ključne političke događaje i istaknute protagoniste kao i na imperijalne i postimperijalne strukture koje su mjerodavno utjecale na područje kojemu su hrvatski krajevi pripadali između posljednjih desetljeća 19. stoljeća do 70-ih godina 20. stoljeća.
Betrachtet man Politik und Vorgehensweise der jugoslawischen Kommunisten gegenüber der römisch-ka... more Betrachtet man Politik und Vorgehensweise der jugoslawischen Kommunisten gegenüber der römisch-katholischen Kirche in Kroatien nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, so ist die Radikalität und Tiefe der Zäsur von 1945 kaum zu überschätzen. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, in einem knappen historischen Abriss einige wesentliche Merkmale des Verhältnisses der kommunistischen Machthaber zur katholischen Kirche in Kroatien in den ersten Jahren nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg aufzuzeigen, welche die Darstellung der politischen Entwicklungen in neueren deutschsprachigen historischen Werken versucht zu ergänzen, da in dieser Themen wie Kirche und Kirchlichkeit (ebenso wie Religion und Religiosität) eher selten Gegenstand eigener Untersuchungen geworden sind. Aus Platzgründen kann im vorliegendem Beitrag nur auf das Verhältnis der römisch-katholischen Kirche zum kommunistischen Regime in den ersten Jahren nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in Kroatien eingegangen werden, und die anderen (in Kroatien deutlich kleineren) Religionsgemeinschaften bleiben ausgespart. Da die Beziehung zwischen dem System, Partei und Staat, einerseits und Kirche andererseits im genannten Zeitraum im Vordergrund stehen soll, müssen auch wesentliche Aspekte des viel umfassenderen und komplexeren Verhältnisses von Religion und Gesellschaft im Rahmen dieses Beitrags unberücksichtigt bleiben.
Kamilo Horvatin: Zaboravljeni kandidat za generalnog sekretara Komunističke partije Jugoslavije B... more Kamilo Horvatin: Zaboravljeni kandidat za generalnog sekretara Komunističke partije Jugoslavije Broj kartica teksta (ili znakova): 29 (65.692 slovnih mjesta) Broj bilježaka (fusnota ili krajnjih bilježaka): 110
Proleter, službeno glasilo CK KPJ, u broju 1 (maj 1939.) obavještavao je svoje čitatelje da se među onima koji su "isključeni (…) iz redova KPJ" nalazio i stanoviti "Petrovski". U članku se pobliže objašnjavalo da se radilo o jednom od "elemenata" koji su "našoj partiji i radničkoj klasi nanijeli goleme štete u toku niza godina svojim frakcijskim i grupaškim borbama, vezama sa klasnim neprijateljem, varali K.I., svojim destruktivnim radom kočili razvitak partije i na taj način obezglavili pokret radničke klase Jugoslavije i tako pomagali klasnom neprijatelju". Ime Boris Nikolajevič Petrovski koristio je u to vrijeme u Moskvi hrvatski komunist Kamilo Horvatin. Horvatin, za kojega enciklopedija.hr navodi da je bio "hrvatski političar (Varaždin, 18. VII. 1896-SSSR, 1938)", a u jednom od rijetkih novijih publicističko-historiografskih radova (usp. William Klinger/Denis Kuljiš: Tito: Neispričane priče. Zagreb: Nezavisne novine/Paragon 2013, 60) u fusnoti 54 Horvatin se opisuje kao "Varaždinac, jugonacionalist koji je sudjelovao u atentatu na bana Cuvaja, jedan od osnivača KPJ i glavni urednik zagrebačke "Borbe", član CK KPJ, Politbiroa i Predstavništva partije u Kominterni. Od 1929. je u emigraciji, likvidiran u staljinskim čistkama i rehabilitiran u SSSR-u 1963. godine". U navedenoj fusnoti sakupljeni su više-manje svi podaci koji se danas na raznim web stranicama mogu pronaći o Kamilu Horvatinu koji se, eto, u svibnju 1939., pod svojim partijskim pseudonimom Petrovski, našao na popisu tridesetak članova tada isključenih iz redova KPJ. U spomenutom članku u Proleteru, u kojemu su navedeni ili puna imena ili, pak, inicijale isključenih, nizali su se formulacije kojima su se ti bivši članovi partije optuživali za razorno i antipartijsko djelovanje, grupašenje, pokušaj obnavljanja frakcijskih borbi u KPJ, unošenje zabune u redove partije u zemlji, širenje lažnih glasina iz inostranstva, veze sa trockističkim i drugim sumnjivim elementima itd. Većina onih koji su se tada bili nalazili u Sovjetskom savezu, u tom trenutku je već bilo ubijeno u jednom od valova zloglasne "Velike čistke". Predmetni rad pod naslovom Kamilo Horvatin: Zaboravljeni kandidat za generalnog sekretara Komunističke partije Jugoslavije na temelju do sada u historiografiji malo ili nikako korištenih...
Das Interesse an der Figur D´Annunzio war und ist groß, wie auch an der Zahl der Biographien abzu... more Das Interesse an der Figur D´Annunzio war und ist groß, wie auch an der Zahl der Biographien abzulesen ist, die über ihn verfaßt wurden. Der Coup des Dichters und seiner Legionäre, die Besatzung von Fiume/Rijeka 1919, das er zur „L’Impresa di Fiume“ ausrief, wird dabei häufig als eine Art Blaupause für den Aufstieg Mussolinis und des Faschismus in Italien gesehen. Ein historischer Blick, wie D’Annunzio nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg an der östlichen Adriaküste wahrgenommen wurde, zeigt die Anfangsphase der Radikalisierung einer Konfliktgeschichte unter nationalistischen Vorzeichen, die im und nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg blutig kulminierte.
Na temelju novije literature koja se bavi proučavanjem kulture sjećanja i izvora iz različitih fo... more Na temelju novije literature koja se bavi proučavanjem kulture sjećanja i izvora iz različitih fondova pohranjenih u Arhivu Jugoslavije u Beogradu ovaj rad želi dati prilog raspravi o socijalističkim spomenicima za vrijeme Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavije / Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije prikazom nekih političkih i administrativnih mehanizama njihova financiranja unutar socijalističkoga sustava, a razmatra se i pitanje odnosa prema spomenicima i kulturi sjećanja s aspekta vlasti, tj. iz perspektive države i državnih institucija u tom razdoblju. Posebna pozornost dana je, kako je često nazivan, „najpoznatijem partizanskom spomeniku na prostoru bivše SFRJ”, skulpturi „Bitka na Sutjesci” kipara Miodraga Živkovića na Tjentištu iz 1971. godine.
Ključne riječi: socijalistički spomenici; kultura sjećanja; Bitka na Sutjesci; Memorijalni kompleks Tjentište
SUMMARY
Based on the recent literature dealing with the study of memory culture as well as sources from various funds stored in the Yugoslav Archives in Belgrade, this paper intends to provide a contribution to the discussion of socialist monuments during the time of socialist Yugoslavia by displaying some of the political and administrative mechanisms of the funding of these monuments within the federal Yugoslav system. Also, questions about the relation to monuments within this period from the perspective of memory culture and how it was propagated from central state institutions during the time of socialist Yugoslavia, are discussed. Special attention is given to, as it is has often been called, the most famous Partisan monument in the territory of the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, i.e. the sculpture devoted to the "Battle of Sutjeska" by Miodrag Živković at Tjentište, from 1971.
Keywords: socialist monuments, memorial culture, Battle of Sutjeska, Memorial complex of Tjentište
Obljetnice Viškog boja svečano su se obilježavaleza vrijeme Austro-Ugarske, dok se u državama koj... more Obljetnice Viškog boja svečano su se obilježavaleza vrijeme Austro-Ugarske, dok se u državama koji su nastajali u 20. stoljeću na ruševinama Austro-Ugarske, tj. u obje jugoslavenske države, sjećanja na Višku bitku, takoreći, nisu evocirala. Polazeći od izloženih teoretskih promišljanja o konceptima " mjesta sjećanja " (Pierre Nora) i "kolektivnog pamćenja " , rad se bavi pitanjem da li se takav pristup može primijeniti na obilježavanje događaja kakav je bitka između austrijske i talijanske flote 20. srpnja 1866. godine pod Visom? Historijski uvjetovano kolektivno sjećanje nastaje i raste u slojevima, upotrebom simbolične i funkcionalne semantike unutar jedne komunikativne zajednice u kojoj se stvara i dijeli ono što se smatra zajedničkim povijesnim iskustvom i što se čini kolektivno prihvatljivim i poželjnim tumačenjem prošloga. U doba nacionalnih pokreta i nacionalnih država kolektivno pamćenje se često pokušavalo povezati sa narativima o pripadnosti naciji čiji pripadnici polaze od toga da dijele zajedničku povijest, tako da kultura sjećanja i pamćenja ima važno mjesto u konstrukciji nacionalnih identiteta. I u hrvatskom povijesnom kontekstu može se pretpostaviti da se pomoću konstrukcije određene kulture sjećanja pokušava oblikovati povijesni narativ i sjećanja nacije. Na temelju medijskog odjeka obilježavanja 150. obljetnice Viškog boja, 2016. godine, iznosi se razmišljanje da danas, u kontekstu hrvatske povijesne memorije u samostalnoj hrvatskoj državi, kad je Viška bitka postala simbolom " otpora hrvatskog mornara, hrvatskog čovjeka " , sjećanje na Viški boj 1866. godine možemo shvatiti kao svojevrsno mjesto sjećanja koje je našlo svoje mjesto u naraciji nacije današnje hrvatske države.
