He studied history and sociology at the Faculty of Arts and became employed at the Department of History after graduating in 1987. He started out as a researcher trainee, in 1989 became an assistant for history and from 2000 onwards is an assistant professor of contemporary history. He mostly researches Slovenian history and the history of Yugoslav nations between both world wars. He obtained his master's degree in 1990 on the topic Operation of the National and Provincial Government of SHS in Ljubljana and in 1998 obtained a PhD with the thesis Parliamentary Elections in Yugoslavia from 1920 to 1938, with special emphasis on Slovenia. Between 2001 and 2005 he was the president of the History Committee under the National Assessment of Knowledge in Nine-Year Elementary School. In the 2007–2009 mandate he was the head of the Department of History. Address: Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 2
When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces most... more When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces mostly remained undivided and part of the territory of the same occupier. Dolenjska, however, was divided among the Germans, Italians and the Independent State of Croatia. The border was drawn by the Germans and moved 10 to 15 kilometres south of the Sava River for military, economic and transport reasons. By June 1941, the Germans also occupied territory across the demarcation line, which can be seen on the map at the beginning of the chapter. Borders were immediately established and moved to new national borders in June. Residents needed passes to cross the border. These were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana region, which included Dolenjska, also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree. According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Such villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941, which included several Croatian villages. Church life was greatly affected in these villages. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Sabobor, which was annexed to the villages. Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Some of the German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to those who lived near Kočevje, Germans from elsewhere were also settled there. The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them off from their work, and, in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands thus remained mostly uncultivated, since crossing the border was restricted, in addition to the difficulties faced when transferring goods from one country to another. As well as the new borders, the erection of various military facilities in the area was also a hindrance for locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers, while the residents were simply evicted.
** This paper was produced in the scope of the national research project Make This Land German ..... more ** This paper was produced in the scope of the national research project Make This Land German ... Italian ... Hungarian ... Croatian! The Role of Occupation Borders in the Denationalization Policy and Lives of the Slovene Population (J6-8248), which is financed by the Slovenian Research Agency. Additionally, it contributes to the national research programme Slovene History (P6-0235), which is financed by the Slovenian Research Agency as well. 1 The Italian Army marched through Metlika in a parade on 4 May 1941. Rus, Kronika mesta Metlike II., 15.
En krompir, tri države: okupacijske meje na Dolenjskem 1941–1945, 2021
On Occupation Borders in the Dolenjska Region
When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Do... more On Occupation Borders in the Dolenjska Region
When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces mostly remained undivided and part of the territory of the same occupier. Dolenjska, however, was divided among the Germans, Italians and the Independent State of Croatia. The border was drawn by the Germans and moved 10 to 15 kilometers south of the Sava River for military, economic and transport reasons. By June 1941, the Germans also occupied territory across the demarcation line, which is also visible on the map at the beginning of the chapter. Borders were immediately established and moved to new national borders in June. Residents needed passes to cross the border. They were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana province that included Dolenjska also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree. According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Said villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941 that included several Croatian villages. The church life in these villages was greatly affected. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Samobor, which was annexed to said villages. Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Part of these German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to them, Germans from elsewhere were to be settled. The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them from jobs, or in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands were mostly uncultivated since border crossing was restricted, in addition to difficulties in transferring goods from one country to another. In addition to the state border, the erection of various military facilities around the area was also a hindrance for the locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places, individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers. The locals who lived in these houses were evicted.
The occupation border between fascist Italy and the Ustashe Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in... more The occupation border between fascist Italy and the Ustashe Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in Bela krajina ran along the border of the Črnomelj district, from Trdinov vrh along the Gorjanci ridge and Žumberk to the Kolpa River near Božakovo, moving along the Kolpa River up to Predgrad. To prevent the Slovenian and Croatian partisan brigades from crossing the border, the Italians intended to fortify the border at Gorjanci/Žumberk with a corridor of wire fence and bunkers. No wire fence was conceived along the Kolpa River, only fortified bridges and other structures. Due to the capitulation in the spring of 1943, the Italians only managed to build five bunkers near Metlika. The border cut deep into people's daily lives, especially farmers who had land on both sides of the border. People along the border also faced the issue of refugees coming from the NDH, especially the Jewish population. Residents of Žumberk with Orthodox roots believed the border was quite useful since it prevented the Ustashe from coming to the Italian occupation area. In May 1941, there were individual attempts to annex the municipality of Radatovići, which was part of the Černomelj district, to the NDH; and an attempt to annex the entire region of Bela krajina to Nazi Germany. A strong resistance movement evolved very quickly, forcing the Italians to leave smaller border outposts as early as December 1942. From then on, they stayed in larger towns only, surrounding them completely or partially with bunkers and barbed wire. After the capitulation of Italy in September 1943, Bela krajina became a free territory where the headquarters of the National Liberation Army and the partisan detachments of Slovenia was set up in addition to the Executive Committee of the Liberation Front, and many other institutions. By the end of the war, only a couple of individual invasions of Germans and Ustashe had hit Bela krajina. Zilje is a small village on the banks of the Kolpa River. There was a crew of the Italian Guardia di Finanza. The villagers had no problems with them. Like in other places in Bela krajina, the Italian Army deported many men from Zilje to camps. A lot of them died there due to unbearable conditions. Today, comparisons between the former occupation border and the current wired border with the Republic of Croatia are being made.
When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces most... more When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces mostly remained undivided and part of the territory of the same occupier. Dolenjska, however, was divided among the Germans, Italians and the Independent State of Croatia. The border was drawn by the Germans and moved 10 to 15 kilometers south of the Sava River for military, economic and transport reasons. By June 1941, the Germans also occupied territory across the demarcation line, which is also visible on the map at the beginning of the chapter. Borders were immediately established and moved to new national borders in June. Residents needed passes to cross the border. They were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana region that included Dolenjska also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree. According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Said villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941 that included several Croatian villages. The church life was in these villages was greatly affected. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Sabobor, which was annexed to said villages. Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Part of these German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to them, Germans from elsewhere were to be settled. The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them from jobs, or in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands were mostly uncultivated since border crossing was restricted, in addition to difficulties in transferring goods from one country to another. In addition to the state border, the erection of various military facilities around the area was also a hindrance for the locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places, individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers. The locals who lived in these houses were evicted.
Vinceremo, videt čemo: okupacijske meje v Beli krajini 1941–1945, 2020
The World War II outpost in Zilje was first set up by members of the Financial Guard, and later ... more The World War II outpost in Zilje was first set up by members of the Financial Guard, and later by the Royal Army. The outpost was renovated by emptying and reinforcing three houses. They built a bunker in front of one of the houses and dug trenches between them, so they could move safely. All three houses were surrounded by barbed wire. The structures were populated at the beginning of the war, but they were fortified in the autumn of 1942. In the summer of 1942, the people of Zilje were also sent to Italian camps. Most of them were sent to the island of Rab. Due to very bad conditions, people were even dying. The partisans did not attack the Italian crew, also because of the danger that the Italians would take retaliate against the villagers. Children were, naturally, also the victims of the war. It was stressful for them that they had to pass the Italian checkpoint on their way to school in the neighboring village of Preloka. They were constantly stopped by the soldiers. In addition to that, the children were often victims of the Ustashe shooting from the Croatian bank of the Kolpa River. They used to shoot at children when they swam in the river. Luckily nobody was hit since they mostly fired into the air, but it was definitely unnerving for the children. After the Italian capitulation, the villagers demolished the bunker. In one of the houses previously occupied by the Italians, a partisan hospital was operating briefly in the fall of 1943. During the German offensive in the fall of 1943, German troops passed through the village. Later, there were no military operations in the village until the end of the war.
“All Arise, All Come Forward, Help Us Achieve a Glorious Victory!”: The Theory and Practice of El... more “All Arise, All Come Forward, Help Us Achieve a Glorious Victory!”: The Theory and Practice of Elections in the first State of Yugoslavia
The interwar period between the First and the Second World Wars introduced several novel proceedings in the operation of the Parliament that formerly, in the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were unfamiliar to Slovenes.
Parliamentary life during the era of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918–1945) may be divided in two periods. The milestone is the same as the generally perceived division of the interwar period that occurred in 1929 when King Alexander I forcibly dissolved the Parliament and introduced personal dictatorship. Each period was characterized by its own electoral law that differed in several significant aspects. The initial law of 1920 was amended merely two years later. Although the ticket and the distribution of mandates were modified, the essential system of secret ballot and proportional representation, with eligible voters being male citizens of age, remained unchanged. In 1931 the dictatorship of King Alexander abated and the parliamentary system was restored. The new electoral law retained the institution of proportional representation but corrupted it considerably by favoring the strongest party. As a result, the party was repeatedly given a larger share of mandates disproportionate to its portion of votes. In comparison with the electoral system of the 1920s there were two major changes, namely the introduction of state ballot and of open vote. During the first decade of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia the country was divided in over fifty electoral districts largely bound to dministrative or judicial districts. Depending upon its political interests and chances, a party and its ballot stood in a different number of electoral districts. Each electoral district had a fixed number of mandates that were distributed within it. According to the policy of unitarism, a candidate list that wished to stand at the parliamentary elections of the 1930s had to set up candidates in the entire country. As a result of this provision, parties whose character was largely local had to form a coalition even before the election in order to run as candidates. The second major change was the introduction of open vote. In Austria-Hungary voters voted by means of paper ballots on which they marked their choice of candidate. Contrary to this, and in view of the fact that a large percentage of its constituency was illiterate, the Kingdom of Serbia employed the system of ballot balls that was later, and for the same reason, adopted by the electoral law of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918–1929). A voter cast his vote by dropping the ball in the ballot box of his party. Later, in the 1930s, voters voted publicly by loudly and clearly declaring the name of their candidate to the electoral committee, which was clearly a step backwards.
In comparison with other elections of the 1920s, the 1920 election results, which were plainly the reflection of the tumultuous period following the end of the First World War, were quite distinct. The Slovene People’s Party regained its power in the elections of 1923 and retained it through the 1925 and the 1927 elections. The liberal camp, consisting of various bourgeois liberal parties as well as peasants’ and labor (yet non-Marxist) parties, was far too dispersed and unable to find a joint platform for the upcoming elections; after the victory of the Slovene People’s Party they could merely pick the remaining crumbs. The initially good election results of 1920 were thus diluted later on by a lack of unity among different socialist factions, which is why they had not won a mandate in the parliament until 1927. In Slovenia, the period of the 1930s was an interesting one. The formerly strongest Slovene People’s Party did not take part in the elections of 1931 and 1935 but celebrated a triumphant comeback in 1938. In the elections of 1938 the ballot of the Yugoslav opposition, whose leader was Croatian Vladimir Maček, attracted considerable attention in Slovenia because, in addition to other factors, it had managed to draw various political groups.
In the 1920s the poll was higher than a decade later, and this decreasing trend continued until 1935. Although the number of voters in the last elections prior to the Second World War was higher than in other elections of the 1930s it was nevertheless lower than in the 1920s. The significant decrease in 1931 and 1935 may be largely, yet not entirely, attributed to the fact that the Slovene People’s Party did not run in the parliamentary elections in these years. Another significant reason for the steady decline of the poll after 1920 was the unstable political state of affairs of that time. Elections took place virtually every second year and voters were tired of this situation. In addition, the number of eligible voters steadily increased throughout the interwar period, which was due to increased population and the fact that voters were entered in electoral rolls much more consistently.
Political parties presented their platform and candidates in their newspapers and in political rallies. In addition to discussing the rallies of their political option articles also reported on those of the opponent. Most of these reports glorified the successful outcome of their own rally and dwelled on the alleged failure of the adversary’s mass meeting. In presenting the political platform of their party, authors emphasized the mistakes of the opponent and presented them as the crucial reason why a voter should not vote for another party; it was clear that it was the opponents that had brought the country into such detrimental circumstances. The adversary was constantly described as being polluted by corruption, clientelism, and exceedingly high, or disproportionate, taxes. This situation would swiftly improve once the government of the day had been replaced. One of the arguments used against the Slovene People’s Party was that it was accused of betrayal by its opponents when the Party assumed an anti-Serbian stance in 1914.
Another significant task of newspapers was to instruct their readers on how to properly cast their vote. Since there were several ballot boxes the exact position of the corresponding box had to be indicated. Another important element of election propaganda, which seemed more of a threat than an invitation, was a summons to polls. While contingent nonattendance was labeled treacherous the urgency to vote was reinforced by emphasizing the responsibility of voters to cast their vote. Yet there were no serious analyses of political opponents who were often discredited through the use of utterly ill-suited, and even disparaging, terms.
“All Arise, All Come Forward, Help Us Achieve a Glorious Victory!”: The Theory and Practice of El... more “All Arise, All Come Forward, Help Us Achieve a Glorious Victory!”: The Theory and Practice of Elections in the first State of Yugoslavia
The interwar period between the First and the Second World Wars introduced several novel proceedings in the operation of the Parliament that formerly, in the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were unfamiliar to Slovenes.
Parliamentary life during the era of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918–1945) may be divided in two periods. The milestone is the same as the generally perceived division of the interwar period that occurred in 1929 when King Alexander I forcibly dissolved the Parliament and introduced personal dictatorship. Each period was characterized by its own electoral law that differed in several significant aspects. The initial law of 1920 was amended merely two years later. Although the ticket and the distribution of mandates were modified, the essential system of secret ballot and proportional representation, with eligible voters being male citizens of age, remained unchanged. In 1931 the dictatorship of King Alexander abated and the parliamentary system was restored. The new electoral law retained the institution of proportional representation but corrupted it considerably by favoring the strongest party. As a result, the party was repeatedly given a larger share of mandates disproportionate to its portion of votes. In comparison with the electoral system of the 1920s there were two major changes, namely the introduction of state ballot and of open vote. During the first decade of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia the country was divided in over fifty electoral districts largely bound to dministrative or judicial districts. Depending upon its political interests and chances, a party and its ballot stood in a different number of electoral districts. Each electoral district had a fixed number of mandates that were distributed within it. According to the policy of unitarism, a candidate list that wished to stand at the parliamentary elections of the 1930s had to set up candidates in the entire country. As a result of this provision, parties whose character was largely local had to form a coalition even before the election in order to run as candidates. The second major change was the introduction of open vote. In Austria-Hungary voters voted by means of paper ballots on which they marked their choice of candidate. Contrary to this, and in view of the fact that a large percentage of its constituency was illiterate, the Kingdom of Serbia employed the system of ballot balls that was later, and for the same reason, adopted by the electoral law of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918–1929). A voter cast his vote by dropping the ball in the ballot box of his party. Later, in the 1930s, voters voted publicly by loudly and clearly declaring the name of their candidate to the electoral committee, which was clearly a step backwards.
In comparison with other elections of the 1920s, the 1920 election results, which were plainly the reflection of the tumultuous period following the end of the First World War, were quite distinct. The Slovene People’s Party regained its power in the elections of 1923 and retained it through the 1925 and the 1927 elections. The liberal camp, consisting of various bourgeois liberal parties as well as peasants’ and labor (yet non-Marxist) parties, was far too dispersed and unable to find a joint platform for the upcoming elections; after the victory of the Slovene People’s Party they could merely pick the remaining crumbs. The initially good election results of 1920 were thus diluted later on by a lack of unity among different socialist factions, which is why they had not won a mandate in the parliament until 1927. In Slovenia, the period of the 1930s was an interesting one. The formerly strongest Slovene People’s Party did not take part in the elections of 1931 and 1935 but celebrated a triumphant comeback in 1938. In the elections of 1938 the ballot of the Yugoslav opposition, whose leader was Croatian Vladimir Maček, attracted considerable attention in Slovenia because, in addition to other factors, it had managed to draw various political groups.
In the 1920s the poll was higher than a decade later, and this decreasing trend continued until 1935. Although the number of voters in the last elections prior to the Second World War was higher than in other elections of the 1930s it was nevertheless lower than in the 1920s. The significant decrease in 1931 and 1935 may be largely, yet not entirely, attributed to the fact that the Slovene People’s Party did not run in the parliamentary elections in these years. Another significant reason for the steady decline of the poll after 1920 was the unstable political state of affairs of that time. Elections took place virtually every second year and voters were tired of this situation. In addition, the number of eligible voters steadily increased throughout the interwar period, which was due to increased population and the fact that voters were entered in electoral rolls much more consistently.
Political parties presented their platform and candidates in their newspapers and in political rallies. In addition to discussing the rallies of their political option articles also reported on those of the opponent. Most of these reports glorified the successful outcome of their own rally and dwelled on the alleged failure of the adversary’s mass meeting. In presenting the political platform of their party, authors emphasized the mistakes of the opponent and presented them as the crucial reason why a voter should not vote for another party; it was clear that it was the opponents that had brought the country into such detrimental circumstances. The adversary was constantly described as being polluted by corruption, clientelism, and exceedingly high, or disproportionate, taxes. This situation would swiftly improve once the government of the day had been replaced. One of the arguments used against the Slovene People’s Party was that it was accused of betrayal by its opponents when the Party assumed an anti-Serbian stance in 1914.
Another significant task of newspapers was to instruct their readers on how to properly cast their vote. Since there were several ballot boxes the exact position of the corresponding box had to be indicated. Another important element of election propaganda, which seemed more of a threat than an invitation, was a summons to polls. While contingent nonattendance was labeled treacherous the urgency to vote was reinforced by emphasizing the responsibility of voters to cast their vote. Yet there were no serious analyses of political opponents who were often discredited through the use of utterly ill-suited, and even disparaging, terms.
IZVLEČEK
V prispevku avtor prikaže način iskanja literature o rapalski meji v bibliografijah in v ... more IZVLEČEK V prispevku avtor prikaže način iskanja literature o rapalski meji v bibliografijah in v Cobiss. Opozarja na različne oblike bibliografij in načine njihove uporabe. Rezultate iskanja predstavlja po skupinah in opozarja na posebnosti. Iskanje v objavljenih bibliografijah je drugačno kot v Cobissu. Zgradba bibliografij je popolnoma drugačna, kot je struktura Cobissa. Cobiss je po podatkih, ki so vključeni v posamezne zapise, mnogo bogatejši. To potem omogoča poglobljeno iskanje. Izpis rezultatov v Cobissu omogoča tudi najrazličnejša filtriranja, ki pa so predvsem tehnične narave (avtor, jezik, vrste in oblike tekstov). Vpliv na kakovost rezultata iskanja ima predvsem natančnost zapisa iskalnega niza, kjer mora uporabnik upoštevati določena pravila, da bo rezultat iskanja čim boljši, kar v glavnem pomeni, da je število najdenih zapisov čim večje in vsebinsko čim bolj natančno.