A decade ago, even in serious scholarly works dealing with “Challenges facing Croatia since Indep... more A decade ago, even in serious scholarly works dealing with “Challenges facing Croatia since Independence,” military veterans were not mentioned at all (see Ramet/Soberg 2008). This has changed. Newly published research is addressing important questions about the role of veterans in Croatian society. Meanwhile, the position of veterans “between the Regime and the State” (Dolenec/Širinić 2017) has been critically examined, and veteran organizations have been portrayed with sound reasons as “pivotal” actors in Croatian politics, capable of forging alliances with conservative political parties and influencing election outcomes. It has been argued, with respect to the status of veterans in Croatia, that the country is best understood as a Southern variant of a clientelist, conservative welfare regime, though many dimensions of this phenomenon are still under-researched (Dolenec 2018, 61-62, 72). However, it seems safe to say that the existence of several hundred thousand military veterans, and the role of their numerous organizations in public discourse and in Croatian society, is not negligible at all. The aim of this chapter is to explore the role of veterans from the Homeland War of the 1990s in Croatia by presenting some data and recent debates on military veterans and their associations.
The integration, functioning and dissolution of Yugoslavia are issues still producing very differ... more The integration, functioning and dissolution of Yugoslavia are issues still producing very different scholarly assessment. In this paper we would like to address the economic system of socialist Yugoslavia. Officially, the Yugoslav economic system since the 1950s was labeled as workers' self-management, and it seems that its role in the developments that led to the Yugoslav tragedy is still not fully understood. We would like to argue that this system, what was gradually applied at all levels of society after the split of Yugoslavia with the Stalinist Soviet Union, has been a system imposed from above when the party-state leadership initiated a process of controlled decentralization of power. In fact, the communists under Tito did so to maintain power as long as possible. However, in times of economic crisis the imposed system went out of control-with fatal consequences for the whole country and the people living in that self-managed "market" socialism. We would like to argue that economic crisis and reforms triggered a slide towards political disintegration in socialist Yugoslavia. The beginning of the process of disintegration of central governmental authority, which in the end resulted in the breakdown of political order, in our opinion can be traced back to the implementation of the social and economic system of self-management that was supposed to function within a market socialism. From the devolutions of the early 1960s until its end, socialist Yugoslavia has been convincingly described, for example in the works of Sabrina P. Ramet, as a nine-actor balance-of-power system that consisted of a federal actor (the federal government or, alternatively, the League of Communists), six socialist republics (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia), and two socialist autonomous provinces (Kosovo and Vojvodina). Yugoslavia surely was a much fragmented country with, as a famous saying went, two alphabets, three religions, four languages, five nations, and six states. However, the mentioning of Yugoslav republics as " states " in the context of socialist Yugoslavia, even before the Constitution of 1974 defined the republics that way, referred to the large extent of autonomy of the then six constituent Yugoslav
As in other Slavic lands, the Sokol, when it was founded, should also provide among the South-Sla... more As in other Slavic lands, the Sokol, when it was founded, should also provide among the South-Slavs the " physical, moral, and intellectual training for the nation ". The aim of this article is to give a brief outline of the Sokol movement and its ideological objectives in the first Yugoslav state during the time between the two World Wars, and how it tried to stage its ideas, with main focus on the region of Dalmatia.
Poznato je da su se obljetnice Viškog boja za vrijeme Austro-Ugarske svečano obilježavale, dok se... more Poznato je da su se obljetnice Viškog boja za vrijeme Austro-Ugarske svečano obilježavale, dok se u državama koji su nastajali u 20. stoljeću na ruševinama Austro-Ugarske, tj. u obje jugoslavenske države, sjećanja na Višku bitku, takoreći, nisu evocirala. Polazeći od izloženih teoretskih promišljanja o konceptima „mjesta sjećanja“ (Pierre Nora) i „kolektivnog pamćenja“, rad se bavi pitanjem da li se takav pristup može primijeniti na obilježavanje događaja kakav je bitka između austrijske i talijanske flote 20. srpnja 1866. godine pod Visom? Historijski uvjetovano kolektivno sjećanje nastaje i raste u slojevima, upotrebom simbolične i funkcionalne semantike unutar jedne komunikativne zajednice u kojoj se stvara i dijeli ono što se smatra zajedničkim povijesnim iskustvom i što se čini kolektivno prihvatljivim i poželjnim tumačenjem prošloga. U doba nacionalnih pokreta i nacionalnih država kolektivno pamćenje se često pokušavalo povezati sa narativima o pripadnosti naciji čiji pripadnici polaze od toga da dijele zajedničku povijest, tako da kultura sjećanja i pamćenja ima važno mjesto u konstrukciji nacionalnih identiteta. I u hrvatskom povijesnom kontekstu može se pretpostaviti da se pomoću konstrukcije određene kulture sjećanja pokušava oblikovati povijesni narativ i sjećanja nacije. Na temelju medijskog odjeka obilježavanja 150. obljetnice Viškog boja, 2016. godine, iznosi se razmišljanje da danas, u kontekstu hrvatske povijesne memorije u samostalnoj hrvatskoj državi, kad je Viška bitka postala simbolom „otpora hrvatskog mornara, hrvatskog čovjeka“, sjećanje na Viški boj 1866. godine možemo shvatiti kao svojevrsno mjesto sjećanja koje je našlo svoje mjesto u naraciji nacije današnje hrvatske države.
Comparative Asian and Slavic Studies Project Conference:
Prospects of Korean Studies in South E... more Comparative Asian and Slavic Studies Project Conference:
Prospects of Korean Studies in South Eastern Europe at the University of Split, 13th and 14th July, 2017
Discussion of different conceptualizations and scholarly reflections on Balkan borders, and thei... more Discussion of different conceptualizations and scholarly reflections on Balkan borders, and their sustainability, seen from a historical perspective at the 15th East-West-European Memorial Seminar, Krzyżowa/Kreisau Demarcation and entanglement: Historic border experiences in Europe March 29th, 6 p.m. – 1st April, 2017 International Meeting Place Krzyżowa/Kreisau
Especially in the light of recent articles stating that multi-ethnic states have failed in the Balkans, and that stability is not served by pretending that everything is fine on the ground when the tectonic plates are shifting just below the surface, (again) the extremely dangerous question of shifting borders seems to be on the table. After the bloody experience of the wars of the 20th century, the question arises if a peaceful change of borders in the Balkans now could be imaginable? On the other hand, how tenable is the current situation in South-East Europe?