Rezultati iskanja v Cobissu vključujejo vnose do marca 2023.
Ključne besede: rapalska meja, bibliografije, Cobiss, literatura
ABSTRACT In this paper, the author shows how to search for literature on the Rapallo border in bibliographies and Cobiss. He points out the diferent forms of bibliographies and how they can be used. The results of the search are presented in groups and specific features are pointed out. Searching in published bibliographies is di1erent from searching in Cobiss. The structure of bibliographies is completely di1erent from that of Cobiss. Cobiss is much richer in the information included in each record. This then allows for more in-depth searching. The output of results in Cobiss also allows a wide variety of filtering, which is mainly technical in nature (author, language, types and formats of texts). The quality of the search result is mainly influenced by the precision of the search string notation, where the user has to follow certain rules in order to obtain the best possible search result, which mainly means that the number of records found is as high as possible and the content as precise as possible.
Cobiss search results include entries up to March 2023.
Keywords: rapala frontier, bibliographies, Cobiss, literature
Bela krajina was occupied during the Second World War by Fascist Italy. An occupation border was ... more Bela krajina was occupied during the Second World War by Fascist Italy. An occupation border was established between Italy and the Ustashe Independent State of Croatia (NDH). Italian military outposts have affected the lives of the civilian population, as presented by some of the recorded memories and collected testimonies of the locals. Today, comparisons between the former occupation border and the current wired border with the Republic of Croatia are being made, especially the one along the Kolpa River. This book is part of research project »Make this country German ... Italian ... Hungarian ... Croatian! The role of occupation borders in national politics and the life of the Slovenian population«, shortly called Occupation borders.
When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces most... more When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces mostly remained undivided and part of the territory of the same occupier. Dolenjska, however, was divided among the Germans, Italians and the Independent State of Croatia. The border was drawn by the Germans and moved 10 to 15 kilometres south of the Sava River for military, economic and transport reasons. By June 1941, the Germans also occupied territory across the demarcation line, which can be seen on the map at the beginning of the chapter. Borders were immediately established and moved to new national borders in June. Residents needed passes to cross the border. These were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana region, which included Dolenjska, also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree. According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Such villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941, which included several Croatian villages. Church life was greatly affected in these villages. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Sabobor, which was annexed to the villages. Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Some of the German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to those who lived near Kočevje, Germans from elsewhere were also settled there. The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them off from their work, and, in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands thus remained mostly uncultivated, since crossing the border was restricted, in addition to the difficulties faced when transferring goods from one country to another. As well as the new borders, the erection of various military facilities in the area was also a hindrance for locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers, while the residents were simply evicted.
** This paper was produced in the scope of the national research project Make This Land German ..... more ** This paper was produced in the scope of the national research project Make This Land German ... Italian ... Hungarian ... Croatian! The Role of Occupation Borders in the Denationalization Policy and Lives of the Slovene Population (J6-8248), which is financed by the Slovenian Research Agency. Additionally, it contributes to the national research programme Slovene History (P6-0235), which is financed by the Slovenian Research Agency as well. 1 The Italian Army marched through Metlika in a parade on 4 May 1941. Rus, Kronika mesta Metlike II., 15.
En krompir, tri države: okupacijske meje na Dolenjskem 1941–1945, 2021
On Occupation Borders in the Dolenjska Region
When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Do... more On Occupation Borders in the Dolenjska Region
When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces mostly remained undivided and part of the territory of the same occupier. Dolenjska, however, was divided among the Germans, Italians and the Independent State of Croatia. The border was drawn by the Germans and moved 10 to 15 kilometers south of the Sava River for military, economic and transport reasons. By June 1941, the Germans also occupied territory across the demarcation line, which is also visible on the map at the beginning of the chapter. Borders were immediately established and moved to new national borders in June. Residents needed passes to cross the border. They were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana province that included Dolenjska also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree. According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Said villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941 that included several Croatian villages. The church life in these villages was greatly affected. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Samobor, which was annexed to said villages. Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Part of these German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to them, Germans from elsewhere were to be settled. The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them from jobs, or in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands were mostly uncultivated since border crossing was restricted, in addition to difficulties in transferring goods from one country to another. In addition to the state border, the erection of various military facilities around the area was also a hindrance for the locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places, individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers. The locals who lived in these houses were evicted.
The occupation border between fascist Italy and the Ustashe Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in... more The occupation border between fascist Italy and the Ustashe Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in Bela krajina ran along the border of the Črnomelj district, from Trdinov vrh along the Gorjanci ridge and Žumberk to the Kolpa River near Božakovo, moving along the Kolpa River up to Predgrad. To prevent the Slovenian and Croatian partisan brigades from crossing the border, the Italians intended to fortify the border at Gorjanci/Žumberk with a corridor of wire fence and bunkers. No wire fence was conceived along the Kolpa River, only fortified bridges and other structures. Due to the capitulation in the spring of 1943, the Italians only managed to build five bunkers near Metlika. The border cut deep into people's daily lives, especially farmers who had land on both sides of the border. People along the border also faced the issue of refugees coming from the NDH, especially the Jewish population. Residents of Žumberk with Orthodox roots believed the border was quite useful since it prevented the Ustashe from coming to the Italian occupation area. In May 1941, there were individual attempts to annex the municipality of Radatovići, which was part of the Černomelj district, to the NDH; and an attempt to annex the entire region of Bela krajina to Nazi Germany. A strong resistance movement evolved very quickly, forcing the Italians to leave smaller border outposts as early as December 1942. From then on, they stayed in larger towns only, surrounding them completely or partially with bunkers and barbed wire. After the capitulation of Italy in September 1943, Bela krajina became a free territory where the headquarters of the National Liberation Army and the partisan detachments of Slovenia was set up in addition to the Executive Committee of the Liberation Front, and many other institutions. By the end of the war, only a couple of individual invasions of Germans and Ustashe had hit Bela krajina. Zilje is a small village on the banks of the Kolpa River. There was a crew of the Italian Guardia di Finanza. The villagers had no problems with them. Like in other places in Bela krajina, the Italian Army deported many men from Zilje to camps. A lot of them died there due to unbearable conditions. Today, comparisons between the former occupation border and the current wired border with the Republic of Croatia are being made.
When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces most... more When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces mostly remained undivided and part of the territory of the same occupier. Dolenjska, however, was divided among the Germans, Italians and the Independent State of Croatia. The border was drawn by the Germans and moved 10 to 15 kilometers south of the Sava River for military, economic and transport reasons. By June 1941, the Germans also occupied territory across the demarcation line, which is also visible on the map at the beginning of the chapter. Borders were immediately established and moved to new national borders in June. Residents needed passes to cross the border. They were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana region that included Dolenjska also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree. According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Said villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941 that included several Croatian villages. The church life was in these villages was greatly affected. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Sabobor, which was annexed to said villages. Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Part of these German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to them, Germans from elsewhere were to be settled. The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them from jobs, or in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands were mostly uncultivated since border crossing was restricted, in addition to difficulties in transferring goods from one country to another. In addition to the state border, the erection of various military facilities around the area was also a hindrance for the locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places, individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers. The locals who lived in these houses were evicted.
Vinceremo, videt čemo: okupacijske meje v Beli krajini 1941–1945, 2020
The World War II outpost in Zilje was first set up by members of the Financial Guard, and later ... more The World War II outpost in Zilje was first set up by members of the Financial Guard, and later by the Royal Army. The outpost was renovated by emptying and reinforcing three houses. They built a bunker in front of one of the houses and dug trenches between them, so they could move safely. All three houses were surrounded by barbed wire. The structures were populated at the beginning of the war, but they were fortified in the autumn of 1942. In the summer of 1942, the people of Zilje were also sent to Italian camps. Most of them were sent to the island of Rab. Due to very bad conditions, people were even dying. The partisans did not attack the Italian crew, also because of the danger that the Italians would take retaliate against the villagers. Children were, naturally, also the victims of the war. It was stressful for them that they had to pass the Italian checkpoint on their way to school in the neighboring village of Preloka. They were constantly stopped by the soldiers. In addition to that, the children were often victims of the Ustashe shooting from the Croatian bank of the Kolpa River. They used to shoot at children when they swam in the river. Luckily nobody was hit since they mostly fired into the air, but it was definitely unnerving for the children. After the Italian capitulation, the villagers demolished the bunker. In one of the houses previously occupied by the Italians, a partisan hospital was operating briefly in the fall of 1943. During the German offensive in the fall of 1943, German troops passed through the village. Later, there were no military operations in the village until the end of the war.
“All Arise, All Come Forward, Help Us Achieve a Glorious Victory!”: The Theory and Practice of El... more “All Arise, All Come Forward, Help Us Achieve a Glorious Victory!”: The Theory and Practice of Elections in the first State of Yugoslavia
The interwar period between the First and the Second World Wars introduced several novel proceedings in the operation of the Parliament that formerly, in the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were unfamiliar to Slovenes.
Parliamentary life during the era of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918–1945) may be divided in two periods. The milestone is the same as the generally perceived division of the interwar period that occurred in 1929 when King Alexander I forcibly dissolved the Parliament and introduced personal dictatorship. Each period was characterized by its own electoral law that differed in several significant aspects. The initial law of 1920 was amended merely two years later. Although the ticket and the distribution of mandates were modified, the essential system of secret ballot and proportional representation, with eligible voters being male citizens of age, remained unchanged. In 1931 the dictatorship of King Alexander abated and the parliamentary system was restored. The new electoral law retained the institution of proportional representation but corrupted it considerably by favoring the strongest party. As a result, the party was repeatedly given a larger share of mandates disproportionate to its portion of votes. In comparison with the electoral system of the 1920s there were two major changes, namely the introduction of state ballot and of open vote. During the first decade of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia the country was divided in over fifty electoral districts largely bound to dministrative or judicial districts. Depending upon its political interests and chances, a party and its ballot stood in a different number of electoral districts. Each electoral district had a fixed number of mandates that were distributed within it. According to the policy of unitarism, a candidate list that wished to stand at the parliamentary elections of the 1930s had to set up candidates in the entire country. As a result of this provision, parties whose character was largely local had to form a coalition even before the election in order to run as candidates. The second major change was the introduction of open vote. In Austria-Hungary voters voted by means of paper ballots on which they marked their choice of candidate. Contrary to this, and in view of the fact that a large percentage of its constituency was illiterate, the Kingdom of Serbia employed the system of ballot balls that was later, and for the same reason, adopted by the electoral law of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918–1929). A voter cast his vote by dropping the ball in the ballot box of his party. Later, in the 1930s, voters voted publicly by loudly and clearly declaring the name of their candidate to the electoral committee, which was clearly a step backwards.
In comparison with other elections of the 1920s, the 1920 election results, which were plainly the reflection of the tumultuous period following the end of the First World War, were quite distinct. The Slovene People’s Party regained its power in the elections of 1923 and retained it through the 1925 and the 1927 elections. The liberal camp, consisting of various bourgeois liberal parties as well as peasants’ and labor (yet non-Marxist) parties, was far too dispersed and unable to find a joint platform for the upcoming elections; after the victory of the Slovene People’s Party they could merely pick the remaining crumbs. The initially good election results of 1920 were thus diluted later on by a lack of unity among different socialist factions, which is why they had not won a mandate in the parliament until 1927. In Slovenia, the period of the 1930s was an interesting one. The formerly strongest Slovene People’s Party did not take part in the elections of 1931 and 1935 but celebrated a triumphant comeback in 1938. In the elections of 1938 the ballot of the Yugoslav opposition, whose leader was Croatian Vladimir Maček, attracted considerable attention in Slovenia because, in addition to other factors, it had managed to draw various political groups.
In the 1920s the poll was higher than a decade later, and this decreasing trend continued until 1935. Although the number of voters in the last elections prior to the Second World War was higher than in other elections of the 1930s it was nevertheless lower than in the 1920s. The significant decrease in 1931 and 1935 may be largely, yet not entirely, attributed to the fact that the Slovene People’s Party did not run in the parliamentary elections in these years. Another significant reason for the steady decline of the poll after 1920 was the unstable political state of affairs of that time. Elections took place virtually every second year and voters were tired of this situation. In addition, the number of eligible voters steadily increased throughout the interwar period, which was due to increased population and the fact that voters were entered in electoral rolls much more consistently.
Political parties presented their platform and candidates in their newspapers and in political rallies. In addition to discussing the rallies of their political option articles also reported on those of the opponent. Most of these reports glorified the successful outcome of their own rally and dwelled on the alleged failure of the adversary’s mass meeting. In presenting the political platform of their party, authors emphasized the mistakes of the opponent and presented them as the crucial reason why a voter should not vote for another party; it was clear that it was the opponents that had brought the country into such detrimental circumstances. The adversary was constantly described as being polluted by corruption, clientelism, and exceedingly high, or disproportionate, taxes. This situation would swiftly improve once the government of the day had been replaced. One of the arguments used against the Slovene People’s Party was that it was accused of betrayal by its opponents when the Party assumed an anti-Serbian stance in 1914.
Another significant task of newspapers was to instruct their readers on how to properly cast their vote. Since there were several ballot boxes the exact position of the corresponding box had to be indicated. Another important element of election propaganda, which seemed more of a threat than an invitation, was a summons to polls. While contingent nonattendance was labeled treacherous the urgency to vote was reinforced by emphasizing the responsibility of voters to cast their vote. Yet there were no serious analyses of political opponents who were often discredited through the use of utterly ill-suited, and even disparaging, terms.
“All Arise, All Come Forward, Help Us Achieve a Glorious Victory!”: The Theory and Practice of El... more “All Arise, All Come Forward, Help Us Achieve a Glorious Victory!”: The Theory and Practice of Elections in the first State of Yugoslavia
The interwar period between the First and the Second World Wars introduced several novel proceedings in the operation of the Parliament that formerly, in the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were unfamiliar to Slovenes.
Parliamentary life during the era of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918–1945) may be divided in two periods. The milestone is the same as the generally perceived division of the interwar period that occurred in 1929 when King Alexander I forcibly dissolved the Parliament and introduced personal dictatorship. Each period was characterized by its own electoral law that differed in several significant aspects. The initial law of 1920 was amended merely two years later. Although the ticket and the distribution of mandates were modified, the essential system of secret ballot and proportional representation, with eligible voters being male citizens of age, remained unchanged. In 1931 the dictatorship of King Alexander abated and the parliamentary system was restored. The new electoral law retained the institution of proportional representation but corrupted it considerably by favoring the strongest party. As a result, the party was repeatedly given a larger share of mandates disproportionate to its portion of votes. In comparison with the electoral system of the 1920s there were two major changes, namely the introduction of state ballot and of open vote. During the first decade of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia the country was divided in over fifty electoral districts largely bound to dministrative or judicial districts. Depending upon its political interests and chances, a party and its ballot stood in a different number of electoral districts. Each electoral district had a fixed number of mandates that were distributed within it. According to the policy of unitarism, a candidate list that wished to stand at the parliamentary elections of the 1930s had to set up candidates in the entire country. As a result of this provision, parties whose character was largely local had to form a coalition even before the election in order to run as candidates. The second major change was the introduction of open vote. In Austria-Hungary voters voted by means of paper ballots on which they marked their choice of candidate. Contrary to this, and in view of the fact that a large percentage of its constituency was illiterate, the Kingdom of Serbia employed the system of ballot balls that was later, and for the same reason, adopted by the electoral law of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918–1929). A voter cast his vote by dropping the ball in the ballot box of his party. Later, in the 1930s, voters voted publicly by loudly and clearly declaring the name of their candidate to the electoral committee, which was clearly a step backwards.
In comparison with other elections of the 1920s, the 1920 election results, which were plainly the reflection of the tumultuous period following the end of the First World War, were quite distinct. The Slovene People’s Party regained its power in the elections of 1923 and retained it through the 1925 and the 1927 elections. The liberal camp, consisting of various bourgeois liberal parties as well as peasants’ and labor (yet non-Marxist) parties, was far too dispersed and unable to find a joint platform for the upcoming elections; after the victory of the Slovene People’s Party they could merely pick the remaining crumbs. The initially good election results of 1920 were thus diluted later on by a lack of unity among different socialist factions, which is why they had not won a mandate in the parliament until 1927. In Slovenia, the period of the 1930s was an interesting one. The formerly strongest Slovene People’s Party did not take part in the elections of 1931 and 1935 but celebrated a triumphant comeback in 1938. In the elections of 1938 the ballot of the Yugoslav opposition, whose leader was Croatian Vladimir Maček, attracted considerable attention in Slovenia because, in addition to other factors, it had managed to draw various political groups.
In the 1920s the poll was higher than a decade later, and this decreasing trend continued until 1935. Although the number of voters in the last elections prior to the Second World War was higher than in other elections of the 1930s it was nevertheless lower than in the 1920s. The significant decrease in 1931 and 1935 may be largely, yet not entirely, attributed to the fact that the Slovene People’s Party did not run in the parliamentary elections in these years. Another significant reason for the steady decline of the poll after 1920 was the unstable political state of affairs of that time. Elections took place virtually every second year and voters were tired of this situation. In addition, the number of eligible voters steadily increased throughout the interwar period, which was due to increased population and the fact that voters were entered in electoral rolls much more consistently.
Political parties presented their platform and candidates in their newspapers and in political rallies. In addition to discussing the rallies of their political option articles also reported on those of the opponent. Most of these reports glorified the successful outcome of their own rally and dwelled on the alleged failure of the adversary’s mass meeting. In presenting the political platform of their party, authors emphasized the mistakes of the opponent and presented them as the crucial reason why a voter should not vote for another party; it was clear that it was the opponents that had brought the country into such detrimental circumstances. The adversary was constantly described as being polluted by corruption, clientelism, and exceedingly high, or disproportionate, taxes. This situation would swiftly improve once the government of the day had been replaced. One of the arguments used against the Slovene People’s Party was that it was accused of betrayal by its opponents when the Party assumed an anti-Serbian stance in 1914.
Another significant task of newspapers was to instruct their readers on how to properly cast their vote. Since there were several ballot boxes the exact position of the corresponding box had to be indicated. Another important element of election propaganda, which seemed more of a threat than an invitation, was a summons to polls. While contingent nonattendance was labeled treacherous the urgency to vote was reinforced by emphasizing the responsibility of voters to cast their vote. Yet there were no serious analyses of political opponents who were often discredited through the use of utterly ill-suited, and even disparaging, terms.
IZVLEČEK
V prispevku avtor prikaže način iskanja literature o rapalski meji v bibliografijah in v ... more IZVLEČEK V prispevku avtor prikaže način iskanja literature o rapalski meji v bibliografijah in v Cobiss. Opozarja na različne oblike bibliografij in načine njihove uporabe. Rezultate iskanja predstavlja po skupinah in opozarja na posebnosti. Iskanje v objavljenih bibliografijah je drugačno kot v Cobissu. Zgradba bibliografij je popolnoma drugačna, kot je struktura Cobissa. Cobiss je po podatkih, ki so vključeni v posamezne zapise, mnogo bogatejši. To potem omogoča poglobljeno iskanje. Izpis rezultatov v Cobissu omogoča tudi najrazličnejša filtriranja, ki pa so predvsem tehnične narave (avtor, jezik, vrste in oblike tekstov). Vpliv na kakovost rezultata iskanja ima predvsem natančnost zapisa iskalnega niza, kjer mora uporabnik upoštevati določena pravila, da bo rezultat iskanja čim boljši, kar v glavnem pomeni, da je število najdenih zapisov čim večje in vsebinsko čim bolj natančno.
Rezultati iskanja v Cobissu vključujejo vnose do marca 2023.
Ključne besede: rapalska meja, bibliografije, Cobiss, literatura
ABSTRACT In this paper, the author shows how to search for literature on the Rapallo border in bibliographies and Cobiss. He points out the diferent forms of bibliographies and how they can be used. The results of the search are presented in groups and specific features are pointed out. Searching in published bibliographies is di1erent from searching in Cobiss. The structure of bibliographies is completely di1erent from that of Cobiss. Cobiss is much richer in the information included in each record. This then allows for more in-depth searching. The output of results in Cobiss also allows a wide variety of filtering, which is mainly technical in nature (author, language, types and formats of texts). The quality of the search result is mainly influenced by the precision of the search string notation, where the user has to follow certain rules in order to obtain the best possible search result, which mainly means that the number of records found is as high as possible and the content as precise as possible.
Cobiss search results include entries up to March 2023.
Keywords: rapala frontier, bibliographies, Cobiss, literature
Bela krajina was occupied during the Second World War by Fascist Italy. An occupation border was ... more Bela krajina was occupied during the Second World War by Fascist Italy. An occupation border was established between Italy and the Ustashe Independent State of Croatia (NDH). Italian military outposts have affected the lives of the civilian population, as presented by some of the recorded memories and collected testimonies of the locals. Today, comparisons between the former occupation border and the current wired border with the Republic of Croatia are being made, especially the one along the Kolpa River. This book is part of research project »Make this country German ... Italian ... Hungarian ... Croatian! The role of occupation borders in national politics and the life of the Slovenian population«, shortly called Occupation borders.
U međuratnom jugoslavenskom izbornom zakonodavstvu razlikujemo dva razdoblja koja se podudaraju s... more U međuratnom jugoslavenskom izbornom zakonodavstvu razlikujemo dva razdoblja koja se podudaraju s opcom podjelom politicke povijesti Kraljevine. Dvadesetih godina vrijedilo je zakonodavstvo usvojeno 1920. i djelomicno promijenjeno 1922. godine. Država je bila podijeljena na izborne jedinice. Glasali su samo muskarci, na tajnim izborima. Mandati su se dodjeljivali prema proporcionalnom sustavu. Tridesetih godina na snazi je bilo zakonodavstvo iz 1931., koje je ispravljeno 1933. godine. Jos su uvijek glasali samo muskarci. Biralo se javno, i to za zemaljske liste kandidata. Izborni je zakon, unatoc proporcionalnoj podjeli mandata, favorizirao pobjednicku listu.
O predsednikih vlad v Kraljevini SHS/Jugoslaviji in nekaj osnovnih značilnosti in podatkov o teh ... more O predsednikih vlad v Kraljevini SHS/Jugoslaviji in nekaj osnovnih značilnosti in podatkov o teh politikih.
Ukrajina in Rusija se ne pogajata o miru. V mednarodnih odnosih ni nobene inciative za sklenitev ... more Ukrajina in Rusija se ne pogajata o miru. V mednarodnih odnosih ni nobene inciative za sklenitev miru. Kakšna je vojna škoda in kdo ima profit.
Ukraine and Russia are not negotiating peace. In international relations, there is no initiative to conclude peace. What is war damage and who profits.
Die Ukraine und Russland verhandeln nicht über Frieden. In den internationalen Beziehungen gibt es keine Friedensinitiative. Was ist Kriegsschaden und wer profitiert?
The goal of the Zagreb conference “The Tito-Stalin Split: 70 Years Later”, Zagreb-Goli Otok, 28-3... more The goal of the Zagreb conference “The Tito-Stalin Split: 70 Years Later”, Zagreb-Goli Otok, 28-30 June 2018, as well as of the papers presented, was to show not only the new interpretations and takes on the subject, but to present the Yugoslav 1948 as a global event, one that touched lives of so many people around the world. It had a very significant impact not only on politics, international relations, prisoners, army cooperation and army relations, ideology, but also cultural life and production, especially in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Most of the papers presented at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, which co-organized the whole event with colleagues from the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, are published in this volume. A few papers were presented but the authors did not contribute the text (those were: Mark Kramer, Peter Ruggenthaler, Ondřej Vojtěchovský, Klaus Buchenau, Andreii Edemskii, Boris Stamenic, and Marie-Janine Calic). Also, one paper on China was not presented, but the text is here. We hope this volume will be an important contribution to the continuous dialogue that should be not only regional, but global. It should also be ongoing, since there is hardly an event in the history of the Cold War whose consequences were as important and as global as this one’s. (from the Preface)The book is co-published by the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences – Department of History (Postgraduate Doctoral Studies “Modern and Contemporary Croatian History In European and World Context”) & the University of Ljubljana Faculty of Arts – Department of History, as a volume 31 in the Historia series.
Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, May 5, 2021
On Occupation Borders in the Dolenjska Region When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dol... more On Occupation Borders in the Dolenjska Region When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces mostly remained undivided and part of the territory of the same occupier. Dolenjska, however, was divided among the Germans, Italians and the Independent State of Croatia. The border was drawn by the Germans and moved 10 to 15 kilometers south of the Sava River for military, economic and transport reasons. By June 1941, the Germans also occupied territory across the demarcation line, which is also visible on the map at the beginning of the chapter. Borders were immediately established and moved to new national borders in June. Residents needed passes to cross the border. They were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana province that included Dolenjska also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree. According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Said villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941 that included several Croatian villages. The church life in these villages was greatly affected. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Samobor, which was annexed to said villages. Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Part of these German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to them, Germans from elsewhere were to be settled. The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them from jobs, or in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands were mostly uncultivated since border crossing was restricted, in addition to difficulties in transferring goods from one country to another. In addition to the state border, the erection of various military facilities around the area was also a hindrance for the locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places, individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers. The locals who lived in these houses were evicted.
U međuratnom jugoslavenskom izbornom zakonodavstvu razlikujemo dva razdoblja koja se podudaraju s... more U međuratnom jugoslavenskom izbornom zakonodavstvu razlikujemo dva razdoblja koja se podudaraju s općom podjelom političke povijesti Kraljevine. Dvadesetih godina vrijedilo je zakonodavstvo usvojeno 1920. i djelomično promijenjeno 1922. godine. Država je bila podijeljena na izborne jedinice. Glasali su samo muškarci, na tajnim izborima. Mandati su se dodjeljivali prema proporcionalnom sustavu. Tridesetih godina na snazi je bilo zakonodavstvo iz 1931., koje je ispravljeno 1933. godine. Još su uvijek glasali samo muškarci. Biralo se javno, i to za zemaljske liste kandidata. Izborni je zakon, unatoč proporcionalnoj podjeli mandata, favorizirao pobjedničku listu.Parliamentary life in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Yugoslavia (1918–1941) can be divided in two periods. The first period spans from the 1920s to the second half of the 1930s. The milestone was in 1929 when King Alexander I forcibly dissolved the Parliament and introduced personal dictatorship. The first law was int...
Predstavitev raziskovalnega projekta, ki ga izvaja Oddelek za zgodovino s partnerji. Predstavitev... more Predstavitev raziskovalnega projekta, ki ga izvaja Oddelek za zgodovino s partnerji. Predstavitev je bila na 40. zborovanju slovenskih zgodovinarjev v Novi Gorici, 19. aprila 2023. V posnetku so posamezni deli dosegljivi na naslednjih časovnicah..
00:01:25 Božo Repe, Slovenci in velike sile po koncu prve svetovne vojne 00:24:19 Bojan Balkovec, Slovenska historiografija o severni meji in rapalski meji v 20. stoletju 00:43:09 Janez Peter Grom in Alenka Fikfak, Rapalska meja in njen vpliv na prostorski razvoj okolice 01:04:01 Peter Mikša, Rapalska meja in njen vpliv na prostorski razvoj okolice 01:24:00 Aleksander Duh, Obrambne linije rapalske meje na primeru šestega sektorja Rupnikove linije
Predavanje predstavlja nekaj primerov objavljanja sklepov Narodne vlade SHS iz novembra in decemb... more Predavanje predstavlja nekaj primerov objavljanja sklepov Narodne vlade SHS iz novembra in decembra 1918.
Sodelavci raziskovalnega projekta Napravite mi to deželo nemško ... italijansko … madžarsko … hrv... more Sodelavci raziskovalnega projekta Napravite mi to deželo nemško ... italijansko … madžarsko … hrvaško! Vloga okupacijskih meja v raznarodovalni politiki in življenju slovenskega prebivalstva pri svojem delu uporabljamo različne vrste arhivskega gradiva, ki ga dopolnjujemo z intervjuji. Arhivsko gradivo smo iskali v domačih in tujih arhivih, ki hranijo gradivo, ki razjasnjuje oblikovanje in vzdrževanje meje med različnimi okupatorji, ki so zasedli Slovenijo. Sestava raziskovalne skupine, ki vključuje tudi geografe, je za večino zgodovinarjev pomenila veliko in pozitivno spremembo pri raziskovalnem delu. Glede na vsebino raziskave je tokrat pomemben del postalo delo na terenu. Delo na terenu pomeni iskanje materialnih ostankov meja v naravi (betonski ali železni ostanki, ponekod posamezne stavbe). Za percepcijo posameznikov in skupine iz okolja, kjer je bila meja, pa so pomembna tudi različna pričevanja. Zbiranje pričevanj ima dve izhodiščni točki. Prva je pričevanje posameznikov, ki so živeli ob okupacijskih mejah, ali pa jim je v času vojne meja pomenila pomembno oviro za njihovo običajno življenje. Poleg tega ti intervjuji običajno niso povezani z delom na terenu, v smislu odkrivanja ostankov meja. V vsebinskem smislu so ti intervjuji obsežnejši in se ne dotikajo le vprašanj meje, ampak vseh področij življenja v času okupacije. Posebej ob slovensko hrvaški meji pa tudi aktualnega dogajanja z bodečo žico, kjer nehote prihaja do primerjav in vzporednic s časom druge svetovne vojne. Katere vsebine bodo zajete v intervjuju oz. katera vprašanja oz. podvprašanja bodo zastavljena je odvisno od starosti intervjuvanca. Najstarejša intervjuvanka je bila rojena leta 1919, večina med 1920 in 1940. Pomemben je tudi geografski vidik, namreč kje je intervjuvanec živel. Največji del intervjuvancev je živel na podeželju ali pa v manjših krajih. Le nekaj jih je iz večjih krajev oz. krajev s kakšnim večjim industrijskim obratom. Drug tip zbiranja pričevanj pa ni načrten, ampak spontan. Spontan je na način, da ob raziskovanju na terenu srečujemo posameznike, ki živijo blizu za nas zanimivih lokacijah. Hitro navežemo stik in osebo povprašamo o morebitnih spominih, morda osebnih morda iz pripovedovanj prednikov ali o splošnih vedenjih v kraju. Odziv ljudi na terenu, ki jih prosimo, da nam povedo kar vedo o objektu, lokaciji ali meji, je odličen, saj le redko kdo ni pripravljen dati izjavo. V takšnem primeru prosimo, da nam povedo zgodbo, potem pa to v kamero pove nekdo od prisotnih sodelavcev projekta. Pristno pripovedovanje je za nas raziskovalce zanimivo iz več razlogov. Med njimi so zagotovo jezik, pogosto dialekt, nato besednjak, način pripovedovanja (prepričljivo, polno podrobnih opisov, natančno) in vsekakor tudi osebni odnos do vsebine, ki jo ima lahko samo nekdo, ki ima neposredno osebno zvezo z dogodki, ki jih opisuje. Po nekaj mesecih izvajanja projekta smo se odločili, da bomo za širjenje informacij o izvajanju projekta uporabili platformi Facebook in YouTube. Predvsem FB se je pokazal kot pomemben, saj omogoča dvosmerno komunikacijo. Objavljamo dele intervjujev in posnetke s terena, kjer sodelavci projekta in naključni intervjuvanci opisujejo mejo, ostanke ali se spominjajo dogodkov. Prvi vtis o zanimanju kaže število obiskov in dolžina ogledov video posnetkov. Zanimivi pa so tudi odzivi na posnetke. Dragoceni so predvsem tisti, kjer ogledovalci dodajo informacije, ki so za nas nove, ali pa z informacijami dopolnjujejo navedbe intervjuvancev.
In our work, we, collaborators on the research project Napravite mi to deželo nemško... italijansko ... madžarsko ... hrvaško! Vloga okupacijskih meja v raznarodovalni politiki in življenju slovenskega prebivalstva / Make This Country German ... Italian ... Hungarian ... Croatian! Role of Occupation Borders in the Denationalisation Policy and in the Lives of Slovenian Population, use various types of archival material and complement it with interviews. We searched for archival material in the domestic and foreign archives that house materials which clarify how the border between the different occupiers that had occupied Slovenia had been formed and maintained. For historians, the composition of the research group, which also includes geographers, has made a great and positive change to our research work. Due to the contents of the research, fieldwork became an important part of the project. Fieldwork means looking for the material remains of borders in nature (concrete or iron remains, in some places even buildings). Various eyewitness accounts are significant for forming a perception of individuals and groups from the environment in which the border was located. The collecting of eyewitness accounts has two starting points. Firstly, the eyewitness accounts of individuals who lived along the occupation borders or whose daily lives during the war were greatly hindered by the border. Moreover, such interviews are usually not connected with fieldwork, in the sense of discovering the remains of borders. Content-wise, such interviews are more comprehensive and touch on not only the border issues but on all areas of life in a time of occupation. Especially in the case of the Slovenian-Croatian border, they also broach the events surrounding the current barbed wire, inadvertently drawing comparisons and parallels with the time of World War II. Which contents will be covered in the interview or which questions or subquestions will be asked depends on the age of the interviewee. The oldest female interviewee was born in 1919, while most of them were born between 1920 and 1940. Another factor is the geographical aspect, namely where the interviewee lived. The largest proportion of interviewees lived in the countryside or in smaller localities. Only a few of them come from larger localities or from localities with a large industrial plant. The second method of collecting eyewitness accounts is not planned but spontaneous. Spontaneous in the sense that while conducting research in the field we come across individuals who live near locations that are of interest to us. We quickly establish contact and ask the person about any potential memories, either personal or based on stories told by their ancestors or on the common knowledge in those parts. We have had a great response from the people in the field who were asked to tell us what they knew about a building, location or the border, because only rarely was someone not willing to make a statement. They were asked to tell us a story and later on the same story was told to the camera by one of the project collaborators present. To us, researchers, authentic storytelling is interesting for several reasons. These undoubtedly include language, which is often a dialect, followed by vocabulary, the form of storytelling (convincing, full of detailed descriptions, accurate) and, by all means, the personal attitude towards the content, which can be held only by someone directly involved in the events he/she is describing. After several months of implementing the project, we decided to use the Facebook and YouTube platforms to spread information about project implementation. FB proved to be especially important because it enables two-way communication. We post parts of interviews and field footage in which project collaborators and random interviewees describe the border and its remains, and reminisce about events. The number of visits and the watch time give a first impression of how interested people are in this project. Also interesting are people’s reactions to the videos. Especially valuable are those in which the viewers add information that is new to us or in which they complement interviewees’ statements with additional information.
Šestinštirideset let od konca druge svetovne vojne, do osamosvojitve Slovenije je bil zelo dinami... more Šestinštirideset let od konca druge svetovne vojne, do osamosvojitve Slovenije je bil zelo dinamičen čas. Pomemben dejavnik sprememb je bilo tudi spreminjanje demografske slike. Po popisu leta 1948 je v Sloveniji živeli 1.439.800, leta 1991 pa 1.965.986., kar pomeni več kot tretjinski prirast. A ob številčnem prirastu, se je prebivalstvo postaralo. Če je bila leta 1948 povprečna starost obeh spolov 30,7 let, je bila triinštirideset let kasneje 35,9 let. Moška povprečna starost je bila v obeh primerih nižja in tudi njeno zvišanje je bilo manjše. Ženske so se povprečno postarale za 6 let, moški le za 5,2 let. Staranje prebivalstva kaže tudi delež starostnih skupin. Leta 1948 je bilo mlajših od 19 let 38,5% prebivalce, leta 1991 pa 27,9%. Staranje se vidi tudi na drugo strani starostne strukture. Starejših od 60 let je bilo na začetku omenjenega časa skoraj 11%, ob koncu pa več kot 16%. Demografske spremembe so povezane tudi z distribucijo dohodkov, kamor prištevamo tudi pokojnine. V prvih letih je bil pokojninski sistem pogosto preoblikovan. Preoblikovanja so bila najprej povezana s poenotenjem prej različnih oblik zavarovanj, ki so obstajala za posamezne skupine delavcev. Zakonodaja je te vse oblike združevala v enoten tip zavarovanja in za vse delavce. Različne oblike pristojnosti pokojninskih zavodov v Sloveniji so bili povezani s stopnjo (de)centralizacije. Po uvedbi samoupravljanja je bilo to na določen način vključene tudi v organe pokojninskih inštitucij. Demografske spremembe in spremembe števila in vrste zaposlenih so silile v razmisleke o načinih zbiranja sredstev in o njihovi distribuciji.