Izlaganje na temu "Prvi svjetski rat i Hrvati" na međužupanijskom stručnom skupu učitelja i nast... more Izlaganje na temu "Prvi svjetski rat i Hrvati" na međužupanijskom stručnom skupu učitelja i nastavnika povijesti na temu „Hrvati u Habsburškoj monarhiji"
Rezension von Geschichte Südosteuropas von Ulf Brunnbauer / Klaus Buchenau, in:
Spiegelungen. Zei... more Rezension von Geschichte Südosteuropas von Ulf Brunnbauer / Klaus Buchenau, in: Spiegelungen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Kultur und Geschichte Südosteuropas Heft 2/2020, Jg. 15
Rezension: Vladimir Unkovski-Korica, The Economic Struggle for Power in Tito’s Yugoslavia. From W... more Rezension: Vladimir Unkovski-Korica, The Economic Struggle for Power in Tito’s Yugoslavia. From World War II to Non-Alignment. London: I. B. Tauris 2016. X, 294 S., 8 Abb., ISBN 978-1-78076-328-6, £ 69,–
In 15 Abschnitten bzw. Kapiteln führt Katrin Boeckh ihre Leser, wie der Untertitel lautet, durch ... more In 15 Abschnitten bzw. Kapiteln führt Katrin Boeckh ihre Leser, wie der Untertitel lautet, durch " Geschichte und Gegenwart " von Serbien und Montenegro. Der Schwerpunkt des nüchtern und sachlich intonierten Bandes liegt auf Entwicklungen im 20. Jahrhundert und auf der Darstellung der Geschichte Serbiens, die auf eigenen Forschungsergebnissen der Verfasserin wie auf der Rezeption relevanter deutsch-und englischsprachiger Literatur beruht. Prägnant werden auf 256 Seiten (einschließlich eines Anhangs, der aus Zeittafel, Literaturauswahl und einem Personen-und Ortsre gister besteht) die wichtigsten historischen Entwicklungslinien aufgezeigt. Die ersten 40 Seiten sind, in äußerster Verknappung, dem Mittelalter in den serbischen Herr schaftsgebieten und den " Serben unter osmanischer Herrschaft " gewidmet. Die fol genden Kapitel behandeln zunächst die politische Formierung der montenegrinischen Stämme, anschließend die " nationale Wiedergeburt " der Serben 1804‒1878, um dann chronologisch die Entwicklungen in Serbien und Montenegro von der Zeit zwischen Berliner Kongress und Erstem Weltkrieg, über die jugoslawischen Staaten bis zum Zerfall Jugoslawiens 1990‒2000 und schließlich derzur Trennung Montenegros von Serbien darzustellen. Die beiden letzten Abschnitte geben einen, wiederum äußerst knappen, Überblick über die Lage in Serbien 2006‒2008 und in Montenegro nach der Unabhängigkeitserklärung. Vorliegende Synthese, bei allen Schwierigkeiten dieses Genres und natürlich im mer möglichen anderen Schwerpunktsetzungen, ist solide und gut fundiert und bietet dem am Thema interessierten Leser einen guten Einstieg und nützliches historisches Wissen zu vielen Themen der vielschichtigen Geschichte Serbiens und Montenegros. Die Darstellung politischer Ereignisse und Konflikte nimmt dabei den weitaus größ ten Raum ein. Pointierte Beschreibungen der innenpolitischen " Konfliktszenerie " (S. 69) – Regierungskrisen, gewaltsame Auseinandersetzungen, politisch motivierte Attentate – und von Kriegen entwerfen das Bild einer durch verschiedene Formen von Gewalt geprägten Geschichte, wobei sich die Verfasserin aber mit eigenen Wer tungen sehr zurückhält. In Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass in der Zeitspanne zwischen 1876 bis zumund dem Beginn der Kriege der neunziger Jahre des 20. Jahrhunderts, also im Zeitraum von 114 Jahren, Serbien 8 (acht) Kriege geführt hat, ist so eine Schwerpunktsetzung, insbesondere im Rahmen solch einer Überblicksdarstellung, wahrscheinlich schwer zu umgehen. Die serbische Historikerin Latinka Perović pos tulierte unlängst, dass durch alle Formen moderner serbischer Staatlichkeit seit den Zeiten des Fürstentums Serbien 1833, große Teile der serbischen politischen, geistli chen und militärischen Eliten das national-und machtpolitisch motivierte Programm verfolgten, die " nationale Frage " durch die Vereinigung aller Serben in einem Staat zu lösen. Vielleicht hätte man da auf die seit dem 19. Jahrhundert geführten national ideologischen Debatten ausführlicher eingehen können? Die Lektüre von Katrin Boeckhs Darstellung zeigt die Probleme klar auf, welche die deutliche territoriale Expansion des serbischen Staates nach dem serbisch-osmani schen Krieg 1877/78, mit der darauf folgenden Anerkennung durch die europäischen Mächte während des Berliner Kongresses, und die Einverleibung der Gebiete des heutigen makedonischen Staates und des Kosovo nach dem Ersten Balkankrieg 1912 nach sich zogen. Im Falle des Kosovo sind diese noch immer nicht gelöst.
„Friedrich Jäger: Bosniaken, Kroaten, Serben. Ein Leitfaden ihrer Geschichte. Frankfurt a.M. u.a... more „Friedrich Jäger: Bosniaken, Kroaten, Serben. Ein Leitfaden ihrer Geschichte. Frankfurt a.M. u.a.: Peter Lang 2001“, Südost-Forschungen, Band 63/64 (2004/2005), 96-97.
„Husnija Kamberović: Prema modernom društvu. Bosna i Hercegovina od 1945. do 1953. godine. Tešan... more „Husnija Kamberović: Prema modernom društvu. Bosna i Hercegovina od 1945. do 1953. godine. Tešanj: Centar za kulturu i obrazovanje Tešanj 2000 (Posebna izdanja, 3)”, Südost-Forschungen, Band 63/64 (2004/2005), 98-100.
Katrin Boeckh, Serbien –Montenegro. Geschichte und Gegenwart, Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2009,... more Katrin Boeckh, Serbien –Montenegro. Geschichte und Gegenwart, Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2009, in: Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas /jgo.e-reviews, JGO 60 (2012), H. 1, 118-119, https://www.recensio.net/r/e6d40478b16537cb4c976b7c0eab566c First published: Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas / jgo.e-reviews, JGO 60 (2012), H. 1
Vladimir Unkovski-Korica, The Economic Struggle for Power in Tito's Yugoslavia. From World War II... more Vladimir Unkovski-Korica, The Economic Struggle for Power in Tito's Yugoslavia. From World War II to Non-Alignment. London: I.B. Tauris 2016.
Holm Sundhaussen, Jugoslawien und seine Nachfolgestaaten 1943–2011. Eine ungewöhnliche Geschichte... more Holm Sundhaussen, Jugoslawien und seine Nachfolgestaaten 1943–2011. Eine ungewöhnliche Geschichte des Gewöhnlichen, Wien [u.a.]: Böhlau 2012, 567 S., EUR 59,00 [ISBN 978-3-205-78831-7] Aleksandar Jakir
Bosnien-Herzegowina im ersten und zweiten jugoslawischen Staat . In: Agilolf Kesselring/Militärge... more Bosnien-Herzegowina im ersten und zweiten jugoslawischen Staat . In: Agilolf Kesselring/Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt (Hrsg..): Wegweiser zur Geschichte Bosnien-Herzegowinas. Ferdinand Schöningh Verlag Paderborn München Wien Zürich 2005, 53-65 sowie 2. durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage 2007, 57-69.
Aleksandar Jakir: Bosnien im zweiten (sozialistischen) Jugoslawien, in: Konflikte und Konfliktsch... more Aleksandar Jakir: Bosnien im zweiten (sozialistischen) Jugoslawien, in: Konflikte und Konfliktschlichtung in Bosnien-Herzegowina.Im Auftrag des Zentrums für Militärgeschichte und Sozialwissenschaften der Bundeswehr herausgegeben von Agilolf Keßelring. Zentrum für Militärgeschichte und Sozialwissenschaften der Bundeswehr, Potsdam 2014, 12-13.
Uploads
Opposing and irreconcilable differences in the understanding of the history of the 20th century, as well as of the conflicting parties in the ideologically motivated war, which raged in the period between 1917 and 1945 (also called »European Civil War« by Ernst Nolte), are not typical only for Croatia. Contemplating the Spanish example can be useful if we want to understand better how Croatian society deals with this historical period. Starting from the question of how the Civil War in Spain (1936-1939) and its participants entered the collective memory of today’s Spain, where »memory wars« are still being fought, the text puts forth the idea that we can learn some lessons from the Spanish example. And not just learn, but use the knowledge to further understand similar examples from Croatian history, a country which sometimes seems to be suffocating from all its historical burdens. One area where a similar treatment can be useful regards the politics of memory in public spaces during the reigns of Franco and Tito. Both glorified the winning side, while the losing side was not even allowed to mark the graves of the victims, let alone build memorials and monuments. Both societies, Spanish as well as Croatian, are burdened by the existence of conflicting cultures of memory. The results of research into the process of »remembering and forgetting« can provide a necessary counterweight to help overcome these resulting mental patterns as currently exist. The paper advocates a comparative approach that would systematically investigate the way memory politics has been shaped in both Spain and Croatia. The comparison of the two could be useful because a traumatic historical legacy, as well as exclusive and mutually opposing collective memories, characterize both Spanish and Croatian society. Considerable periods of the 20th century can also be seen in Croatia as times of »forced utopia politics and mega-death« (Z. Brzezinski). The culmination of the conflict between formations that were in the service of competing totalitarian ideas took place in the territory of Croatia during the Second World War. This text expresses a belief that by sound understanding of the past, we can better understand our own present, especially through dealing with topics from the – for the most part – bloody Croatian 20th century. However, this is only genuinely possible if the sources one is using are relevant and credible, while at the same time being careful to contextualize the facts one comes across in these sources. Therefore, full availability of archival material is necessary; as one of the main requirements for scientific research. Furthermore, it is also necessary to distinguish images and ideas about the past from history arrived at as a result of methodical research. The author advocates for a scientifically based, and historically responsible way of researching so-called »controversial historical topics«. Only when historians speak about these issues of Croatian history by using the methods of critical historical science and »the language of facts and sources«, will it be possible to reach a clear-sighted and rational judgment of events that led to large-scale harassments in the name of totalitarian ideologies. The acceptance of a »multidirectional« collective memory (Michael Rothberg), based on the principles and values of a democratic constitutional order, seems to be a requirement for mutual understanding and reconciliation in society. This implies the acceptance of multiperspectivity and the obvious fact that disparate memories exist in Croatian society. Writing history according to the model of »winners and losers« does not allow the societies in question to get out of this vicious circle. What seems paramount in the research of Croatian history is to undergo a critical reconsideration of all politicized approaches in determining the number of victims of non-democratic regimes in Croatia. Also, it is a mere civilizational necessity to find and mark all the places of the mass graves of victims of all political regimes in the 20th century. In particular, an interdisciplinary approach seems the most suitable if we want to shed light on the complexity of different memories of the war and its impact on contemporary Croatian society. At the same time, multi-perspective historical memory represents an approach to history that promotes diverse perspectives and interpretations of past events and phenomena. Multiperspectivity as a methodological approach is a guard against the creation of one-sided and/or biased narratives about history, especially when it comes to so-called »controversial« or »sensitive« issues. It can contribute to the promotion of communication and reconciliation within society because it enables a conversation between different groups and individuals, which, in the best scenario, can lead to an understanding of the other’s perspective. A multi-perspective and combined approach to the most controversial issues of the Croatian past seems like a good way to develop a higher level of tolerance and a democratic culture of memory within Croatian society, which seems necessary for Croatian society to overcome inherited historical trauma.