Zveza gospodinj je od 1932 do 1942 izdajala revijo Gospodinja. Pomemben del vsebine so bili razli... more Zveza gospodinj je od 1932 do 1942 izdajala revijo Gospodinja. Pomemben del vsebine so bili različni članki o zdravi prehrani, pravilni pripravi hrane in njeni hrambi. Bralcem so svetovali z jedilniki in recepti in opozarjali na prednosti uporabe elektrike in plina v kuhinji. Svoje mesto so našli tako običajni, kot tudi bogatejši in praznični jedilniki, in tudi vegetarijanski. Nekateri jedilniki so opremljeni tudi s komentarji o primernosti za posamezne poklicne in starostne skupine prebivalstva.
The Association of Housewives published the magazine Gospodinja (i.e. Housewife) from 1932 to 1942. Various articles on a healthy diet, the appropriate preparation and storage of food represented a significant part of its contents. The magazine provided advice on menus and recipes and pointed out the advantages of using electricity and gas in the cuisine. The usual as well as richer and festive, but also vegetarian menus found their way into the magazine. Some menus were fitted with comments on their suitability for respective occupational and age groups of the population.
Ker je slovenska nacionalna država še mlada, si radi predstavljamo, da je takšna tudi naša izkušn... more Ker je slovenska nacionalna država še mlada, si radi predstavljamo, da je takšna tudi naša izkušnja s strankarstvom, volitvami, parlamentarizmom in demokracijo. Toda ta vtis, ta zgodovinski spomin ni nujno pravilen. Volilna pravica je bila sicer dolgo močno omejena – v tem smislu so bili ključni dejavniki ne le spol, ampak tudi stan, izobrazba in premoženje –, toda kakih deset odstotkov naših prednikov je bilo v rajnki Avstriji prvič povabljenih na volitve že sredi devetnajstega stoletja, v času marčne revolucije in pomladi narodov. Potem se je – ne, seveda, brez zatikanja – volilna pravica zlagoma širila, dokler se leta 1907 na volišča niso smeli odpraviti vsi polnoletni moški v avstrijski polovici Habsburške monarhije. In čeprav so bile v dvajsetem stoletju politične razmere pri nas pogosto nenaklonjene klasičnemu, voljenemu in pluralnemu parlamentarizmu, smo Slovenci kar pogosto in prizadevno odhajali na volitve. Ko se zdaj oziramo na te vaje iz množične politične participacije, se nam lahko zdi, da niso vselej dosegale zadovoljivih demokratičnih standardov. Toda – ali so zadeve tako videli tudi Slovenci nekdanjih dni? Kakšen odnos so pravzaprav imeli do volitev in strank, do poslancev in njihovega dela, kje so se informirali o dogajanjih v parlamentih, skupščinah in državnih zborih? Kolikšna je, ne nazadnje, dejansko bila realna politična moč teh voljenih ustanov? – Ta in druga sorodna vprašanja smo pretresali v tokratnih Glasovih svetov. Odgovore so nam pomagali iskati trije zgodovinarji, ki so se znanstveno posvečali prav raziskovanju volitev in parlamentarizma v slovenski zgodovini: dr. Bojan Balkovec, predavatelj na Oddelku za zgodovino ljubljanske Filozofske fakultete, ter dr. Jure Gašparič in dr. Marko Zajc, oba raziskovalca na Inštitutu za novejšo zgodovino. Z njimi se je pogovarjal Goran Dekleva.
Ob petinsedemdeseti obletnici premiere prvega svlovenskega zvočnega celovečernega filma Na svoji ... more Ob petinsedemdeseti obletnici premiere prvega svlovenskega zvočnega celovečernega filma Na svoji zemlji, so se pogovarjali Aleš Gabrič, Peter Mikša in Bojan Balkovec
Letos mineva osemdeset let od izkrcanja zaveznikov v Normandiji, s čimer so odprli t.im. drugo fr... more Letos mineva osemdeset let od izkrcanja zaveznikov v Normandiji, s čimer so odprli t.im. drugo fronto. O izkrcanju in okoliščinah okoli te velike vojaške operacije se je Bojan Balkovec pogovarjal z Blažem Torkarjem.
Panel se je osredotočal na dejstvo, da so zgodovinarji pogosto tudi komentatorji sedanjosti. Soča... more Panel se je osredotočal na dejstvo, da so zgodovinarji pogosto tudi komentatorji sedanjosti. Sočasno se komentatorji pogosto zatekajo k zgodovinskim dogodkom in procesom za razumevanje sedanjosti. Zgodovinarji nudijo edinstven pogled na problematiko sedanjosti, saj poznajo, kako so pretekli dogodki, trendi in odločitve oblikovale svet, v katerem živimo danes. To je pomembno zlasti, ko je treba aktualne dogodke in procese postaviti v širši kontekst. Zgodovinarji lahko pojasnijo, kako so se podobne situacije ali konflikti pojavili v preteklosti, kakšne strategije so bile uporabljene pri njihovem razreševanju in kakšni so bili izidi. Pomemben vidik komentarjev z zgodovinske perspektive pa je izzivanje prevladujočih pripovedi in predpostavk o aktualnih dogodkih s tistimi, ki temeljijo na zgodovinskih raziskavah in historičnih dejstvih. Na ta način ponujajo poglede na trenutne dogodke, ki ne temeljijo na političnih opredelitvah, in sočasno preprečujejo politično pogojeno revizijo zgodovine. Odnos med zgodovinarji in mediji je zato zelo pomemben. Mediji ponujajo znanosti platformo, da približajo svoje raziskave javnosti, sodelujejo v razpravah, kjer je treba in delijo svoja spoznanja. Mediji imajo za razliko od znanstvenih publikacij tudi moč oblikovanja javnega dojemanja zgodovine. Medijsko prikazovanje historičnih dogodkov, poudarjanje specifičnih vidikov zgodovine in izmikanje drugim vidikom, močno vpliva na kolektivni spomin, razumevanje javnosti glede celostnih vzročno-posledičnih vidikov preteklih dogodkov in na način spominjanja. Na poročanje medijev pogosto vplivajo pristranskost novinarjev, urednikov, lastnikov in pritisk politike.
Sodelovali so Ahmed Burić, Tvrtko Jakovina, Branimir Janković, Husnija Kamberović, Hrvoje Klasić, Božo Repe, Dubravka Stojanović, Ana Svenšek. Povezoval je Bojan Balkovec.
Zaključne misli ob koncu RetroFest je imela Kornelija Ajlec.
Knjiga z naslovom Bela kuga označuje izraz, ki so ga v času med obema vojnama uporabljali v propa... more Knjiga z naslovom Bela kuga označuje izraz, ki so ga v času med obema vojnama uporabljali v propagandne namene opozarjanja na zviševanje števila tajnih oziroma ilegalnih splavov. V času, ko je prevladovala pronatalistična drža med večino obstoječih institucij, ki so skrbele za javno moralo, so praksi predčane prekinitve nosečnosti nasprotovale. Katoliški tabor je razloge za manjšo rodnost in večje število splavov povezoval s teškimi socialnimi razmerami, predvsem pa z biološko in psihološko degeneracijo žensk. Temu so se nasproti postavili marksistični avtorji, ki so se v določenih, a ne v vseh primerih zavzemali za legalizacijo splavov. Liberalni tabor pa je večinoma politiziral s katoliškim taborom, a stališča glede splava so bila v tem taboru precej heterogena. Na takšne poglede so se odzvali tako v ženskih gibanjih, kot politiki in uradniki preko zakonodaje. Avtorica monografije je te in še mnoge druge vidike prakse ilegalnih splavov, analizirala in predstavila v svoji drugi samostojni monografiji, ki je izšla v zbirki Historia Založbe Univerze v Ljubljani.
Sodelovale so Ana Cergol, Meta Remec in Maja Vehar. Pogovor je povezoval Bojan Balkovec.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
Tvrtko Jakovina ni le pronicljiv zgodovinar, temveč tudi eden izmed najbolj branih in poslušanih ... more Tvrtko Jakovina ni le pronicljiv zgodovinar, temveč tudi eden izmed najbolj branih in poslušanih komentatorjev in kolumnistov v državah nekdanje Jugoslavije. Čim se dogodek zgodi v enem delu sveta, Jakovina že piše svoje kolumne za enega izmed osrednjih hrvaških dnevnikov ali tednikov. Knjiga Svijet bez katarze je že druga zbirka, ki je nastala kot kompilacija kolumn in člankov, ki so sicer tematsko in slogovno raznolika, a daje bralcu jasno vedeti, da je svet 20. in 21. stoletja majhen ter da bi moral biti pogled javnosti usmerjen daleč izza cone udobja evropocentrizma. Bralec se z branjem vsakega poglavja sprehodi skozi zgodovinske dogodke ene izmed eksotičnih držav Azije, Afrike, Južne Amerike, Karibov,... Bralčevo oko pa se lahko ustavi tudi doma, v Evropi, in se spozna z Masarykom, prostozidarji ali prvo svetovno vojno. Gre za strokovno monografijo, ki pa ji znanstvenosti ne manjka. Vsako besedilo temelji na prebiranju zgodovinskih virov in literature, napisano pa je koncizno in brez balasta. Mojstrsko oblikovanje besed omogoča láhko razumevanje vsake izbrane teme.
Sodelovali so Tvrtko Jakovina, Dubravka Stojanović in Božo Repe. Pogovor je povezovala Kornelija Ajlec.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
Koncept meje se je oblikoval v antičnih civilizacijah, ko so države branile svoje ozemlje s siste... more Koncept meje se je oblikoval v antičnih civilizacijah, ko so države branile svoje ozemlje s sistemom obrambnih zidov in trdnjav, vojaškimi posadkami in carinami. Tak je bil, npr. rimski limes ali na drugi strani Kitajski zid. Po propadu antičnega Rima je bila Evropa prepletena z zapletenim sistemom fevdalnih struktur, kot so vojvodine, grofije, kneževine, kraljestva, cesarstva, svobodna mesta. Postopoma so začele nastajati državne meje, saj so vladarji hoteli imeti nadzor nad tem sistemom. S podpisom Vestfalskega miru leta 1648 so bili ustvarjeni temelji sodobnih meja in uveljavljen princip ekskluzivne suverenosti nad ozemljem. V drugi polovici 19. stoletja so začele nastajati zamišljene meje nacionalnih držav, ki so svoj razmah doživele s prvo svetovno vojno, propadom velikih večnacionalnih imperijev in s t. i. versajskim mirom. Versajska Evropa naj bi bila Evropa držav, ki naj bi teoretično temeljile na principu samoodločbe narodov. To je v praksi pomenilo nadaljevanje vojn za ta ozemlja. Znotraj novonastalih držav so nastale velike, v glavnem slabo zaščitene manjšine, novonastale nacionalistične državice so podpihovale medsebojne konflikte, poražene in nepotešene države (npr. t. i. »pohabljena zmaga« v Italiji) na čelu z Nemčijo pa svojo politiko gradile na revizionizmu, ki je zanetil drugo svetovno vojno. Vojna je sprožila proces etničnega čiščenja ozemelj in za nekaj let vzpostavila Evropo z okupacijskimi mejami. Povojna ureditev je po načelu kolektivne krivde v veliki meri opravila z manjšinami držav napadalk, zlasti z nemško. Bipolarna delitev med letoma 1945 in 1989/90 je zagotavljala mir, ki je temeljil na ravnotežju strahu in podrejenosti manjših držav velikima silama na obeh straneh. Obe sta za prevlado sprožali lokalne vojne.. Po padcu komunizma so naslednji val delitev na nacionalni osnovi izpeljale države, ki jim prej tega mednarodni odnosi niso dovoljevali. Jugoslavija kot večnacionalna država je razpadla v rušilnih vojnah, v katerih je bila največja žrtev civilno prebivalstvo, proces etničnega čiščenja in nastajanja (združevanja) ozemelj po etničnem principu pa še vedno traja. V panelu Namišljene in resnične meje smo pogledali nekatere izkušnje iz preteklosti ter meje in delitve v sodobni zgodovini.
Sodelovali so: Mitja Ferenc, Dušan Nečak, Blaž Vurnik, Irena Stefoska, Husnija Kamberović, Marko Klavora. Pogovor je povezoval Peter Mikša.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
Namen panela je ustvarjanje dialoga med ustvarjalci filmov ter zgodovinarji. Predvsem se bomo pos... more Namen panela je ustvarjanje dialoga med ustvarjalci filmov ter zgodovinarji. Predvsem se bomo posvetili razmerju med zgodovinskimi dejstvi in filmskimi/dokumentarnimi pripovedmi o zgodovinskih dogodkih. Gre za kompleksno in večplastno sinergijo, ki jo pogosto oblikuje umetniška svoboda režiserjev in scenaristov. Ta jim omogoča, da zgodovinske dogodke razlagajo na svoj način. V svojih delih lahko osvetlijo izbrane vidike zgodovinskega dogodka ali obdobja, izberejo like in se hkrati samostojno odločajo, kako predstaviti zgodbo. Filmi so zasnovani bodisi za zabavo bodisi za izobraževalne namene. V želji, da bi dogodke naredili bolj privlačne in čustveno prepričljive, jih morajo filmski ustvarjalci pogosto dramatizirati. Ta vidik vključuje poenostavljanje kompleksnih zgodovinskih pripovedi, prikrajanje časovnih okvirov ali pretiravanje, da bi ustvarili bolj privlačno filmsko izkušnjo. Filmi so pogosto tudi omejeni s časom trajanja in s potrebo po koherentnem zapletu. Ustvarjalci morajo zato dogodke oklestiti, združiti več likov v enega ali pa si izmisliti dialoge in interakcije, da bi ustrezali formatu. Pomemben vidik, ki pogosto vodi filmske ustvarjalce, pa je kulturni in politični kontekst, v katerem delujejo. Pogosto želijo ustvarjalci skozi film izraziti svoje stališče ali komentar o sodobnih vprašanjih in se zato odločijo za poudarjanje točno določenih vidikov zgodovine. Spopadati se morajo tudi z etičnimi vidiki pri prikazu občutljivih ali spornih zgodovinskih dogodkov. Eden izmed ključnih elementov etike je denimo vprašanje spomina in koliko ga je treba korigirati na podlagi zgodovinskih virov, da bi se izognili ohranjanju škodljivih stereotipov in vzpostavljanju novih kontroverz. Kako torej vzpostaviti odnos med zgodovinsko točnostjo in pripovedovanjem, da je pripoved zanimiva, a hkrati znotraj preverjenega zgodovinskega okvira?
V pogovoru so sodelovali Ivan Ramljak, Žiga Virc, Majda Širca, Lordan Zafranović, Tatjana Markošek in Zdenka Badovinac. Pogovor je povezoval Božidar Flajšman.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
Obsežna monografija v dveh delih Alexe Stiller razvozlava zapleteno politiko Heinricha Himmlerja ... more Obsežna monografija v dveh delih Alexe Stiller razvozlava zapleteno politiko Heinricha Himmlerja in obsežnega aparata, ki je sestavljal urad Državnega komisarjata za krepitev nemštva na čelu katerega je bil. “Ljudska politika” je temeljila na komplementarnih praksah izgona in ropa “nezaželenih” skupin prebivalstva ter na germanizaciji in naseljevanju “zaželenih” skupin. Na temelju obsežne analize virov iz kar štiriindvajsetih arhivov v šestih državah, avtorica razvija perspektive in teoretske koncepte, ki prikazujejo mobilizacijo in sodelovanje nemške in avstrijske družbe v etnični politiki nacistične Nemčije med letoma 1939 in 1945. To stori s pomočjo primerjalnih metod, ko obravnava politiko nacističnega režima na priključenih ozemljih zahodne Poljske, francoske Alzacije in Lorene, ter Slovenije. Knjiga tako pomembno osvetljuje zgodovino druge svetovne na Slovenskem in slovensko zgodovino na sploh.
Sodelovali so: Alexa Stiller, Bojan Godeša, Božo Repe. Pogovor je povezoval Dušan Nečak.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
Javne spomenike in druga spominska obeležja odkrivamo z namenom, da za vedno ostanejo prisotni me... more Javne spomenike in druga spominska obeležja odkrivamo z namenom, da za vedno ostanejo prisotni med ljudmi, jih učijo o preteklosti in jim ob tem vcepljajo pomembna sporočila in vrednote. Spomeniki in obeležja so torej neke vrste orodja kolektivnega spomina, ki se z njihovo pomočjo vzpostavlja, utrjuje in obnavlja. Spomeniki naj bi služili krepitvi občutka pripadnosti in identifikacije s skupno zgodovino, na posamični ravni pa tudi poudarjanju pomembnih osebnosti, ki so najbolj zaslužne za oblikovanje ali razvoj naroda in družbe. Gre za subjektivno ustvarjanje vizualne podobe preteklosti, saj kolektivni spomin nastaja v procesu selektivne obdelave, ki nekatere spomine obdrži, druge pa zavrže. Zato je »nadzor« nad kolektivnim spominom zelo pomemben za posamezne družbene skupine in še posebej za politiko. Na ta način z (re)interpretacijo zgodovine – in sicer izbiro zgodovinskih dogodkov in procesov, pa tudi z njihovo pozabo – oblikuje vsakokratno zgodovinsko zavest družbe in si utrjuje oblast. V 20. stoletju so spomeniki med načini, s katerimi se kolektivni zgodovinski spomin ustvarja, spreminja in briše zaradi vojn, ideoloških konfliktov, geostrateških sprememb, dekolonizacije, nastajanja in izginjanja držav, pa tudi modernizacij in urbanizacij, dobili še posebno mesto. V vojnah ali po njih so bili številni spomeniki uničeni zaradi bombardiranj in spopadov ali odstranjeni, ker so predstavljali prejšnje režime, kolonialne gospodarje, zločinske osebnosti … Še posebej so bili temu izpostavljeni t. i. ikonični spomeniki, pogosto povezani tudi s kultom osebnosti in mitologijo, ki so to zgodovino simbolizirali. S postavljanjem javnih spomenikov in obeležij vodilne družbene skupine izoblikujejo kolektivni spomin po svoji meri. Želijo ovekovečiti določene ideale, vrednote ali dosežke, kot jih vidijo, in posameznike, ki jih poosebljajo. S tem želijo homogenizirati skupnost in jo čustveno povezati. Z odstranitvijo in zamenjavo spomenikov ob radikalnih prelomih nove politične elite določene ideale, vrednote ali dosežke prejšnje družbe ali države zavržejo in vzpostavijo nove. Gradijo na osnovi nove ideologije, simbolov in osebnosti. Ker se staro ne more skladati z novim, je treba na novo oblikovati tudi zgodovinski spomin. V javnem prostoru ni mesta za oboje, za sobivanje starega in novega. Ob manj prelomnih dogodkih ali v bolj tolerantnih družbah se kolektivni spomin dopolnjuje. Že postavljene spomenike dopolnjujejo z novimi ali z njimi zapolnjujejo praznine o dogodkih in ljudeh, ki so bili prej prezrti. Prejšnjim dojemanjem dodajajo nove interpretacije. Vendar spomeniki sami po sebi niso zgodovina, četudi ima vsak zase svojo zgodovino. So zgolj percepcija zgodovinskih dogodkov, kot jih vidijo tisti, ki so spomenike postavili. Pri uničevanju spomenikov gre za brisanje zgodovine in tudi umetnosti. Z retuširanjem podob in uničevanjem spomenikov ne bomo spremenili zgodovine. Prihodnje generacije bomo zgolj oropali določenih zgodovinskih podob in dejstev, zato jih je treba ohranjati in prikazati v kontekstu določenega časa. V pogovoru so se spraševali o spomenikih, njihovem pomenu, dediščini, kolektivnem spominu, brisanju spomina in vplivu politike na njihovo postavljanje in ohranjanje oz. izginjanje. Ter vlogi vsakega izmed nas (posameznika) na ozaveščanje o pomembnosti njihovega obstoja.
Sodelavali so: Božidar Jezernik, Ivan Smiljanić, Darja Kerec, Irena Stefoska, Olga Pelcer - Vujačić, Milan Hladnik, Tatjana Koprivica, Hrvoje Klasić. Pogovor je povezoval Peter Mikša.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
Da je gospodarski program Milka Brezigarja po stoletju dobil ponatis, govori v prid daljnovidnost... more Da je gospodarski program Milka Brezigarja po stoletju dobil ponatis, govori v prid daljnovidnosti programa in avtorja. Ta je namreč uspel izstopiti od vizij programa Zedinjene Slovenije in gledati na slovensko prihodnost bistveno bolj realno. Brezigarjev načrt je nastal kot posledica globalnih epohalnih spremeb, ki so ponujale prvič v zgodovini možnosti za deloma avtonomen slovenski razvoj. Program, ki je v takih okoliščinah nastal, je bil podroben, geografsko omejen in tematsko razdelan. Božo Repe, avtor spremene študije, v uvodnem delu predstavi življenje in delo Brezigarja, ki je bil do zdaj v precejšnji meri neznan, saj je Brezigar svojo življenjsko pot med drugim sklenil v emigraciji kot politična persona non-grata v socialistični Sloveniji. V študiji je tudi podrobno prikazan domači in mednarodni kontekst, v katerem je program nastal.
Sodelovala sta Božo Repe in Zdenko Čepič. Pogovor je povezoval Bojan Balkovec.
Snemanje in montaža Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec. Montaža in režija Bojan Balkovec
Italija je bila kot članica zmagovitih antantnih sil ob koncu prve svetovne vojne trdno odločena,... more Italija je bila kot članica zmagovitih antantnih sil ob koncu prve svetovne vojne trdno odločena, da kljub nejevolji zaveznic, še posebej ZDA, izsili uresničitev londonskega pakta iz leta 1915, zaradi katerega je stopila v vojno. Še ta se ji je zdel premajhna nagrada za sodelovanje v vojni, zato se je v italijanski javnosti ustvarjal vtis o »pohabljeni zmagi«. Podpiralo ga je prepričanje, da mora dobiti tudi vzhodno obalo Jadranskega morja s pripadajočimi otoki in da na drugi strani Jadrana ne bi smela nastati nova močna država, temveč skupek majhnih, italijanskim interesom podrejenih državic. Na pariški mirovni konferenci se je dilema med Wilsonovo obljubo o samoodločbi narodov na eni strani in imperialnimi interesi evropskih velikih držav na drugi, izrazito prevesila v korist interesov slednjih, določenih z londonskim paktom. Čeprav so na pariški mirovni konferenci prvič izraziteje upoštevali tudi kriterij etničnih meja, so bili t. i. zgodovinski cilji daleč v ospredju, poleg njih pa pred etničnimi še naravni, geostrateški in gospodarski kriteriji. Jugoslovansko-italijanska meja je zaradi italijanskega izsiljevanja na pariški mirovni konferenci ostala nerešena, t. i. Jadransko vprašanje pa je postalo grožnja za mir, saj je bila Italija pripravljena svoje interese uresničiti tudi s silo. Zato je še v času pariške mirovne konference začela pripravljati teren za bilateralni dogovor, ki bi bil v njeno korist, za kar je do jeseni 1920 dobila tudi podporo Velike Britanije in Francije, ZDA pa so se umaknile v izolacionizem. Jugoslovanska delegacija pod vodstvom predsednika vlade Milenka Vesnića je na pogajanja v Rapallo odpotovala nemočna, pod pritiskom velikih sil, da pristane na vse italijanske pogoje in ob izraziti zahtevi regenta Aleksandra, da sprejme kakršenkoli dogovor in Kraljevino SHS s tem razbremeni najbolj problematične od vseh nerešenih meja novonastale države. Vodilni slovenski politiki na čelu z dr. Antonom Korošcem, tedaj ministrom za promet, so se umaknili v ozadje. Po dveh dneh pogajanj med 8. in 10. novembrom 1920, je jugoslovanska delegacija pristala na vse italijanske pogoje. Bila je v neenakopravnem in izoliranem položaju ter pod nenehnim italijanskim pritiskom. Ni imela niti redne telegrafske zveze z Beogradom. Delegaciji so Italijani ves čas prisluškovali in delali transkripte pogovorov, torej so vedeli praktično za vse pogovore in stališča jugoslovanske strani. Dogovor je bil podpisan 12. novembra 1920. Gnev zaradi podpisa je bil v Kraljevini SHS velikanski, a brez učinka. »S svojim uspehom si je Italija zagotovila naše trajno sovraštvo … Tega naša rasa ne pozabi«, so zapisali v ljubljanskem Jutru. Po sklenitvi pogodbe so mejo začrtali na terenu, kar je trajalo vse do leta 1925. Meja je ostro zarezala v življenje prebivalstva, ki je do tedaj živelo skupaj. Na obeh straneh meje so nastale nove administrativne delitve, nova središča, prišla je vojska in obe strani sta začeli graditi sistem vojaških utrdb. Vdor drugačnih kultur je močno vplival na način življenja lokalnega prebivalstva, posledice pa so kljub spremembi meje po drugi svetovni vojni vidne še danes. Rapalska meja je bila popravljena šele s partizansko zmago po drugi svetovni vojni, vendar je bil proces dolg, trajal je vse do sklenitve Osimskih sporazumov leta 1975. Osimsko mejo je po osamosvojitvi Slovenije Italija priznala, vendar nekatera vprašanja, povezana z njo, pušča odprta. V Italiji je navzoč močan revizionizem. Svoje rasne politike, nasilne italijanizacije slovenske manjšine med obema vojnama, storjenih zločinov med drugo svetovno vojno italijanska država ne priznava, Jugoslovane (»slavokomuniste«) pa obtožuje za obračune z Italijani na etnični podlagi ob koncu druge svetovne vojne. Rapalska meja in njene posledice na bilateralne odnose in odnose v regiji tako vplivajo še danes.
Vodje zaveznikov so se med drugo svetovno vojno srečali na več sestankih. Leta 1943, ko so zavezn... more Vodje zaveznikov so se med drugo svetovno vojno srečali na več sestankih. Leta 1943, ko so zavezniki dosegli nekaj pomembnih zmag, so se v zadnjih dneh novembra in v začetku decembra Churchill, Roosevelt in Stalin sestali v Teheranu. O sklepih konference in njenem pomenu za jugoslovansko odporniško gibanje se je Bojan Balkovec pogovarjal z Blažem Torkarjem.
On November 29 and 30, 1943, the second meeting of the AVNOJ took place in Jajce. On the occasion... more On November 29 and 30, 1943, the second meeting of the AVNOJ took place in Jajce. On the occasion of the eightieth anniversary, we spoke with historians from the Yugoslav region about the importance of AVNOJ for individual nations of the former country. We were interested in how the importance of AVNOJ was understood in individual parts of Yugoslavia and what was the relationship between the political leadership of various nations and the central leadership of the partisan resistance. In the conversation, we also touched on the understanding of the importance of AVNOJ in different parts of Yugoslavia at the time of its disintegration. Milivoj Bešlin, Tvrtko Jakovina, Ljubica Jančeva, Husnija Kamberović, Adnan Prekić, Božo Repe and Mitja Žagar took part in the conversation. The conversation was moderated by Bojan Balkovec.
Ob izidu knjige Ekosistemska družbena ureditev je na Slovenskem knjižnem sejmu potekal pogovor z ... more Ob izidu knjige Ekosistemska družbena ureditev je na Slovenskem knjižnem sejmu potekal pogovor z avtorjem knjige Dušanom Pluton in Tajanom Trobcem in Janezom Polajnarjem. Pogovor je vodil Bojan Balkovec.
Blaž Torkar in Bojan Balkovec sta se pogovarjala o osemdesetletnici kapitulacije Italije v drugi ... more Blaž Torkar in Bojan Balkovec sta se pogovarjala o osemdesetletnici kapitulacije Italije v drugi svetovni vojni.
00:00 Ali je Italija v drugi svetovni vojni resen faktor? 09:12 Kako je bila italijanska vojska uspešna proti partizanom? 18:25 Mednarodni pomen italijanskega izstopa iz vojne 25:41 Italija ni obsodila vojnih zločincev
5. marca 2023 je minilo 70 let od smrti Josipa Visarionoviča Džugašvilija, znanega pod vzdevkom S... more 5. marca 2023 je minilo 70 let od smrti Josipa Visarionoviča Džugašvilija, znanega pod vzdevkom Stalin. O Stalinu in o odnosu do njega se je Bojan Balkovec pogovarjal z Andrejem Stoparjem, novinarjem in zgodovinarjem, poznavalcem Sovjetske zveze in Rusije in zgodovinarjem Božom Repetom.
Ob šestdesetletnici pohoda na Washington, kjer je bil med govorniki tudi Martin Luther King, ki j... more Ob šestdesetletnici pohoda na Washington, kjer je bil med govorniki tudi Martin Luther King, ki je imel govor znan kot I have a dream, smo posneli pogovor z Andrejem Stoparjem. Z njim se je pogovarjal Bojan Balkovec. Govorila sta o rasizmu, segregaciji in državljanskih pravicah v preteklosti in sedanjosti.
World War II marks one of the most critical moments in Slovene history. Four occupation regimes –... more World War II marks one of the most critical moments in Slovene history. Four occupation regimes – German, Italian, Hungarian and the regime of Ustasha Croatia – divided Slovenes among four different national entities and sentenced them to death, ethnically speaking – also by using methods of genocide. The dimensions of the ethnocide and genocide carried out by the occupiers is evident in the number of casualties (together with the post-war score-settling it comes close to 100,000 or more than six percent of the population); in the forced migrations and border crossings. 58,522 Slovenes were in German and Italian concentration camps, 688 in Hungarian camps, some 400 in Croatian camps, close to 20,000 in confinement and forced labour, and 80,000 in prisons. 571 Jews from Prekmurje were deported; most of them were murdered in Auschwitz. The Germans planned to deport from 220,000 to 260,000 Slovenes, and succeeded in deporting 63,000. Around 17,000 of them managed to escape across the German-Italian border to the German occupation zone. A portion of the 10,000 who had been deported to the NDH from the German occupation zone managed to flee to the Italian occupation zone or got there by legally crossing the border. 17,000 Gottscheers from the Italian occupation zone were moved to the vacated Slovene territories along the Croatian border; after the war they either left Slovenia or were deported.
Slovenes were not shown on the map of the new Nazi Europe, in which the German Reich extended from the North Cape in Norway to the last Greek island, from Moscow to the Channel Islands. They restored their place in the sun with the National Liberation Struggle.
One of the key motives for World War II was the revision of state borders which had been formed after World War I. This revision was carried out to the detriment of smaller nations, including the Slovene one. After the occupation and breakup, state borders between the Axis powers were established in Slovene lands. The borders were set according to the logic of territory division and the planned swift and violent disappearance of the Slovene nation. Only the border with the NDH followed the former rough ethnic division of the territory or (partially) the old administrative borders. It is also the only border which has been preserved to this day.
The occupation of Slovene ethnic territory in 1941 created five different borderlands and borders in Slovenia. They were: the border between Germany and Hungary; the border between Hungary and the NDH; the border between Germany and the NDH; the border between Italy and Germany; the border between Italy and the NDH. Despite the formal annexation of the so-called Province of Ljubljana to Italy, the so-called Rapallo Border was preserved, which separated the Littoral Slovenes from the others. Only the border with Croatia, which was based on older demarcations, has been preserved to this day. 20,000 square kilometres of the present-day Slovene territory was divided by as many as 560 kilometres of occupation borders. They ran from the marshy basins of the Mura and Drava rivers to the summit of Mount Triglav; from the Sotla and Kolpa rivers to Mount Peč above Rateče; from the suburbs of Ljubljana across the Polhov Gradec Hills and the valley of the Sora River to the town of Idrija and onward.
All occupiers enclosed their part of the territory by boundaries that separated individual occupation zones. The formation of these borders was accompanied by war violence, the deportation of population, desertion or migration from one occupation zone to another; simultaneously, due to vital necessity and the partisan resistance (which did not acknowledge this breakup and fought against it), illegal border crossings were being established. All of this inevitably resulted in many traumas and severed the traditional patterns of migrations, agriculture and commerce.
* * *
The three-year project (2018-2020) “Napravite mi to deželo nemško … italijansko … madžarsko … hrvaško! Vloga okupacijskih meja v raznarodovalni politiki in življenju slovenskega prebivalstva/Make this Land German ... Italian ... Hungarian ... Croatian! The Role of the Occupation Border in the Denationalization Policy and the Lives of the Slovene Population” is being implemented by a team of historians and geographers from the Department of History at the Faculty of Arts of the University of Ljubljana, the Anton Melik Geographical Institute – ZRC SAZU, the Faculty of Education of the University of Ljubljana, and the Institute of Contemporary History in Ljubljana; the Institute for Ethnic Studies is participating as an external partner. The project is funded by ARRS.
The purpose of this research, popularly called “Occupation Borders”, is multi-layered:
Using special techniques to transfer data from old maps to a satellite system, thus pinpointing the course of all the mentioned borders; Discovering the remnants of the borders in the field with the team making use of the so-called lidar techniques, and afterwards gradually, step by step, exploring and recording the remnants of bunkers, watch towers, and barbed wire barriers; With the help of archival material from domestic and foreign archives, and especially interviews, document the life along the borders as vividly as possible. So far, the research team has collected various texts and conducted more than 110 interviews about the hard life of the border population. Their accounts describe how the borders cut through estates, fields and villages; how people were deported because of the border, and how houses and outbuildings were destroyed; how people crossed the borders to make a living, to till their fields on the other side, to smuggle, to stay in touch with relatives, and to satisfy religious and other needs. How, in order to survive, they tried to reach a modus vivendi with the occupiers and their collaborators on one side and with the partisans on the other. Many accounts speak of relatives or fellow villagers dying on the minefields or being shot by guards. The aftermath of the occupation borders, including the minefield-related deaths, marked the lives of the local population for many years after the war; Show the topicality of the situation of that time, since certain practices, such as barbed wiring at the border, the closing of crossings, making it hard to cross the borders, are being revived today. The issue of borders and of crossing them is still a key issue within the European Union, which is said to be without borders, and – even more so – in the Balkans, between the countries wishing to join the EU. The current situation indicates that the European Union is slowly, step by step, and without thinking about the broader implications of its conduct, slipping back into the circumstances of that time. The research team is pursuing the concept of public history – in the sense of working with people in the field, regularly publishing its results, interacting with the local environments, forestry services, hunting clubs and interested individuals, and involving students in the research.
This research is departing from the ideologized history of World War II in Slovenia, to which we are accustomed. Within the familiar context of large-scale processes, it introduces the history of the so-called little people, who were living in an inhumane wartime environment and (if they were not deported) tried to survive along the occupation borders.
O okviru Osrednje humanistične knjižnice smo izvedli delavnici o uporabi programa Zotero. Iz tega... more O okviru Osrednje humanistične knjižnice smo izvedli delavnici o uporabi programa Zotero. Iz tega smo nato naredili tale navodila za uporabo programa. program vam omogoča ustvarjanje baze svojih gradiv, ki jih uporabljate pri pisanju znanstvenih besedil in pisanje opomb v svojih besedilih.