Analizirajući kako se Španjolski građanski rat (1936. – 1939.) i njegovi akteri poimaju u kolektivnome sjećanju današnje Španjolske u kojoj se još uvijek »ratuje sjećanjima«, u tekstu se problematizira stanje u Hrvatskoj koju također guše »povijesni balasti«, odnosno nastoje se izvući pouke vezane za povijesno nasljeđe i odnos prema nedemokratskim režimima. Kulminacija sukoba formacija koje su služile totalitarnim idejama dogodila se u Hrvatskoj u Drugome svjetskom ratu. Autor se zalaže za znanstveno, argumentirano i povijesno odgovorno istraživanje tzv. kontroverznih povijesnih tema. Prihvaćanje »višesmjernoga« (multidirectional) kolektivnog pamćenja (Michael Rothberg), utemeljenoga na načelima i vrednotama demokratskoga ustavnog poretka, čini se kao preduvjet za međusobno razumijevanja i pomirenje. To implicira prihvaćanje multiperspektivnosti i bjelodane činjenice da u hrvatskom društvu postoje pluralna sjećanja. Multiperspektivno povijesno pamćenje jest pristup povijesti koji promiče raznolike perspektive i interpretacije prošlih događanja i fenomena. Multiperspektivnost kao metodološki pristup brana je stvaranju jednostranih i/ili pristranih povijesnih narativa, posebice o tzv. »kontroverznim« ili »osjetljivim« pitanjima, i može doprinijeti dijalogu i pomirenju u društvu jer omogućuje dijalog različitih zajednica, a što u najboljemu slučaju rezultira razumijevanjem perspektive drugoga. Multiperspektivni i pluralni pristup i prema najkontroverznijim pitanjima hrvatske prošlosti čini se kao dobar put kojim bi se u hrvatskome društvu razvili viši stupanj tolerancije i demokratske kulture sjećanja, što se čini nužnim da društvo prevlada naslijeđene povijesne traume.
The memory and remembrance of the Battle of Vis found different expressions at different times. From the point of view of historiography as well as other disciplines, it is intriguing why certain events from the past are remembered as historical in some communities, and in the others they are forgotten. In today’s humanistic and historiographical discourse, it has become almost commonplace that our perception of the past is important, some would even say crucial, in creating a collective identity and memory. In various European historiographies, historical sciences have been delving into the phenomena of memory in recent decades, directing historiographical studies towards different sites of memory or sites of remembrance, both possible translations of the French term lieux de mémoire, first used by the French historian Pierre Nora in the 1980s. Holiday celebrations, commemorations, various ceremonies and monuments, and other forms of social remembrance of past events that can be considered part of a society’s collective memory are now being explored as sites of memory. Taking theoretical considerations of the concepts of “site of memory” and “collective memory” as its starting point, the paper raises the question whether such an approach can be applied to commemoration of events such as the battle between the Austrian and Italian fleets that took place on 20 July 1866 near Vis. In his work, Pierre Nora pointed out that a site of memory must potentially have a special symbolic meaning for a certain group in order for it to play a part in the process of creating collective memory, and, consequently, in creating and affirming identity. The paper argues that the process of creating collective memory as a complex system of signs, symbols and practices, could be compared to the process of crystal formation. In crystallization, elementary particles come together in space to form a layered crystal lattice, just as historically conditioned collective memory also emerges and grows, so to speak, in layers, by employing symbolic and functional semantics within a communication community which creates and shares what it considers common historical experience, and what it deems to be a collectively acceptable and desirable interpretation of the past experience. In the age of national movements and nation states, there have been frequent efforts to connect collective memory with narratives of national affiliation and common origin, common values, common history of all the people belonging to a nation etc., so that the culture of memory and remembrance has an important place in the construction of national identities. It is known that the anniversaries of the Battle of Vis were celebrated in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, whereas in the states that emerged in the 20th century from the ruins of Austria-Hungary, i.e. both Yugoslav states, the memory of the Battle of Vis was not commemorated, or at least there was no “official” commemoration. It can be assumed that the construction of a certain culture of memory is being used to shape the historical narrative and memories of the nation in the context of Croatian history as well. Based on the media coverage of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Vis in 2016, the paper proposes that, in the context of the Croatian historical memory in the independent Croatian state, with the Battle of Vis becoming a symbol of “resistance of Croatian sailors and Croatian people”, the memory of the Battle of Vis 1866 can be seen as a kind of site of memory which has found its place in the narrative of the nation in the contemporary Croatian state.
Poznato je da su se obljetnice Viškog boja za vrijeme Austro-Ugarske svečano obilježavale, dok se u državama koje su nastajale u 20. stoljeću na ruševinama Austro-Ugarske, tj. u obje jugoslavenske države, sjećanja na Višku bitku, takoreći, nisu evocirala. Polazeći od izloženih teoretskih promišljanja o konceptima „mjesta sjećanja“ (Pierre Nora) i „kolektivnog pamćenja“, rad se bavi pitanjem može li se takav pristup primijeniti na obilježavanje događaja kakav je bitka između austrijske i talijanske flote 20. srpnja 1866. godine pod Visom. Historijski uvjetovano kolektivno sjećanje nastaje i raste u slojevima, upotrebom simbolične i funkcionalne semantike unutar jedne komunikativne zajednice u kojoj se stvara i dijeli ono što se smatra zajedničkim povijesnim iskustvom i što se čini kolektivno prihvatljivim i poželjnim tumačenjem prošloga. U doba nacionalnih pokreta i nacionalnih država kolektivno se pamćenje često pokušavalo povezati s narativima o pripadnosti naciji čiji pripadnici polaze od toga da dijele zajedničku povijest, tako da kultura sjećanja i pamćenja ima važno mjesto u konstrukciji nacionalnih identiteta. I u hrvatskom povijesnom kontekstu može se pretpostaviti da se s pomoću konstrukcije određene kulture sjećanja pokušava oblikovati povijesni narativ i sjećanja nacije. Na temelju medijskog odjeka obilježavanja 150. obljetnice Viškog boja, 2016. godine, iznosi se razmišljanje da danas, u kontekstu hrvatske povijesne memorije u samostalnoj hrvatskoj državi, kad je Viška bitka postala simbolom „otpora hrvatskog mornara, hrvatskog čovjeka“, sjećanje na Viški boj 1866. godine možemo shvatiti kao svojevrsno mjesto sjećanja koje je našlo svoje mjesto u naraciji nacije današnje hrvatske države.
Opposing and irreconcilable differences in the understanding of the history of the 20th century, as well as of the conflicting parties in the ideologically motivated war, which raged in the period between 1917 and 1945 (also called »European Civil War« by Ernst Nolte), are not typical only for Croatia. Contemplating the Spanish example can be useful if we want to understand better how Croatian society deals with this historical period. Starting from the question of how the Civil War in Spain (1936-1939) and its participants entered the collective memory of today’s Spain, where »memory wars« are still being fought, the text puts forth the idea that we can learn some lessons from the Spanish example. And not just learn, but use the knowledge to further understand similar examples from Croatian history, a country which sometimes seems to be suffocating from all its historical burdens. One area where a similar treatment can be useful regards the politics of memory in public spaces during the reigns of Franco and Tito. Both glorified the winning side, while the losing side was not even allowed to mark the graves of the victims, let alone build memorials and monuments. Both societies, Spanish as well as Croatian, are burdened by the existence of conflicting cultures of memory. The results of research into the process of »remembering and forgetting« can provide a necessary counterweight to help overcome these resulting mental patterns as currently exist. The paper advocates a comparative approach that would systematically investigate the way memory politics has been shaped in both Spain and Croatia. The comparison of the two could be useful because a traumatic historical legacy, as well as exclusive and mutually opposing collective memories, characterize both Spanish and Croatian society. Considerable periods of the 20th century can also be seen in Croatia as times of »forced utopia politics and mega-death« (Z. Brzezinski). The culmination of the conflict between formations that were in the service of competing totalitarian ideas took place in the territory of Croatia during the Second World War. This text expresses a belief that by sound understanding of the past, we can better understand our own present, especially through dealing with topics from the – for the most part – bloody Croatian 20th century. However, this is only genuinely possible if the sources one is using are relevant and credible, while at the same time being careful to contextualize the facts one comes across in these sources. Therefore, full availability of archival material is necessary; as one of the main requirements for scientific research. Furthermore, it is also necessary to distinguish images and ideas about the past from history arrived at as a result of methodical research. The author advocates for a scientifically based, and historically responsible way of researching so-called »controversial historical topics«. Only when historians speak about these issues of Croatian history by using the methods of critical historical science and »the language of facts and sources«, will it be possible to reach a clear-sighted and rational judgment of events that led to large-scale harassments in the name of totalitarian ideologies. The acceptance of a »multidirectional« collective memory (Michael Rothberg), based on the principles and values of a democratic constitutional order, seems to be a requirement for mutual understanding and reconciliation in society. This implies the acceptance of multiperspectivity and the obvious fact that disparate memories exist in Croatian society. Writing history according to the model of »winners and losers« does not allow the societies in question to get out of this vicious circle. What seems paramount in the research of Croatian history is to undergo a critical reconsideration of all politicized approaches in determining the number of victims of non-democratic regimes in Croatia. Also, it is a mere civilizational necessity to find and mark all the places of the mass graves of victims of all political regimes in the 20th century. In particular, an interdisciplinary approach seems the most suitable if we want to shed light on the complexity of different memories of the war and its impact on contemporary Croatian society. At the same time, multi-perspective historical memory represents an approach to history that promotes diverse perspectives and interpretations of past events and phenomena. Multiperspectivity as a methodological approach is a guard against the creation of one-sided and/or biased narratives about history, especially when it comes to so-called »controversial« or »sensitive« issues. It can contribute to the promotion of communication and reconciliation within society because it enables a conversation between different groups and individuals, which, in the best scenario, can lead to an understanding of the other’s perspective. A multi-perspective and combined approach to the most controversial issues of the Croatian past seems like a good way to develop a higher level of tolerance and a democratic culture of memory within Croatian society, which seems necessary for Croatian society to overcome inherited historical trauma.
Analizirajući kako se Španjolski građanski rat (1936. – 1939.) i njegovi akteri poimaju u kolektivnome sjećanju današnje Španjolske u kojoj se još uvijek »ratuje sjećanjima«, u tekstu se problematizira stanje u Hrvatskoj koju također guše »povijesni balasti«, odnosno nastoje se izvući pouke vezane za povijesno nasljeđe i odnos prema nedemokratskim režimima. Kulminacija sukoba formacija koje su služile totalitarnim idejama dogodila se u Hrvatskoj u Drugome svjetskom ratu. Autor se zalaže za znanstveno, argumentirano i povijesno odgovorno istraživanje tzv. kontroverznih povijesnih tema. Prihvaćanje »višesmjernoga« (multidirectional) kolektivnog pamćenja (Michael Rothberg), utemeljenoga na načelima i vrednotama demokratskoga ustavnog poretka, čini se kao preduvjet za međusobno razumijevanja i pomirenje. To implicira prihvaćanje multiperspektivnosti i bjelodane činjenice da u hrvatskom društvu postoje pluralna sjećanja. Multiperspektivno povijesno pamćenje jest pristup povijesti koji promiče raznolike perspektive i interpretacije prošlih događanja i fenomena. Multiperspektivnost kao metodološki pristup brana je stvaranju jednostranih i/ili pristranih povijesnih narativa, posebice o tzv. »kontroverznim« ili »osjetljivim« pitanjima, i može doprinijeti dijalogu i pomirenju u društvu jer omogućuje dijalog različitih zajednica, a što u najboljemu slučaju rezultira razumijevanjem perspektive drugoga. Multiperspektivni i pluralni pristup i prema najkontroverznijim pitanjima hrvatske prošlosti čini se kao dobar put kojim bi se u hrvatskome društvu razvili viši stupanj tolerancije i demokratske kulture sjećanja, što se čini nužnim da društvo prevlada naslijeđene povijesne traume.
The memory and remembrance of the Battle of Vis found different expressions at different times. From the point of view of historiography as well as other disciplines, it is intriguing why certain events from the past are remembered as historical in some communities, and in the others they are forgotten. In today’s humanistic and historiographical discourse, it has become almost commonplace that our perception of the past is important, some would even say crucial, in creating a collective identity and memory. In various European historiographies, historical sciences have been delving into the phenomena of memory in recent decades, directing historiographical studies towards different sites of memory or sites of remembrance, both possible translations of the French term lieux de mémoire, first used by the French historian Pierre Nora in the 1980s. Holiday celebrations, commemorations, various ceremonies and monuments, and other forms of social remembrance of past events that can be considered part of a society’s collective memory are now being explored as sites of memory. Taking theoretical considerations of the concepts of “site of memory” and “collective memory” as its starting point, the paper raises the question whether such an approach can be applied to commemoration of events such as the battle between the Austrian and Italian fleets that took place on 20 July 1866 near Vis. In his work, Pierre Nora pointed out that a site of memory must potentially have a special symbolic meaning for a certain group in order for it to play a part in the process of creating collective memory, and, consequently, in creating and affirming identity. The paper argues that the process of creating collective memory as a complex system of signs, symbols and practices, could be compared to the process of crystal formation. In crystallization, elementary particles come together in space to form a layered crystal lattice, just as historically conditioned collective memory also emerges and grows, so to speak, in layers, by employing symbolic and functional semantics within a communication community which creates and shares what it considers common historical experience, and what it deems to be a collectively acceptable and desirable interpretation of the past experience. In the age of national movements and nation states, there have been frequent efforts to connect collective memory with narratives of national affiliation and common origin, common values, common history of all the people belonging to a nation etc., so that the culture of memory and remembrance has an important place in the construction of national identities. It is known that the anniversaries of the Battle of Vis were celebrated in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, whereas in the states that emerged in the 20th century from the ruins of Austria-Hungary, i.e. both Yugoslav states, the memory of the Battle of Vis was not commemorated, or at least there was no “official” commemoration. It can be assumed that the construction of a certain culture of memory is being used to shape the historical narrative and memories of the nation in the context of Croatian history as well. Based on the media coverage of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Vis in 2016, the paper proposes that, in the context of the Croatian historical memory in the independent Croatian state, with the Battle of Vis becoming a symbol of “resistance of Croatian sailors and Croatian people”, the memory of the Battle of Vis 1866 can be seen as a kind of site of memory which has found its place in the narrative of the nation in the contemporary Croatian state.
Poznato je da su se obljetnice Viškog boja za vrijeme Austro-Ugarske svečano obilježavale, dok se u državama koje su nastajale u 20. stoljeću na ruševinama Austro-Ugarske, tj. u obje jugoslavenske države, sjećanja na Višku bitku, takoreći, nisu evocirala. Polazeći od izloženih teoretskih promišljanja o konceptima „mjesta sjećanja“ (Pierre Nora) i „kolektivnog pamćenja“, rad se bavi pitanjem može li se takav pristup primijeniti na obilježavanje događaja kakav je bitka između austrijske i talijanske flote 20. srpnja 1866. godine pod Visom. Historijski uvjetovano kolektivno sjećanje nastaje i raste u slojevima, upotrebom simbolične i funkcionalne semantike unutar jedne komunikativne zajednice u kojoj se stvara i dijeli ono što se smatra zajedničkim povijesnim iskustvom i što se čini kolektivno prihvatljivim i poželjnim tumačenjem prošloga. U doba nacionalnih pokreta i nacionalnih država kolektivno se pamćenje često pokušavalo povezati s narativima o pripadnosti naciji čiji pripadnici polaze od toga da dijele zajedničku povijest, tako da kultura sjećanja i pamćenja ima važno mjesto u konstrukciji nacionalnih identiteta. I u hrvatskom povijesnom kontekstu može se pretpostaviti da se s pomoću konstrukcije određene kulture sjećanja pokušava oblikovati povijesni narativ i sjećanja nacije. Na temelju medijskog odjeka obilježavanja 150. obljetnice Viškog boja, 2016. godine, iznosi se razmišljanje da danas, u kontekstu hrvatske povijesne memorije u samostalnoj hrvatskoj državi, kad je Viška bitka postala simbolom „otpora hrvatskog mornara, hrvatskog čovjeka“, sjećanje na Viški boj 1866. godine možemo shvatiti kao svojevrsno mjesto sjećanja koje je našlo svoje mjesto u naraciji nacije današnje hrvatske države.