Da lahko sodelujemo v izbiranju predstavnikov, ki nas bodo zastopali pri odločanju o pomembnih re... more Da lahko sodelujemo v izbiranju predstavnikov, ki nas bodo zastopali pri odločanju o pomembnih rečeh v državi, je naša pravica, marsikdo pa meni, da tudi dolžnost. Kako je volivec skozi zgodovino lahko oddal svoj glas, koliko je bil ta upoštevan in komu so dolga leta onemogočali volitve? Prve volitve na Slovenskem so bile v revolucionarnem letu 1848, ko je imela volilno pravico peščica Slovencev, ki je lahko plačevala davke. Ženske so splošno volilno pravico dobile šele po 2. svetovni vojni. V zgodovini se je volilo na različne načine. Sprva so volivci javno povedali, koga volijo. Zaradi nepismenosti pa se je v zgodovini volilo tudi s kroglicami. Po drugi svetovni vojni so obstajale t. i. črne skrinjice, kamor so volivci, ki so glasovali za opozicijo, lahko vrgli »svoj glas«. O volitvah in zanimivih prigodah, povezanih z njimi, bodo govorili prof. dr. Božo Repe, dr. Irena Selišnik, dr. Bojan Balkovec in Franc Perko.
V prispevku Bojan Balkovec in Ante Štrbić pripoveduje o spreminjanju imena kraja na primeru Ploč ... more V prispevku Bojan Balkovec in Ante Štrbić pripoveduje o spreminjanju imena kraja na primeru Ploč na Hrvaškem.
V socialistični Jugoslaviji so se nekatere mesta imenovala po znanih revolucionarjih. Preimenovan... more V socialistični Jugoslaviji so se nekatere mesta imenovala po znanih revolucionarjih. Preimenovanja so višek dosegla v osemdesetih letih s poimenovanjem po enega kraja v vsaki republiki in pokrajini po Titu.
Spomeniki narodnoosvobodilnega boja in socialistične revolucije na ozemlju nekdanje Jugoslavije v... more Spomeniki narodnoosvobodilnega boja in socialistične revolucije na ozemlju nekdanje Jugoslavije v zadnjih letih zbujajo veliko zanimanje strokovne in širše javnosti. Posvečene so jim razstave v najprestižnejših svetovnih galerijah in na bienalih, o njih izhajajo znanstvene monografije, pojavljajo se na različnih spletnih straneh in v različnih kontekstih. Novodobni umetniki jih uporabljajo za vizualne scenografije, za mnoge imajo pridih znanstvene fantastike…
Spomeniki so nastali v različnih obdobjih in v različnih slogih: od socrealističnega do modernističnih, kar je vse tudi izraz dinamičnega razvoja povojne Jugoslavije, njene enkratne mešanice kultur in ideologij vzhoda, zahoda in neuvrščenosti (tretjega sveta). Ustvarjali so jih najboljši jugoslovanski umetniki, ki so na različne načine izražali trpljenje, upanje in boj jugoslovanskih narodov, pa tudi jugoslovanski poskus graditve pravične socialne družbe.
Potem, ko je Jugoslavija razpadla v krvavih vojnah, so spomeniki doživljali različno usodo: ponekod so jih ohranjali kot spomin na protifašizem in socialno pravičnost, ki sta se v neoliberalnem svetu izgubila, drugod so bili zanemarjeni ali so utonili v anonimnost ( t.i. »nevidni spomeniki«), mnogokje so bili uničeni ali zamenjani z novodobnimi, ki simbolizirajo nacionalistične ideologije in politike.
Ekipa Središča za javno zgodovino je šla po njihovih sledeh. Od Triglava do Vardarja je preverjala, kaj se je zgodilo s protifašističnimi spomeniki in idejo, ki so jo simbolizirali: idejo bratstva in enotnosti, to je jugoslovansko izpeljanko iz gesla francoske revolucije: svoboda, enakost, bratstvo.
The film The Power and Powerlessness of Monuments was produced by the Center for Public History at the Department of History of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. The film shows the attitude towards the monuments dedicated to the national liberation struggle. The relationship in all former republics and provinces of the SFRY is presented.
Scenarij / Screenplay: Božo Repe, Božidar Flajšman, Bojan Balkovec
Režija / Director: Božidar Flajšman, Bojan Balkovec
Snemanje / Recording: Božidar Flajšman, Sonja Bezenšek, Bojan Balkovec
Montaža Editing: Božidar Flajšman, Bojan Balkovec
Branje veznega besedila / Reading the text: Lenča Ambrožič
V socialistični Jugoslaviji so se nekatere mesta imenovala po znanih revolucionarjih. Preimenovan... more V socialistični Jugoslaviji so se nekatere mesta imenovala po znanih revolucionarjih. Preimenovanja so višek dosegla v osemdesetih letih s poimenovanjem po enega kraja v vsaki republiki in pokrajini po Titu.
Film je rezultat raziskovalnega projekta J6-8248 Napravite mi to deželo nemško ... italijansko ..... more Film je rezultat raziskovalnega projekta J6-8248 Napravite mi to deželo nemško ... italijansko ... madžarsko ... hrvaško! Vloga okupacijskih meja v raznarodovalni politiki in življenju slovenskega prebivalstva
The film is the result of a research project Make This Land German ... Italian ... Hungarian ... Croatian! The Role of the Occupation Border in the Denationalization Policy and the Lives of the Slovene Population.
Tončka Adam,
Katica Adlešič, Gabre Bogdanović, Darka Čop, Božidar Flajšman, Janko (Janta) Goleš, Marija Jelenič, Jožef Klepec, Franc Kočevar, Marija Koležnik, Marija Kordež, Ljudmila Mihelič, Peter Rauh, Ivan Starešinič, Jože Starešinič, Marija Starešinič, Ivan Špehar, Frančiška Tahija, Franc Zepuhar, Boris Anton Weiss in Angela Žugelj.
Uporabljene fotografije in gradivo
/ Photo
Arhiv projekta Okupacijske meje, fotografiral Božidar Flajšman
Arhiv Republike Slovenije
Belokranjski muzej Metlika
Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana
Osebna zbirka Božidar Flajšman
Osebni arhiv Frančiška Tahija
Osebni arhiv Ana Starešinič
Osebni arhiv Mojca Kopač in Vlasto Kopač
Osebni arhiv Jani Bračika
Osebni arhiv Blaž Štangelj
Tone Ferenc, Fašisti brez krinke, dokumenti 1941-1942
Alma M. Karlin, Moji izgubljeni topoli
Zvonko Rus, Kronika mesta Metlike II
Lojze Jože, Žabkar, Izpovedi
Zemljevidi / Maps
Arhiv projekta Okupacijske meje
, avtorji zemljevidov / Archive of the project. Authors of maps Manca Volk Bahun, Rok Ciglič, Matija Zorn
Ob stoletnici oddelka za zgodovino smo posneli daljši pogovor z zaslužnim profesorjem Univerze v ... more Ob stoletnici oddelka za zgodovino smo posneli daljši pogovor z zaslužnim profesorjem Univerze v Ljubljani dr. Ignacijem Vojetom. V pogovoru se spominja svojih študijskih in delovnih let na oddelku za zgodovino.
V Galeriji Mašinhaus v Hrastniku je drugem delu projekta Uporništvo v Zasavju pod naslovom ''Tihi... more V Galeriji Mašinhaus v Hrastniku je drugem delu projekta Uporništvo v Zasavju pod naslovom ''Tihi pomniki preteklosti'' – Uporništvo v Zasavju, ta segment zgodovine predstavljen preko spomenikov posvečenih uporu naših prednikov, ki poleg svoje sporočilnosti, nosijo tudi umetniško vrednost, saj so njihovi avtorji priznani zasavski umetniki kot je akademski kipar Stojan Batič in akademski slikar Franc Kopitar.
Bolj natančno je predstavljenih osem spomenikov (v tem posnetku šest), ki so predstavljeni v sliki, besedi in preko 3D-vizualizacije.
Razstavo in spomenike je predstavil Gregor Jerman. Fotografija: Zasavski muzej Trbovlje in Bojan Balkovec. Snemanje, montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec.
Film ob stoletnici vrnitve Libelič k matični domovini je nastal v sodelovanju Koroškega pokrajins... more Film ob stoletnici vrnitve Libelič k matični domovini je nastal v sodelovanju Koroškega pokrajinskega muzeja in Središča za javno zgodovino pri Oddelku za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.
Sodelavci Marjan Kos, Marjan Linasi, Bojan Balkovec, Peter Mikša
Scenarij Lea Knez, Marjan Kos, Marjan Linasi, Bojan Balkovec, Peter Mikša
Kratka predstavitev knjižnice z navodili za uporabo Cobiss.
Scenarij
Barbara Šatej, Maja Božič, ... more Kratka predstavitev knjižnice z navodili za uporabo Cobiss.
Scenarij Barbara Šatej, Maja Božič, Ana Marija Lamut
Snemanje, montaža, fotografija in režija Bojan Balkovec
Fotografsko gradivo arhiv Oddelka za zgodovino FF UL Petdeset let slovenske univerze v Ljubljani 1919-1969 Matija Zorn Božidar Flajšman
V Kolašinu, Črna gora, so sredi sedemdesetih let postavili Spominski dom, ki je bil nova oblika s... more V Kolašinu, Črna gora, so sredi sedemdesetih let postavili Spominski dom, ki je bil nova oblika spomenika posvečenega narodno osvobodilni borbi.
Film Moč in nemoč spomenikov je produciralo Središče za javno zgodovino pri Oddelku za zgodovino ... more Film Moč in nemoč spomenikov je produciralo Središče za javno zgodovino pri Oddelku za zgodovino FF UL. V filmu je prikazan odnos do spomenikov posvečenim narodno osvobodilnemu boju. Predstavljen je odnos v vseh nekdanjih republikah in pokrajinah SFRJ.
The film The Power and Powerlessness of Monuments was produced by the Center for Public History at the Department of History of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. The film shows the attitude towards the monuments dedicated to the national liberation struggle. The relationship in all former republics and provinces of the SFRY is presented.
Osmega maja 2023 smo v dvorani gasislskega doma v Ziljan pripravili prestavitev knjige Kronika žu... more Osmega maja 2023 smo v dvorani gasislskega doma v Ziljan pripravili prestavitev knjige Kronika župnije Preloka. Uvodoma je nekaj besed povedal urednik zbirke Perspektive Peter Mikša. Knjigo je predstaviol sourednik in soavtor Bojan Balkovec. Sourednica in soavtorica je še Elizabeta Hriberšek Balkovec.
Predstavitev knjine produkcije znanstvene zbirke Historia, ki jo izdaja oddelek za zgodovino Filo... more Predstavitev knjine produkcije znanstvene zbirke Historia, ki jo izdaja oddelek za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.
00:19:44 Ana Cergol Paradiž je predstavila svojo knjigo »Bela kuga«: ilegalni abortusi in zmanjševanje rodnosti na Slovenskem v obdobju med obema vojnama https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/404
00:33:15 Božo Repe je predstavil svojo knjigo »Vsakdo mora imeti priliko, da udejstvi vse svoje telesne in duševne moči.« Milko Brezigar in prvi slovenski program narodnega gospodarstva
Uploads
Residents needed passes to cross the border. These were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana region, which included Dolenjska, also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree. According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Such villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941, which included several Croatian villages.
Church life was greatly affected in these villages. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Sabobor, which was annexed to the villages. Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Some of the German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to those who lived near Kočevje, Germans from elsewhere were also settled there. The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them off from their work, and, in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands thus remained mostly uncultivated, since crossing the border was restricted, in addition to the difficulties faced when transferring goods from one country to another.
As well as the new borders, the erection of various military facilities in the area was also a hindrance for locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers, while the residents were simply evicted.
When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces mostly remained undivided and part of the territory of the same occupier. Dolenjska, however, was divided among the Germans, Italians and the Independent State of Croatia. The border was drawn by the Germans and moved 10 to 15 kilometers south of the Sava River for military, economic and transport reasons. By June 1941, the Germans also occupied territory across the demarcation line, which is also visible on the map at the beginning of the chapter. Borders were immediately established and moved to new national borders in June. Residents needed passes to cross the border. They were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana province that included Dolenjska also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree. According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Said villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941 that included several Croatian villages. The church life in these villages was greatly affected. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Samobor, which was annexed to said villages. Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Part of these German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to them, Germans from elsewhere were to be settled.
The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them from jobs, or in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands were mostly uncultivated since border crossing was restricted, in addition to difficulties in transferring goods from one country to another. In addition to the state border, the erection of various military facilities around the area was also a hindrance for the locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places, individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers. The locals who lived in these houses were evicted.
After the capitulation of Italy in September 1943, Bela krajina became a free territory where the headquarters of the National Liberation Army and the partisan detachments of Slovenia was set up in addition to the Executive Committee of the Liberation Front, and many other institutions. By the end of the war, only a couple of individual invasions of Germans and Ustashe had hit Bela krajina.
Zilje is a small village on the banks of the Kolpa River. There was a crew of the Italian Guardia di Finanza. The villagers had no problems with them. Like in other places in Bela krajina, the Italian Army deported many men from Zilje to camps. A lot of them died there due to unbearable conditions.
Today, comparisons between the former occupation border and the current wired border with the Republic of Croatia are being made.
Residents needed passes to cross the border. They were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana region that included Dolenjska also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree.
According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Said villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941 that included several Croatian villages. The church life was in these villages was greatly affected. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Sabobor, which was annexed to said villages.
Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Part of these German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to them, Germans from elsewhere were to be settled.
The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them from jobs, or in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands were mostly uncultivated since border crossing was restricted, in addition to difficulties in transferring goods from one country to another.
In addition to the state border, the erection of various military facilities around the area was also a hindrance for the locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places, individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers. The locals who lived in these houses were evicted.
Children were, naturally, also the victims of the war. It was stressful for them that they had to pass the Italian checkpoint on their way to school in the neighboring village of Preloka. They were constantly stopped by the soldiers. In addition to that, the children were often victims of the Ustashe shooting from the Croatian bank of the Kolpa River. They used to shoot at children when they swam in the river. Luckily nobody was hit since they mostly fired into the air, but it was definitely unnerving for the children.
After the Italian capitulation, the villagers demolished the bunker. In one of the houses previously occupied by the Italians, a partisan hospital was operating briefly in the fall of 1943. During the German offensive in the fall of 1943, German troops passed through the village. Later, there were no military operations in the village until the end of the war.
The interwar period between the First and the Second World Wars introduced several novel proceedings in the operation of the Parliament that formerly, in the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were unfamiliar to Slovenes.
Parliamentary life during the era of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918–1945) may be divided in two periods. The milestone is the same as the generally perceived division of the interwar period that occurred in 1929 when King Alexander I forcibly dissolved the Parliament and introduced personal dictatorship. Each period was characterized by its own electoral law that differed in several significant aspects. The initial law of 1920 was amended merely two years later. Although the ticket and the distribution of mandates were modified, the essential system of secret ballot and proportional representation, with eligible voters being male citizens of age, remained unchanged. In 1931 the dictatorship of King Alexander abated and the parliamentary system was restored. The new electoral law retained the institution of proportional representation but corrupted it considerably by favoring the strongest party. As a result, the party was repeatedly given a larger share of mandates disproportionate to its portion of votes. In comparison with the electoral system of the 1920s there were two major changes, namely the introduction of state ballot and of open vote. During the first decade of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia the country was divided in over fifty electoral districts largely bound to dministrative or judicial districts. Depending upon its political interests and chances, a party and its ballot stood in a different number of electoral districts. Each electoral district had a fixed number of mandates that were distributed within it. According to the policy of unitarism, a candidate list that wished to stand at the parliamentary elections of the 1930s had to set up candidates in the entire country. As a result of this provision, parties whose character was largely local had to form a coalition even before the election in order to run as candidates. The second major change was the introduction of open vote. In Austria-Hungary voters voted by means of paper ballots on which they marked their choice of candidate. Contrary to this, and in view of the fact that a large percentage of its constituency was illiterate, the Kingdom of Serbia employed the system of ballot balls that was later, and for the same reason, adopted by the electoral law of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918–1929). A voter cast his vote by dropping the ball in the ballot box of his party. Later, in the 1930s, voters voted publicly by loudly and clearly declaring the name of their candidate to the electoral committee, which was clearly a step backwards.
In comparison with other elections of the 1920s, the 1920 election results, which were plainly the reflection of the tumultuous period following the end of the First World War, were quite distinct. The Slovene People’s Party regained its power in the elections of 1923 and retained it through the 1925 and the 1927 elections. The liberal camp, consisting of various bourgeois liberal parties as well as peasants’ and labor (yet non-Marxist) parties, was far too dispersed and unable to find a joint platform for the upcoming elections; after the victory of the Slovene People’s Party they could merely pick the remaining crumbs. The initially good election results of 1920 were thus diluted later on by a lack of unity among different socialist factions, which is why they had not won a mandate in the parliament until 1927. In Slovenia, the period of the 1930s was an interesting one. The formerly strongest Slovene People’s Party did not take part in the elections of 1931 and 1935 but celebrated a triumphant comeback in 1938. In the elections of 1938 the ballot of the Yugoslav opposition, whose leader was Croatian Vladimir Maček, attracted considerable attention in Slovenia because, in addition to other factors, it had managed to draw various political groups.
In the 1920s the poll was higher than a decade later, and this decreasing trend continued until 1935. Although the number of voters in the last elections prior to the Second World War was higher than in other elections of the 1930s it was nevertheless lower than in the 1920s. The significant decrease in 1931 and 1935 may be largely, yet not entirely, attributed to the fact that the Slovene People’s Party did not run in the parliamentary elections in these years. Another significant reason for the steady decline of the poll after 1920 was the unstable political state of affairs of that time. Elections took place virtually every second year and voters were tired of this situation. In addition, the number of eligible voters steadily increased throughout the interwar period, which was due to increased population and the fact that voters were entered in electoral rolls much more consistently.
Political parties presented their platform and candidates in their newspapers and in political rallies. In addition to discussing the rallies of their political option articles also reported on those of the opponent. Most of these reports glorified the successful outcome of their own rally and dwelled on the alleged failure of the adversary’s mass meeting. In presenting the political platform of their party, authors emphasized the mistakes of the opponent and presented them as the crucial reason why a voter should not vote for another party; it was clear that it was the opponents that had brought the country into such detrimental circumstances. The adversary was constantly described as being polluted by corruption, clientelism, and exceedingly high, or disproportionate, taxes. This situation would swiftly improve once the government of the day had been replaced. One of the arguments used against the Slovene People’s Party was that it was accused of betrayal by its opponents when the Party assumed an anti-Serbian stance in 1914.
Another significant task of newspapers was to instruct their readers on how to properly cast their vote. Since there were several ballot boxes the exact position of the corresponding box had to be indicated. Another important element of election propaganda, which seemed more of a threat than an invitation, was a summons to polls. While contingent nonattendance was labeled treacherous the urgency to vote was reinforced by emphasizing the responsibility of voters to cast their vote. Yet there were no serious analyses of political opponents who were often discredited through the use of utterly ill-suited, and even disparaging, terms.
The interwar period between the First and the Second World Wars introduced several novel proceedings in the operation of the Parliament that formerly, in the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were unfamiliar to Slovenes.
Parliamentary life during the era of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918–1945) may be divided in two periods. The milestone is the same as the generally perceived division of the interwar period that occurred in 1929 when King Alexander I forcibly dissolved the Parliament and introduced personal dictatorship. Each period was characterized by its own electoral law that differed in several significant aspects. The initial law of 1920 was amended merely two years later. Although the ticket and the distribution of mandates were modified, the essential system of secret ballot and proportional representation, with eligible voters being male citizens of age, remained unchanged. In 1931 the dictatorship of King Alexander abated and the parliamentary system was restored. The new electoral law retained the institution of proportional representation but corrupted it considerably by favoring the strongest party. As a result, the party was repeatedly given a larger share of mandates disproportionate to its portion of votes. In comparison with the electoral system of the 1920s there were two major changes, namely the introduction of state ballot and of open vote. During the first decade of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia the country was divided in over fifty electoral districts largely bound to dministrative or judicial districts. Depending upon its political interests and chances, a party and its ballot stood in a different number of electoral districts. Each electoral district had a fixed number of mandates that were distributed within it. According to the policy of unitarism, a candidate list that wished to stand at the parliamentary elections of the 1930s had to set up candidates in the entire country. As a result of this provision, parties whose character was largely local had to form a coalition even before the election in order to run as candidates. The second major change was the introduction of open vote. In Austria-Hungary voters voted by means of paper ballots on which they marked their choice of candidate. Contrary to this, and in view of the fact that a large percentage of its constituency was illiterate, the Kingdom of Serbia employed the system of ballot balls that was later, and for the same reason, adopted by the electoral law of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918–1929). A voter cast his vote by dropping the ball in the ballot box of his party. Later, in the 1930s, voters voted publicly by loudly and clearly declaring the name of their candidate to the electoral committee, which was clearly a step backwards.
In comparison with other elections of the 1920s, the 1920 election results, which were plainly the reflection of the tumultuous period following the end of the First World War, were quite distinct. The Slovene People’s Party regained its power in the elections of 1923 and retained it through the 1925 and the 1927 elections. The liberal camp, consisting of various bourgeois liberal parties as well as peasants’ and labor (yet non-Marxist) parties, was far too dispersed and unable to find a joint platform for the upcoming elections; after the victory of the Slovene People’s Party they could merely pick the remaining crumbs. The initially good election results of 1920 were thus diluted later on by a lack of unity among different socialist factions, which is why they had not won a mandate in the parliament until 1927. In Slovenia, the period of the 1930s was an interesting one. The formerly strongest Slovene People’s Party did not take part in the elections of 1931 and 1935 but celebrated a triumphant comeback in 1938. In the elections of 1938 the ballot of the Yugoslav opposition, whose leader was Croatian Vladimir Maček, attracted considerable attention in Slovenia because, in addition to other factors, it had managed to draw various political groups.
In the 1920s the poll was higher than a decade later, and this decreasing trend continued until 1935. Although the number of voters in the last elections prior to the Second World War was higher than in other elections of the 1930s it was nevertheless lower than in the 1920s. The significant decrease in 1931 and 1935 may be largely, yet not entirely, attributed to the fact that the Slovene People’s Party did not run in the parliamentary elections in these years. Another significant reason for the steady decline of the poll after 1920 was the unstable political state of affairs of that time. Elections took place virtually every second year and voters were tired of this situation. In addition, the number of eligible voters steadily increased throughout the interwar period, which was due to increased population and the fact that voters were entered in electoral rolls much more consistently.
Political parties presented their platform and candidates in their newspapers and in political rallies. In addition to discussing the rallies of their political option articles also reported on those of the opponent. Most of these reports glorified the successful outcome of their own rally and dwelled on the alleged failure of the adversary’s mass meeting. In presenting the political platform of their party, authors emphasized the mistakes of the opponent and presented them as the crucial reason why a voter should not vote for another party; it was clear that it was the opponents that had brought the country into such detrimental circumstances. The adversary was constantly described as being polluted by corruption, clientelism, and exceedingly high, or disproportionate, taxes. This situation would swiftly improve once the government of the day had been replaced. One of the arguments used against the Slovene People’s Party was that it was accused of betrayal by its opponents when the Party assumed an anti-Serbian stance in 1914.
Another significant task of newspapers was to instruct their readers on how to properly cast their vote. Since there were several ballot boxes the exact position of the corresponding box had to be indicated. Another important element of election propaganda, which seemed more of a threat than an invitation, was a summons to polls. While contingent nonattendance was labeled treacherous the urgency to vote was reinforced by emphasizing the responsibility of voters to cast their vote. Yet there were no serious analyses of political opponents who were often discredited through the use of utterly ill-suited, and even disparaging, terms.
V prispevku avtor prikaže način iskanja literature o rapalski meji v bibliografijah in v Cobiss. Opozarja na različne oblike bibliografij in načine njihove uporabe. Rezultate iskanja predstavlja po skupinah in opozarja na posebnosti. Iskanje v objavljenih bibliografijah je drugačno kot v Cobissu. Zgradba bibliografij je popolnoma drugačna, kot je struktura Cobissa. Cobiss je po podatkih, ki so vključeni v posamezne zapise, mnogo bogatejši. To potem omogoča poglobljeno iskanje. Izpis rezultatov v Cobissu omogoča tudi najrazličnejša filtriranja, ki pa so predvsem tehnične narave (avtor, jezik, vrste in oblike tekstov). Vpliv na kakovost rezultata iskanja ima predvsem natančnost zapisa iskalnega niza, kjer mora uporabnik upoštevati določena pravila, da bo rezultat iskanja čim boljši, kar v glavnem pomeni, da je število najdenih zapisov čim večje in vsebinsko čim bolj natančno.
Rezultati iskanja v Cobissu vključujejo vnose do marca 2023.
Ključne besede: rapalska meja, bibliografije, Cobiss, literatura
ABSTRACT
In this paper, the author shows how to search for literature on the Rapallo border in bibliographies and Cobiss. He points out the diferent forms of bibliographies and how they can be used. The results of the search are presented in groups and specific features are pointed out. Searching in published bibliographies is di1erent from searching in Cobiss. The structure of bibliographies is completely di1erent from that of Cobiss. Cobiss is much richer in the information included in each record. This then allows for more in-depth searching. The output of results in Cobiss also allows a wide variety of filtering, which is mainly technical in nature (author, language, types and formats of texts). The quality of the search result is mainly influenced by the precision of the search string notation, where the user has to follow certain rules in order to obtain the best possible search result, which mainly means that the number of records found is as high as possible and the content as precise as possible.
Cobiss search results include entries up to March 2023.
Keywords: rapala frontier, bibliographies, Cobiss, literature
Residents needed passes to cross the border. These were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana region, which included Dolenjska, also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree. According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Such villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941, which included several Croatian villages.
Church life was greatly affected in these villages. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Sabobor, which was annexed to the villages. Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Some of the German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to those who lived near Kočevje, Germans from elsewhere were also settled there. The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them off from their work, and, in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands thus remained mostly uncultivated, since crossing the border was restricted, in addition to the difficulties faced when transferring goods from one country to another.
As well as the new borders, the erection of various military facilities in the area was also a hindrance for locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers, while the residents were simply evicted.
When Slovenia was divided among four occupiers, Dolenjska suffered the most. Other provinces mostly remained undivided and part of the territory of the same occupier. Dolenjska, however, was divided among the Germans, Italians and the Independent State of Croatia. The border was drawn by the Germans and moved 10 to 15 kilometers south of the Sava River for military, economic and transport reasons. By June 1941, the Germans also occupied territory across the demarcation line, which is also visible on the map at the beginning of the chapter. Borders were immediately established and moved to new national borders in June. Residents needed passes to cross the border. They were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana province that included Dolenjska also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree. According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Said villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941 that included several Croatian villages. The church life in these villages was greatly affected. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Samobor, which was annexed to said villages. Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Part of these German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to them, Germans from elsewhere were to be settled.
The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them from jobs, or in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands were mostly uncultivated since border crossing was restricted, in addition to difficulties in transferring goods from one country to another. In addition to the state border, the erection of various military facilities around the area was also a hindrance for the locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places, individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers. The locals who lived in these houses were evicted.
After the capitulation of Italy in September 1943, Bela krajina became a free territory where the headquarters of the National Liberation Army and the partisan detachments of Slovenia was set up in addition to the Executive Committee of the Liberation Front, and many other institutions. By the end of the war, only a couple of individual invasions of Germans and Ustashe had hit Bela krajina.
Zilje is a small village on the banks of the Kolpa River. There was a crew of the Italian Guardia di Finanza. The villagers had no problems with them. Like in other places in Bela krajina, the Italian Army deported many men from Zilje to camps. A lot of them died there due to unbearable conditions.
Today, comparisons between the former occupation border and the current wired border with the Republic of Croatia are being made.
Residents needed passes to cross the border. They were necessary immediately, even during the temporary military administration that lasted until June 1941. Residents of the Ljubljana region that included Dolenjska also needed permits for traveling within the province territory. As part of the Ljubljana region, Dolenjska was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy on May 3, 1941, by the King’s decree.
According to international agreements, the Germans left some villages in the east of Dolenjska and south of Brežice to the Independent State of Croatia. Said villages were incorporated in the newly established municipality of Bregana in September 1941 that included several Croatian villages. The church life was in these villages was greatly affected. The Germans evicted the priests shortly after the occupation, as worship was banned in Germany. The villages that were annexed to the Independent State of Croatia had to regulate the manner of conducting masses and keeping the registers. Masses were occasional, and registers were kept in the parish of Sabobor, which was annexed to said villages.
Shortly after the German occupation of parts of Dolenjska, the local population was gradually deported. Part of the territory between the Sava River and the state border was intended for Lebensraum. Part of these German settlers came from the territory around Kočevje, where they had lived for centuries, but the region was annexed to Italy during the war. In addition to them, Germans from elsewhere were to be settled.
The border was a major obstacle for the locals. It cut them from jobs, or in the case of farmers, from their land. These lands were mostly uncultivated since border crossing was restricted, in addition to difficulties in transferring goods from one country to another.
In addition to the state border, the erection of various military facilities around the area was also a hindrance for the locals. The Italians surrounded Novo mesto and Šentjernej with barbed wire. In many other places, individual houses were cordoned off with barbed wire, fortified and equipped with bunkers. The locals who lived in these houses were evicted.
Children were, naturally, also the victims of the war. It was stressful for them that they had to pass the Italian checkpoint on their way to school in the neighboring village of Preloka. They were constantly stopped by the soldiers. In addition to that, the children were often victims of the Ustashe shooting from the Croatian bank of the Kolpa River. They used to shoot at children when they swam in the river. Luckily nobody was hit since they mostly fired into the air, but it was definitely unnerving for the children.
After the Italian capitulation, the villagers demolished the bunker. In one of the houses previously occupied by the Italians, a partisan hospital was operating briefly in the fall of 1943. During the German offensive in the fall of 1943, German troops passed through the village. Later, there were no military operations in the village until the end of the war.
The interwar period between the First and the Second World Wars introduced several novel proceedings in the operation of the Parliament that formerly, in the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were unfamiliar to Slovenes.
Parliamentary life during the era of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918–1945) may be divided in two periods. The milestone is the same as the generally perceived division of the interwar period that occurred in 1929 when King Alexander I forcibly dissolved the Parliament and introduced personal dictatorship. Each period was characterized by its own electoral law that differed in several significant aspects. The initial law of 1920 was amended merely two years later. Although the ticket and the distribution of mandates were modified, the essential system of secret ballot and proportional representation, with eligible voters being male citizens of age, remained unchanged. In 1931 the dictatorship of King Alexander abated and the parliamentary system was restored. The new electoral law retained the institution of proportional representation but corrupted it considerably by favoring the strongest party. As a result, the party was repeatedly given a larger share of mandates disproportionate to its portion of votes. In comparison with the electoral system of the 1920s there were two major changes, namely the introduction of state ballot and of open vote. During the first decade of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia the country was divided in over fifty electoral districts largely bound to dministrative or judicial districts. Depending upon its political interests and chances, a party and its ballot stood in a different number of electoral districts. Each electoral district had a fixed number of mandates that were distributed within it. According to the policy of unitarism, a candidate list that wished to stand at the parliamentary elections of the 1930s had to set up candidates in the entire country. As a result of this provision, parties whose character was largely local had to form a coalition even before the election in order to run as candidates. The second major change was the introduction of open vote. In Austria-Hungary voters voted by means of paper ballots on which they marked their choice of candidate. Contrary to this, and in view of the fact that a large percentage of its constituency was illiterate, the Kingdom of Serbia employed the system of ballot balls that was later, and for the same reason, adopted by the electoral law of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918–1929). A voter cast his vote by dropping the ball in the ballot box of his party. Later, in the 1930s, voters voted publicly by loudly and clearly declaring the name of their candidate to the electoral committee, which was clearly a step backwards.
In comparison with other elections of the 1920s, the 1920 election results, which were plainly the reflection of the tumultuous period following the end of the First World War, were quite distinct. The Slovene People’s Party regained its power in the elections of 1923 and retained it through the 1925 and the 1927 elections. The liberal camp, consisting of various bourgeois liberal parties as well as peasants’ and labor (yet non-Marxist) parties, was far too dispersed and unable to find a joint platform for the upcoming elections; after the victory of the Slovene People’s Party they could merely pick the remaining crumbs. The initially good election results of 1920 were thus diluted later on by a lack of unity among different socialist factions, which is why they had not won a mandate in the parliament until 1927. In Slovenia, the period of the 1930s was an interesting one. The formerly strongest Slovene People’s Party did not take part in the elections of 1931 and 1935 but celebrated a triumphant comeback in 1938. In the elections of 1938 the ballot of the Yugoslav opposition, whose leader was Croatian Vladimir Maček, attracted considerable attention in Slovenia because, in addition to other factors, it had managed to draw various political groups.
In the 1920s the poll was higher than a decade later, and this decreasing trend continued until 1935. Although the number of voters in the last elections prior to the Second World War was higher than in other elections of the 1930s it was nevertheless lower than in the 1920s. The significant decrease in 1931 and 1935 may be largely, yet not entirely, attributed to the fact that the Slovene People’s Party did not run in the parliamentary elections in these years. Another significant reason for the steady decline of the poll after 1920 was the unstable political state of affairs of that time. Elections took place virtually every second year and voters were tired of this situation. In addition, the number of eligible voters steadily increased throughout the interwar period, which was due to increased population and the fact that voters were entered in electoral rolls much more consistently.
Political parties presented their platform and candidates in their newspapers and in political rallies. In addition to discussing the rallies of their political option articles also reported on those of the opponent. Most of these reports glorified the successful outcome of their own rally and dwelled on the alleged failure of the adversary’s mass meeting. In presenting the political platform of their party, authors emphasized the mistakes of the opponent and presented them as the crucial reason why a voter should not vote for another party; it was clear that it was the opponents that had brought the country into such detrimental circumstances. The adversary was constantly described as being polluted by corruption, clientelism, and exceedingly high, or disproportionate, taxes. This situation would swiftly improve once the government of the day had been replaced. One of the arguments used against the Slovene People’s Party was that it was accused of betrayal by its opponents when the Party assumed an anti-Serbian stance in 1914.
Another significant task of newspapers was to instruct their readers on how to properly cast their vote. Since there were several ballot boxes the exact position of the corresponding box had to be indicated. Another important element of election propaganda, which seemed more of a threat than an invitation, was a summons to polls. While contingent nonattendance was labeled treacherous the urgency to vote was reinforced by emphasizing the responsibility of voters to cast their vote. Yet there were no serious analyses of political opponents who were often discredited through the use of utterly ill-suited, and even disparaging, terms.
The interwar period between the First and the Second World Wars introduced several novel proceedings in the operation of the Parliament that formerly, in the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were unfamiliar to Slovenes.
Parliamentary life during the era of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918–1945) may be divided in two periods. The milestone is the same as the generally perceived division of the interwar period that occurred in 1929 when King Alexander I forcibly dissolved the Parliament and introduced personal dictatorship. Each period was characterized by its own electoral law that differed in several significant aspects. The initial law of 1920 was amended merely two years later. Although the ticket and the distribution of mandates were modified, the essential system of secret ballot and proportional representation, with eligible voters being male citizens of age, remained unchanged. In 1931 the dictatorship of King Alexander abated and the parliamentary system was restored. The new electoral law retained the institution of proportional representation but corrupted it considerably by favoring the strongest party. As a result, the party was repeatedly given a larger share of mandates disproportionate to its portion of votes. In comparison with the electoral system of the 1920s there were two major changes, namely the introduction of state ballot and of open vote. During the first decade of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia the country was divided in over fifty electoral districts largely bound to dministrative or judicial districts. Depending upon its political interests and chances, a party and its ballot stood in a different number of electoral districts. Each electoral district had a fixed number of mandates that were distributed within it. According to the policy of unitarism, a candidate list that wished to stand at the parliamentary elections of the 1930s had to set up candidates in the entire country. As a result of this provision, parties whose character was largely local had to form a coalition even before the election in order to run as candidates. The second major change was the introduction of open vote. In Austria-Hungary voters voted by means of paper ballots on which they marked their choice of candidate. Contrary to this, and in view of the fact that a large percentage of its constituency was illiterate, the Kingdom of Serbia employed the system of ballot balls that was later, and for the same reason, adopted by the electoral law of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918–1929). A voter cast his vote by dropping the ball in the ballot box of his party. Later, in the 1930s, voters voted publicly by loudly and clearly declaring the name of their candidate to the electoral committee, which was clearly a step backwards.