The contributions to this volume that we decided to publish under the title Remembering War and Peace in South-East Europe were presented at the workshop Distinction and Unification, Regional and Supraregional Memories, which was held from 24 to 28 May 2011 in Novi Sad. It was the second annual meeting of the international network Media and Memoria in South-Eastern Europe founded in 2010 in Ljubljana. The papers dealt with various phenomena associ¬ated with the construction of memory in different media of remembrance. The methodological aspects were memory with regard to the longue durée, breaks and gaps, se¬lection and suppression, traumatic events and the loss of memory, but also phenomena of nostalgia, haunting and false memory. Examples of memory culture, whether institutional or subversive, made it possible to study strategies of suppression, reactivation, and appropriation, but also rituals, habitus and the traces of memory which survive it, and more specifically various cultures of remembering the World Wars and the Shoa.
The network was intended to intensify the in¬ternational exchange of scholars and ad¬vanced students from different branches – history, political sciences, art history, media studies and literature, across borders between nation-states whose cultural politics were often antagonistic toward each other. The mem¬bers of the network shared a common in¬terest in the diverse transnational and na¬tional memory cultures of South-Eastern Europe, their interference as well as their rivalry. The network, which met annually at workshops and summer schools in Ljubljana (2010), Belgrade (2011), Split (2012) and Sarajevo (2013), published its proceedings in four anthologies: Balkan Memories: Media Constructions of National and Transnational History (2012), ‚Brüderlichkeit‘ und ‚Bruderzwist‘. Mediale Inszenierungen des Aufbaus und des Niedergangs politischer Gemeinschaften in Ost- und Südosteuropa (2014), Europe and the Balkans: Decades of 'Europeanization'? (2015) and Cultures of Economy in South-East Europe: Spotlights and Perspectives (2019).
The workshop in Novi Sad in 2011, where the renowned Serbian writers Dragan Velikić and Sreten Ugričić, as well as the filmmaker Želimir Žilnik, presented their recent work, was attended by around 70 participants who presented their papers in three panels. The first panel, Commemorating the World Wars and the Shoa, dealt with memories of the wars in the Balkans, especially of the First and Second World Wars as well as of the Yugoslavia succession wars of the 1990s. The authors revealed how the media proposed analogies between different kinds of war, as if the same opponents were fatally involved in a perennial conflict lasting for centuries. The second panel, Brotherhood and Unity – Remembrance and Oblivion, investigated how it was possible for the nations in Tito's Yugoslavia to live peacefully together for more than forty years after the Second World War. Integrative and centripetal strategies were discussed in order to gain insights into the question of how the multi-ethnic state was perceived within a country and abroad. The third panel was dedicated to Memory Cultures of Regions and Minorities; it focused on small nations and on specific regions, such as the Serbian province of Vojvodina, where numerous minorities lived and still live.
Based on this ambitious program, an extensive volume of collected essays was planned to be published in collaboration with Miranda Jakiša (University of Vienna), but for various reasons it could not be realized. In the end it turned out that it was not possible to link the various disciplinary cultures into a publication; the symposium in Novi Sad, in the breadth of interests it enthusiastically brought together, proved to have been a unique and somehow utopian event linked to a certain moment in the history of research. While several authors have already published their contributions in other contexts, we want to document the remaining contributions in this small, belated volume. Thereby, we fulfill our commitment to the authors who faithfully entrusted us with their texts, but also to the DAAD, which funded this publication. The encounter in Novi Sad perhaps can also be understood as a rare moment of difficult Euro-optimism before a period of disillusion and skepticism. Therefore, we reprint the program of the symposium after this introduction. The collected papers in this volume might as well be an encouragement for readers also to study other publications that somehow originated in the symposium in Novi Sad.
The cover was designed by Jugoslav Vlahović and shows a bird forming a portrait sculpture out of a stone block. It stands not only for identities – as linked to memories – still taking shape long after the events, but also for the non finito of this work – regrettably also for the non finito of our publication project in the way we had hoped for back than in Novi Sad.
November 2019
Aleksandar Jakir (University of Split)
Tanja Zimmermann (University of Leipzig)
The network was intended to intensify the in¬ternational exchange of scholars and ad¬vanced students from different branches – history, political sciences, art history, media studies and literature, across borders between nation-states whose cultural politics were often antagonistic toward each other. The mem¬bers of the network shared a common in¬terest in the diverse transnational and na¬tional memory cultures of South-Eastern Europe, their interference as well as their rivalry. The network, which met annually at workshops and summer schools in Ljubljana (2010), Belgrade (2011), Split (2012) and Sarajevo (2013), published its proceedings in four anthologies: Balkan Memories: Media Constructions of National and Transnational History (2012), ‚Brüderlichkeit‘ und ‚Bruderzwist‘. Mediale Inszenierungen des Aufbaus und des Niedergangs politischer Gemeinschaften in Ost- und Südosteuropa (2014), Europe and the Balkans: Decades of 'Europeanization'? (2015) and Cultures of Economy in South-East Europe: Spotlights and Perspectives (2019).
The workshop in Novi Sad in 2011, where the renowned Serbian writers Dragan Velikić and Sreten Ugričić, as well as the filmmaker Želimir Žilnik, presented their recent work, was attended by around 70 participants who presented their papers in three panels. The first panel, Commemorating the World Wars and the Shoa, dealt with memories of the wars in the Balkans, especially of the First and Second World Wars as well as of the Yugoslavia succession wars of the 1990s. The authors revealed how the media proposed analogies between different kinds of war, as if the same opponents were fatally involved in a perennial conflict lasting for centuries. The second panel, Brotherhood and Unity – Remembrance and Oblivion, investigated how it was possible for the nations in Tito's Yugoslavia to live peacefully together for more than forty years after the Second World War. Integrative and centripetal strategies were discussed in order to gain insights into the question of how the multi-ethnic state was perceived within a country and abroad. The third panel was dedicated to Memory Cultures of Regions and Minorities; it focused on small nations and on specific regions, such as the Serbian province of Vojvodina, where numerous minorities lived and still live.
Based on this ambitious program, an extensive volume of collected essays was planned to be published in collaboration with Miranda Jakiša (University of Vienna), but for various reasons it could not be realized. In the end it turned out that it was not possible to link the various disciplinary cultures into a publication; the symposium in Novi Sad, in the breadth of interests it enthusiastically brought together, proved to have been a unique and somehow utopian event linked to a certain moment in the history of research. While several authors have already published their contributions in other contexts, we want to document the remaining contributions in this small, belated volume. Thereby, we fulfill our commitment to the authors who faithfully entrusted us with their texts, but also to the DAAD, which funded this publication. The encounter in Novi Sad perhaps can also be understood as a rare moment of difficult Euro-optimism before a period of disillusion and skepticism. Therefore, we reprint the program of the symposium after this introduction. The collected papers in this volume might as well be an encouragement for readers also to study other publications that somehow originated in the symposium in Novi Sad.
Spisi obuhvaćaju period od 1900. do 1945. i predstavljaju svojevrstan presjek kroz društvenu povijest Dalmacije i Splita u prvim desetljećima 20. stoljeća.
Opposing and irreconcilable differences in the understanding of the history of the 20th century, and then of the conflicting parties in the ideologically motivated war, which raged in the period between 1917 and 1945, which has been also called »European Civil War“ (Ernst Nolte), do not exist at all only in Croatia. Looking at the Spanish example can be useful if we want to come to a better understanding of how society in Croatia deals with this period. Starting from the question of how the Civil War in Spain (1936-1939) and its actors entered the collective memory of today's Spain, where »memory wars« are still being fought, the text asks whether we can learn some lessons from this example when it comes to examining the relationship to the historical heritage of non-democratic regimes for the situation in Croatia, which sometimes seems suffocated by historical ballasts? Obviously, a similar treatment can be observed regarding the politics of memory in public spaces during the reigns of Franco and Tito. Both glorified the winning side while the losing side was not even allowed to mark the graves of the victims, let alone build memorials and monuments. Both societies, Spanish as well as Croatian, are burdened by the existence of conflicting cultures of memory, and the results of research into the process of remembering and forgetting can make an important contribution to the process of overcoming the resulting mental patterns. The paper advocates a comparative approach that would systematically investigate the way memory politics has been shaped in Spain and Croatia. Their comparison could be useful, because a traumatic historical legacy and exclusive and mutually opposing collective memories characterized Spanish as well as Croatian society. Considerable periods of the 20th century can also be seen in Croatia as a time of forced utopia politics and mega-death (Z. Brzezinski). The culmination of the conflict between formations that were in the service of totalitarian ideas took place on the territory of Croatia during the Second World War. Dealing with topics from the especially bloody Croatian 20th century, the belief is expressed in the article that knowledge about the past and a sound understanding of it contributes to a better understanding of our present. However, this is only coherently possible on the basis of relevant and credible sources, while at the same time taking care to contextualize the facts we come across in the sources. Therefore, full availability of archival material is necessary, as one of the main prerequisites for scientific research. Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish images and ideas about the past from history as a result of methodical research. The author advocates for a scientifically based, argumentative and historically responsible way of researching so-called »controversial historical topics«. Only when historians speak about these issues of Croatian history by using the methods of critical historical science and the language of facts and sources, will it be possible to reach a realistic judgment of events that led to mass victims in the name of totalitarian ideologies. The acceptance of a »multidirectional« collective memory (Michael Rothberg), based on the principles and values of a democratic constitutional order, seems to be a prerequisite for mutual understanding and reconciliation in society. This implies the acceptance of multiperspectivity and the obvious fact that plural memories exist in Croatian society. Writing history according to the model of winners and losers does not allow to get out of the vicious circle. A critical review of all politicized approaches in determining the number of victims on non-democratic regimes in Croatia seems paramount. Also, it is a mere civilizational necessity to find and mark all the places of mass graves of victims of all political regimes in the 20th century. In particular, an interdisciplinary approach seems suitable if we want to shed light on the complexity of different memories of the war and its impact on contemporary Croatian society. At the same time, multi-perspective historical memory represents an approach to history that promotes diverse perspectives and interpretations of past events and phenomena. Multiperspectivity as a methodological approach is a barrier to the creation of one-sided and/or biased narratives about history, especially when it comes to so-called »controversial« or »sensitive« issues. It can contribute to dialogue and reconciliation within society because it enables a conversation between different groups and individuals, which in the best case can lead to an understanding of the other's perspective. A multi-perspective and plural approach to the most controversial issues of the Croatian past seems like a good way to develop a higher level of tolerance and a democratic culture of memory within Croatian society, which seems necessary for Croatian society to overcome inherited historical trauma.
Polazeći od pitanja kako su građanski rat u Španjolskoj (1936.-1939.) i njegovi akteri ušli u kolektivno sjećanje današnje Španjolske, u kojoj se još uvijek vode »ratovi sjećanja«, u tekstu se postavlja pitanje da li se za situaciju u Hrvatskoj, koju također guše povijesni balasti, mogu izvući neke pouke kad je riječ o odnosu prema povijesnom nasljeđu i odnosu prema nedemokratskim režimima? Kulminacija sukoba formacija koji su bili u službi totalitarnih ideja dogodila se na području Hrvatske za vrijeme Drugog svjetskog rata. Autor se zalaže za znanstveno utemeljen, argumentiran i povijesno odgovoran način istraživanja tzv. kontroverznih povijesnih tema. Prihvaćanje »višesmjernog« (multidirectional) kolektivnog pamćenja (Michael Rothberg), utemeljenog na načelima i vrednotama demokratskog ustavnog poretka, čini se kao preduvjet za međusobno razumijevanja i pomirenje. To implicira prihvaćanje multiperspektivnosti i bjelodane činjenice da u hrvatskom društvu postoje pluralna sjećanja. Multiperspektivno povijesno pamćenje pri tom predstavlja pristup povijesti koji promovira raznolike perspektive i interpretacije prošlih događanja i fenomena. Multiperspektivnost kao metodološki pristup brana je stvaranju jednostranih i/ili pristranih narativa o povijesti, naročito kad se radi o tzv. »kontroverznim« ili »osjetljivim« pitanjima, i može doprinijeti dijalogu i pomirenju unutar društva jer omogućuje razgovor između različitih zajednica, a što u najboljem slučaju može dovesti i do razumijevanja perspektive drugoga. Multiperspektivni i pluralni pristup i prema najkontroverznijim pitanjima hrvatske prošlosti čini se kao dobar put, kako bismo unutar hrvatskog društva razvili viši stupanj tolerancije i demokratske kulture sjećanja, što se čini nužnim da kao društvo prevladamo naslijeđene povijesne traume.
Opposing and irreconcilable differences in the understanding of the history of the 20th century, and then of the conflicting parties in the ideologically motivated war, which raged in the period between 1917 and 1945, which has been also called »European Civil War“ (Ernst Nolte), do not exist at all only in Croatia. Looking at the Spanish example can be useful if we want to come to a better understanding of how society in Croatia deals with this period. Starting from the question of how the Civil War in Spain (1936-1939) and its actors entered the collective memory of today's Spain, where »memory wars« are still being fought, the text asks whether we can learn some lessons from this example when it comes to examining the relationship to the historical heritage of non-democratic regimes for the situation in Croatia, which sometimes seems suffocated by historical ballasts? Obviously, a similar treatment can be observed regarding the politics of memory in public spaces during the reigns of Franco and Tito. Both glorified the winning side while the losing side was not even allowed to mark the graves of the victims, let alone build memorials and monuments. Both societies, Spanish as well as Croatian, are burdened by the existence of conflicting cultures of memory, and the results of research into the process of remembering and forgetting can make an important contribution to the process of overcoming the resulting mental patterns. The paper advocates a comparative approach that would systematically investigate the way memory politics has been shaped in Spain and Croatia. Their comparison could be useful, because a traumatic historical legacy and exclusive and mutually opposing collective memories characterized Spanish as well as Croatian society. Considerable periods of the 20th century can also be seen in Croatia as a time of forced utopia politics and mega-death (Z. Brzezinski). The culmination of the conflict between formations that were in the service of totalitarian ideas took place on the territory of Croatia during the Second World War. Dealing with topics from the especially bloody Croatian 20th century, the belief is expressed in the article that knowledge about the past and a sound understanding of it contributes to a better understanding of our present. However, this is only coherently possible on the basis of relevant and credible sources, while at the same time taking care to contextualize the facts we come across in the sources. Therefore, full availability of archival material is necessary, as one of the main prerequisites for scientific research. Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish images and ideas about the past from history as a result of methodical research. The author advocates for a scientifically based, argumentative and historically responsible way of researching so-called »controversial historical topics«. Only when historians speak about these issues of Croatian history by using the methods of critical historical science and the language of facts and sources, will it be possible to reach a realistic judgment of events that led to mass victims in the name of totalitarian ideologies. The acceptance of a »multidirectional« collective memory (Michael Rothberg), based on the principles and values of a democratic constitutional order, seems to be a prerequisite for mutual understanding and reconciliation in society. This implies the acceptance of multiperspectivity and the obvious fact that plural memories exist in Croatian society. Writing history according to the model of winners and losers does not allow to get out of the vicious circle. A critical review of all politicized approaches in determining the number of victims on non-democratic regimes in Croatia seems paramount. Also, it is a mere civilizational necessity to find and mark all the places of mass graves of victims of all political regimes in the 20th century. In particular, an interdisciplinary approach seems suitable if we want to shed light on the complexity of different memories of the war and its impact on contemporary Croatian society. At the same time, multi-perspective historical memory represents an approach to history that promotes diverse perspectives and interpretations of past events and phenomena. Multiperspectivity as a methodological approach is a barrier to the creation of one-sided and/or biased narratives about history, especially when it comes to so-called »controversial« or »sensitive« issues. It can contribute to dialogue and reconciliation within society because it enables a conversation between different groups and individuals, which in the best case can lead to an understanding of the other's perspective. A multi-perspective and plural approach to the most controversial issues of the Croatian past seems like a good way to develop a higher level of tolerance and a democratic culture of memory within Croatian society, which seems necessary for Croatian society to overcome inherited historical trauma.
tant, some would even say crucial, in creating a collective identity and memory. In various European historiographies, historical sciences have been delving into the phenomena of memory in recent decades, directing historiographical studies towards different sites of memory or sites of remembrance, both possible translations of the French term lieux de
mémoire, first used by the French historian Pierre Nora in the 1980s. Holiday celebrations, commemorations, various ceremonies and monuments, and other forms of social remembrance of past events that can be considered part of a society’s collective memory are now being explored as sites of memory. Taking theoretical considerations of the concepts of “site of memory” and “collective memory” as its starting point, the paper raises the question whether such an approach can be applied to commemoration of events such as the battle between the Austrian and Italian fleets that took place on 20 July 1866 near Vis. In his work, Pierre Nora pointed out that a site of memory must potentially have a special symbolic meaning for a certain group in order for it to play a part in the process of creating collective memory, and, consequently, in creating and affirming identity. The paper argues that the process of creating collective memory as a complex system of signs, symbols and practices, could be compared to the process of crystal formation. In crystallization, elementary particles come together in space to form a layered crystal lattice, just as historically conditioned collective memory also emerges and grows, so to speak, in layers, by employing symbolic and functional semantics within a communication community which creates and shares what it considers common historical experience, and what it
deems to be a collectively acceptable and desirable interpretation of the past experience. In the age of national movements and nation states, there have been frequent efforts to connect collective memory with narratives of national affiliation and common origin, common values, common history of all the people belonging to a nation etc., so that the culture of memory and remembrance has an important place in the construction of
national identities. It is known that the anniversaries of the Battle of Vis were celebrated in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, whereas in the states that emerged in the 20th century from the ruins of Austria-Hungary, i.e. both Yugoslav states, the memory of the Battle of Vis was not commemorated, or at least there was no “official” commemoration. It can
be assumed that the construction of a certain culture of memory is being used to shape the historical narrative and memories of the nation in the context of Croatian history as well. Based on the media coverage of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Vis in 2016, the paper proposes that, in the context of the Croatian historical memory in the independent
Croatian state, with the Battle of Vis becoming a symbol of “resistance of Croatian sailors and Croatian people”, the memory of the Battle of Vis 1866 can be seen as a kind of site of memory which has found its place in the narrative of the nation in the contemporary Croatian state.
Kao zanimljiv primarni izvor predstavljena je publikacija koja je objavljena već u ljeto 1945. godine pod naslovom "Narodna Vlada Hrvatske formirana u gradu Splitu dana 14. travnja 1945.".
There can be little doubt that Italy’s aspirations to acquire large parts of the Eastern Adriatic Coast played a pivotal role for most of the actions of the leading politicians during this period, including the desperate messages to the Serbian government at the end of WW I to send its army to Dalmatia to protect all “Yugoslavs” living in this area from Italian imperialism, as the papers in Dalmatia frequently wrote those days.
In my paper I would like to address briefly the reactions in Dalmatia to Italian aspirations on Dalmatia and to the Treaty of Rapallo. When thinking about the occupation of Dalmatia in 1941 by Fascist Italy we could ask if there is a connection to the fact that the so-called “Adriatic Question” could not be solved during the negotiations in Rapallo by the representatives of the Kingdom of Italy and those of the South-Slav Kingdom.
Kako bi se u ovom kratkom analitičkom povijesnom pregledu u obliku sinteze pokušali obuhvatiti društveni i politički konteksti i različite društveno-političke paradigme koje su utjecale na predmetno razdoblje moderne hrvatske povijesti , a time posredno i na nastanak raznorodnih kiparskih poetika u vremenu kad se pojavljuje moderna skulptura, čini se nužnim osvrnuti se na neke ključne političke događaje i istaknute protagoniste kao i na imperijalne i postimperijalne strukture koje su mjerodavno utjecale na područje kojemu su hrvatski krajevi pripadali između posljednjih desetljeća 19. stoljeća do 70-ih godina 20. stoljeća.
Proleter, službeno glasilo CK KPJ, u broju 1 (maj 1939.) obavještavao je svoje čitatelje da se među onima koji su "isključeni (…) iz redova KPJ" nalazio i stanoviti "Petrovski". U članku se pobliže objašnjavalo da se radilo o jednom od "elemenata" koji su "našoj partiji i radničkoj klasi nanijeli goleme štete u toku niza godina svojim frakcijskim i grupaškim borbama, vezama sa klasnim neprijateljem, varali K.I., svojim destruktivnim radom kočili razvitak partije i na taj način obezglavili pokret radničke klase Jugoslavije i tako pomagali klasnom neprijatelju". Ime Boris Nikolajevič Petrovski koristio je u to vrijeme u Moskvi hrvatski komunist Kamilo Horvatin. Horvatin, za kojega enciklopedija.hr navodi da je bio "hrvatski političar (Varaždin, 18. VII. 1896-SSSR, 1938)", a u jednom od rijetkih novijih publicističko-historiografskih radova (usp. William Klinger/Denis Kuljiš: Tito: Neispričane priče. Zagreb: Nezavisne novine/Paragon 2013, 60) u fusnoti 54 Horvatin se opisuje kao "Varaždinac, jugonacionalist koji je sudjelovao u atentatu na bana Cuvaja, jedan od osnivača KPJ i glavni urednik zagrebačke "Borbe", član CK KPJ, Politbiroa i Predstavništva partije u Kominterni. Od 1929. je u emigraciji, likvidiran u staljinskim čistkama i rehabilitiran u SSSR-u 1963. godine". U navedenoj fusnoti sakupljeni su više-manje svi podaci koji se danas na raznim web stranicama mogu pronaći o Kamilu Horvatinu koji se, eto, u svibnju 1939., pod svojim partijskim pseudonimom Petrovski, našao na popisu tridesetak članova tada isključenih iz redova KPJ. U spomenutom članku u Proleteru, u kojemu su navedeni ili puna imena ili, pak, inicijale isključenih, nizali su se formulacije kojima su se ti bivši članovi partije optuživali za razorno i antipartijsko djelovanje, grupašenje, pokušaj obnavljanja frakcijskih borbi u KPJ, unošenje zabune u redove partije u zemlji, širenje lažnih glasina iz inostranstva, veze sa trockističkim i drugim sumnjivim elementima itd. Većina onih koji su se tada bili nalazili u Sovjetskom savezu, u tom trenutku je već bilo ubijeno u jednom od valova zloglasne "Velike čistke". Predmetni rad pod naslovom Kamilo Horvatin: Zaboravljeni kandidat za generalnog sekretara Komunističke partije Jugoslavije na temelju do sada u historiografiji malo ili nikako korištenih...
Ključne riječi: socijalistički spomenici; kultura sjećanja; Bitka na Sutjesci; Memorijalni kompleks Tjentište
SUMMARY
Based on the recent literature dealing with the study of memory culture as well as sources from various funds stored in the Yugoslav Archives in Belgrade, this paper intends to provide a contribution to the discussion of socialist monuments during the time of socialist Yugoslavia by displaying some of the political and administrative mechanisms of the funding of these monuments within the federal Yugoslav system. Also, questions about the relation to monuments within this period from the perspective of memory culture and how it was propagated from central state institutions during the time of socialist Yugoslavia, are discussed. Special attention is given to, as it is has often been called, the most famous Partisan monument in the territory of the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, i.e. the sculpture devoted to the "Battle of Sutjeska" by Miodrag Živković at Tjentište, from 1971.
Keywords: socialist monuments, memorial culture, Battle of Sutjeska, Memorial complex of Tjentište
Prospects of Korean Studies in South Eastern Europe at the University of Split, 13th and 14th July, 2017
Demarcation and entanglement: Historic border experiences in Europe
March 29th, 6 p.m. – 1st April, 2017
International Meeting Place Krzyżowa/Kreisau
Especially in the light of recent articles stating that multi-ethnic states have failed in the Balkans, and that stability is not served by pretending that everything is fine on the ground when the tectonic plates are shifting just below the surface, (again) the extremely dangerous question of shifting borders seems to be on the table. After the bloody experience of the wars of the 20th century, the question arises if a peaceful change of borders in the Balkans now could be imaginable? On the other hand, how tenable is the current situation in South-East Europe?
Spiegelungen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Kultur und Geschichte Südosteuropas Heft 2/2020, Jg. 15
Verlag Friedrich Pustet, Regensburg
ISBN: 9783791731698
in: Südost-Forschungen, Band 77 (2018), 367-370
jgo.e-reviews, JGO 60 (2012), H. 1
Südost-Forschungen, Band 77 (2018)
Aleksandar Jakir
Online erschienen: 23.10.2015 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mgzs-2015-0020
Erschienen im Druck: 01.10.2015
Quellenangabe: Militaergeschichtliche Zeitschrift, Band 74, Heft 1-2, Seiten 235–238, ISSN (Online) 2196-6850, ISSN (Print) 2193-2336, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mgzs-2015-0020.
Pirjevec, Jože: Tito. – Die Biografie. Verlag Antje Kunstmann, München 2016. In: Damals. Das Magazin für Geschichte 48. Jg. 10-2016, 47.
https://www.wissenschaft.de/rezensionen/buecher/tito-die-biografie/