In comparison with other elections of the 1920s, the 1920 election results, which were plainly the reflection of the tumultuous period following the end of the First World War, were quite distinct. The Slovene People’s Party regained its power in the elections of 1923 and retained it through the 1925 and the 1927 elections. The liberal camp, consisting of various bourgeois liberal parties as well as peasants’ and labor (yet non-Marxist) parties, was far too dispersed and unable to find a joint platform for the upcoming elections; after the victory of the Slovene People’s Party they could merely pick the remaining crumbs. The initially good election results of 1920 were thus diluted later on by a lack of unity among different socialist factions, which is why they had not won a mandate in the parliament until 1927. In Slovenia, the period of the 1930s was an interesting one. The formerly strongest Slovene People’s Party did not take part in the elections of 1931 and 1935 but celebrated a triumphant comeback in 1938. In the elections of 1938 the ballot of the Yugoslav opposition, whose leader was Croatian Vladimir Maček, attracted considerable attention in Slovenia because, in addition to other factors, it had managed to draw various political groups.
In the 1920s the poll was higher than a decade later, and this decreasing trend continued until 1935. Although the number of voters in the last elections prior to the Second World War was higher than in other elections of the 1930s it was nevertheless lower than in the 1920s. The significant decrease in 1931 and 1935 may be largely, yet not entirely, attributed to the fact that the Slovene People’s Party did not run in the parliamentary elections in these years. Another significant reason for the steady decline of the poll after 1920 was the unstable political state of affairs of that time. Elections took place virtually every second year and voters were tired of this situation. In addition, the number of eligible voters steadily increased throughout the interwar period, which was due to increased population and the fact that voters were entered in electoral rolls much more consistently.
Political parties presented their platform and candidates in their newspapers and in political rallies. In addition to discussing the rallies of their political option articles also reported on those of the opponent. Most of these reports glorified the successful outcome of their own rally and dwelled on the alleged failure of the adversary’s mass meeting. In presenting the political platform of their party, authors emphasized the mistakes of the opponent and presented them as the crucial reason why a voter should not vote for another party; it was clear that it was the opponents that had brought the country into such detrimental circumstances. The adversary was constantly described as being polluted by corruption, clientelism, and exceedingly high, or disproportionate, taxes. This situation would swiftly improve once the government of the day had been replaced. One of the arguments used against the Slovene People’s Party was that it was accused of betrayal by its opponents when the Party assumed an anti-Serbian stance in 1914.
Another significant task of newspapers was to instruct their readers on how to properly cast their vote. Since there were several ballot boxes the exact position of the corresponding box had to be indicated. Another important element of election propaganda, which seemed more of a threat than an invitation, was a summons to polls. While contingent nonattendance was labeled treacherous the urgency to vote was reinforced by emphasizing the responsibility of voters to cast their vote. Yet there were no serious analyses of political opponents who were often discredited through the use of utterly ill-suited, and even disparaging, terms.
V prispevku avtor prikaže način iskanja literature o rapalski meji v bibliografijah in v Cobiss. Opozarja na različne oblike bibliografij in načine njihove uporabe. Rezultate iskanja predstavlja po skupinah in opozarja na posebnosti. Iskanje v objavljenih bibliografijah je drugačno kot v Cobissu. Zgradba bibliografij je popolnoma drugačna, kot je struktura Cobissa. Cobiss je po podatkih, ki so vključeni v posamezne zapise, mnogo bogatejši. To potem omogoča poglobljeno iskanje. Izpis rezultatov v Cobissu omogoča tudi najrazličnejša filtriranja, ki pa so predvsem tehnične narave (avtor, jezik, vrste in oblike tekstov). Vpliv na kakovost rezultata iskanja ima predvsem natančnost zapisa iskalnega niza, kjer mora uporabnik upoštevati določena pravila, da bo rezultat iskanja čim boljši, kar v glavnem pomeni, da je število najdenih zapisov čim večje in vsebinsko čim bolj natančno.
Rezultati iskanja v Cobissu vključujejo vnose do marca 2023.
Ključne besede: rapalska meja, bibliografije, Cobiss, literatura
ABSTRACT
In this paper, the author shows how to search for literature on the Rapallo border in bibliographies and Cobiss. He points out the diferent forms of bibliographies and how they can be used. The results of the search are presented in groups and specific features are pointed out. Searching in published bibliographies is di1erent from searching in Cobiss. The structure of bibliographies is completely di1erent from that of Cobiss. Cobiss is much richer in the information included in each record. This then allows for more in-depth searching. The output of results in Cobiss also allows a wide variety of filtering, which is mainly technical in nature (author, language, types and formats of texts). The quality of the search result is mainly influenced by the precision of the search string notation, where the user has to follow certain rules in order to obtain the best possible search result, which mainly means that the number of records found is as high as possible and the content as precise as possible.
Cobiss search results include entries up to March 2023.
Keywords: rapala frontier, bibliographies, Cobiss, literature
Ukraine and Russia are not negotiating peace. In international relations, there is no initiative to conclude peace. What is war damage and who profits.
Die Ukraine und Russland verhandeln nicht über Frieden. In den internationalen Beziehungen gibt es keine Friedensinitiative. Was ist Kriegsschaden und wer profitiert?
Okupacijske meje v Sloveniji 1941–1945, https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/196
Življenje ob meji: Rogaška Slatina in Obsotelje kot jugovzhodna meja nemškega rajha (1941–1945), https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/194
Vinceremo, videt čemo: okupacijske meje v Beli krajini 1941–1945, https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/195
Razkosana Slovenija: okupacijske meje med drugo svetovno vojno, https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/266
Obmejni trikotnik: okupacijske meje med Idrijo, Žirmi in Polhograjskimi Dolomiti, 1941–1945, https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/271
En krompir, tri države: okupacijske meje na Dolenjskem 1941–1945, https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/269
Hlev je bil pod Nemci, hiša pod Madžari: okupacijske meje v Prekmurju 1941–1945, https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/270
Occupation Borders in Slovenia 1941–1945, https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/371
Dismembered Slovenia, https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/420
00:01:25 Božo Repe, Slovenci in velike sile po koncu prve svetovne vojne
00:24:19 Bojan Balkovec, Slovenska historiografija o severni meji in rapalski meji v 20. stoletju
00:43:09 Janez Peter Grom in Alenka Fikfak, Rapalska meja in njen vpliv na prostorski razvoj okolice
01:04:01 Peter Mikša, Rapalska meja in njen vpliv na prostorski razvoj okolice
01:24:00 Aleksander Duh, Obrambne linije rapalske meje na primeru šestega sektorja Rupnikove linije
Za percepcijo posameznikov in skupine iz okolja, kjer je bila meja, pa so pomembna tudi različna pričevanja. Zbiranje pričevanj ima dve izhodiščni točki. Prva je pričevanje posameznikov, ki so živeli ob okupacijskih mejah, ali pa jim je v času vojne meja pomenila pomembno oviro za njihovo običajno življenje. Poleg tega ti intervjuji običajno niso povezani z delom na terenu, v smislu odkrivanja ostankov meja. V vsebinskem smislu so ti intervjuji obsežnejši in se ne dotikajo le vprašanj meje, ampak vseh področij življenja v času okupacije.
Posebej ob slovensko hrvaški meji pa tudi aktualnega dogajanja z bodečo žico, kjer nehote prihaja do primerjav in vzporednic s časom druge svetovne vojne. Katere vsebine bodo zajete v intervjuju oz. katera vprašanja oz. podvprašanja bodo zastavljena je odvisno od starosti intervjuvanca. Najstarejša intervjuvanka je bila rojena leta 1919, večina med 1920 in 1940. Pomemben je tudi geografski vidik, namreč kje je intervjuvanec živel. Največji del intervjuvancev je živel na podeželju ali pa v manjših krajih. Le nekaj jih je iz večjih krajev oz. krajev s kakšnim večjim industrijskim obratom.
Drug tip zbiranja pričevanj pa ni načrten, ampak spontan. Spontan je na način, da ob raziskovanju na terenu srečujemo posameznike, ki živijo blizu za nas zanimivih lokacijah. Hitro navežemo stik in osebo povprašamo o morebitnih spominih, morda osebnih morda iz pripovedovanj prednikov ali o splošnih vedenjih v kraju. Odziv ljudi na terenu, ki jih prosimo, da nam povedo kar vedo o objektu, lokaciji ali meji, je odličen, saj le redko kdo ni pripravljen dati izjavo. V takšnem primeru prosimo, da nam povedo zgodbo, potem pa to v kamero pove nekdo od prisotnih sodelavcev projekta. Pristno pripovedovanje je za nas raziskovalce zanimivo iz več razlogov. Med njimi so zagotovo jezik, pogosto dialekt, nato besednjak, način pripovedovanja (prepričljivo, polno podrobnih opisov, natančno) in vsekakor tudi osebni odnos do vsebine, ki jo ima lahko samo nekdo, ki ima neposredno osebno zvezo z dogodki, ki jih opisuje.
Po nekaj mesecih izvajanja projekta smo se odločili, da bomo za širjenje informacij o izvajanju projekta uporabili platformi Facebook in YouTube. Predvsem FB se je pokazal kot pomemben, saj omogoča dvosmerno komunikacijo. Objavljamo dele intervjujev in posnetke s terena, kjer sodelavci projekta in naključni intervjuvanci opisujejo mejo, ostanke ali se spominjajo dogodkov. Prvi vtis o zanimanju kaže število obiskov in dolžina ogledov video posnetkov. Zanimivi pa so tudi odzivi na posnetke. Dragoceni so predvsem tisti, kjer ogledovalci dodajo informacije, ki so za nas nove, ali pa z informacijami dopolnjujejo navedbe intervjuvancev.
In our work, we, collaborators on the research project Napravite mi to deželo nemško... italijansko ... madžarsko ... hrvaško! Vloga okupacijskih meja v raznarodovalni politiki in življenju slovenskega prebivalstva / Make This Country German ... Italian ... Hungarian ... Croatian! Role of Occupation Borders in the Denationalisation Policy and in the Lives of Slovenian Population, use various types of archival material and complement it with interviews. We searched for archival material in the domestic and foreign archives that house materials which clarify how the border between the different occupiers that had occupied Slovenia had been formed and maintained. For historians, the composition of the research group, which also includes geographers, has made a great and positive change to our research work. Due to the contents of the research, fieldwork became an important part of the project. Fieldwork means looking for the material remains of borders in nature (concrete or iron remains, in some places even buildings).
Various eyewitness accounts are significant for forming a perception of individuals and groups from the environment in which the border was located. The collecting of eyewitness accounts has two starting points. Firstly, the eyewitness accounts of individuals who lived along the occupation borders or whose daily lives during the war were greatly hindered by the border. Moreover, such interviews are usually not connected with fieldwork, in the sense of discovering the remains of borders. Content-wise, such interviews are more comprehensive and touch on not only the border issues but on all areas of life in a time of occupation. Especially in the case of the Slovenian-Croatian border, they also broach the events surrounding the current barbed wire, inadvertently drawing comparisons and parallels with the time of World War II. Which contents will be covered in the interview or which questions or subquestions will be asked depends on the age of the interviewee. The oldest female interviewee was born in 1919, while most of them were born between 1920 and 1940. Another factor is the geographical aspect, namely where the interviewee lived. The largest proportion of interviewees lived in the countryside or in smaller localities. Only a few of them come from larger localities or from localities with a large industrial plant.
The second method of collecting eyewitness accounts is not planned but spontaneous. Spontaneous in the sense that while conducting research in the field we come across individuals who live near locations that are of interest to us. We quickly establish contact and ask the person about any potential memories, either personal or based on stories told by their ancestors or on the common knowledge in those parts. We have had a great response from the people in the field who were asked to tell us what they knew about a building, location or the border, because only rarely was someone not willing to make a statement. They were asked to tell us a story and later on the same story was told to the camera by one of the project collaborators present. To us, researchers, authentic storytelling is interesting for several reasons. These undoubtedly include language, which is often a dialect, followed by vocabulary, the form of storytelling (convincing, full of detailed descriptions, accurate) and, by all means, the personal attitude towards the content, which can be held only by someone directly involved in the events he/she is describing.
After several months of implementing the project, we decided to use the Facebook and YouTube platforms to spread information about project implementation. FB proved to be especially important because it enables two-way communication. We post parts of interviews and field footage in which project collaborators and random interviewees describe the border and its remains, and reminisce about events. The number of visits and the watch time give a first impression of how interested people are in this project. Also interesting are people’s reactions to the videos. Especially valuable are those in which the viewers add information that is new to us or in which they complement interviewees’ statements with additional information.
Demografske spremembe so povezane tudi z distribucijo dohodkov, kamor prištevamo tudi pokojnine. V prvih letih je bil pokojninski sistem pogosto preoblikovan. Preoblikovanja so bila najprej povezana s poenotenjem prej različnih oblik zavarovanj, ki so obstajala za posamezne skupine delavcev. Zakonodaja je te vse oblike združevala v enoten tip zavarovanja in za vse delavce. Različne oblike pristojnosti pokojninskih zavodov v Sloveniji so bili povezani s stopnjo (de)centralizacije. Po uvedbi samoupravljanja je bilo to na določen način vključene tudi v organe pokojninskih inštitucij. Demografske spremembe in spremembe števila in vrste zaposlenih so silile v razmisleke o načinih zbiranja sredstev in o njihovi distribuciji.
The Association of Housewives published the magazine Gospodinja (i.e. Housewife) from 1932 to 1942. Various articles on a healthy diet, the appropriate preparation and storage of food represented a significant part of its contents. The magazine provided advice on menus and recipes and pointed out the advantages of using electricity and gas in the cuisine. The usual as well as richer and festive, but also vegetarian menus found their way into the magazine. Some menus were fitted with comments on their suitability for respective occupational and age groups of the population.
Odnos med zgodovinarji in mediji je zato zelo pomemben. Mediji ponujajo znanosti platformo, da približajo svoje raziskave javnosti, sodelujejo v razpravah, kjer je treba in delijo svoja spoznanja. Mediji imajo za razliko od znanstvenih publikacij tudi moč oblikovanja javnega dojemanja zgodovine. Medijsko prikazovanje historičnih dogodkov, poudarjanje specifičnih vidikov zgodovine in izmikanje drugim vidikom, močno vpliva na kolektivni spomin, razumevanje javnosti glede celostnih vzročno-posledičnih vidikov preteklih dogodkov in na način spominjanja. Na poročanje medijev pogosto vplivajo pristranskost novinarjev, urednikov, lastnikov in pritisk politike.
Sodelovali so Ahmed Burić, Tvrtko Jakovina, Branimir Janković,
Husnija Kamberović, Hrvoje Klasić, Božo Repe, Dubravka Stojanović, Ana Svenšek. Povezoval je Bojan Balkovec.
Zaključne misli ob koncu RetroFest je imela Kornelija Ajlec.
Na takšne poglede so se odzvali tako v ženskih gibanjih, kot politiki in uradniki preko zakonodaje. Avtorica monografije je te in še mnoge druge vidike prakse ilegalnih splavov, analizirala in predstavila v svoji drugi samostojni monografiji, ki je izšla v zbirki Historia Založbe Univerze v Ljubljani.
Sodelovale so Ana Cergol, Meta Remec in Maja Vehar. Pogovor je povezoval Bojan Balkovec.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec
Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
Knjiga Svijet bez katarze je že druga zbirka, ki je nastala kot kompilacija kolumn in člankov, ki so sicer tematsko in slogovno raznolika, a daje bralcu jasno vedeti, da je svet 20. in 21. stoletja majhen ter da bi moral biti pogled javnosti usmerjen daleč izza cone udobja evropocentrizma. Bralec se z branjem vsakega poglavja sprehodi skozi zgodovinske dogodke ene izmed eksotičnih držav Azije, Afrike, Južne Amerike, Karibov,... Bralčevo oko pa se lahko ustavi tudi doma, v Evropi, in se spozna z Masarykom, prostozidarji ali prvo svetovno vojno.
Gre za strokovno monografijo, ki pa ji znanstvenosti ne manjka. Vsako besedilo temelji na prebiranju zgodovinskih virov in literature, napisano pa je koncizno in brez balasta. Mojstrsko oblikovanje besed omogoča láhko razumevanje vsake izbrane teme.
Sodelovali so Tvrtko Jakovina, Dubravka Stojanović in Božo Repe. Pogovor je povezovala Kornelija Ajlec.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec
Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
V panelu Namišljene in resnične meje smo pogledali nekatere izkušnje iz preteklosti ter meje in delitve v sodobni zgodovini.
Sodelovali so: Mitja Ferenc, Dušan Nečak, Blaž Vurnik, Irena Stefoska, Husnija Kamberović, Marko Klavora. Pogovor je povezoval Peter Mikša.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec
Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
V svojih delih lahko osvetlijo izbrane vidike zgodovinskega dogodka ali obdobja, izberejo like in se hkrati samostojno odločajo, kako predstaviti zgodbo. Filmi so zasnovani bodisi za zabavo bodisi za izobraževalne namene. V želji, da bi dogodke naredili bolj privlačne in čustveno prepričljive, jih morajo filmski ustvarjalci pogosto dramatizirati. Ta vidik vključuje poenostavljanje kompleksnih zgodovinskih pripovedi, prikrajanje časovnih okvirov ali pretiravanje, da bi ustvarili bolj privlačno filmsko izkušnjo. Filmi so pogosto tudi omejeni s časom trajanja in s potrebo po koherentnem zapletu. Ustvarjalci morajo zato dogodke oklestiti, združiti več likov v enega ali pa si izmisliti dialoge in interakcije, da bi ustrezali formatu.
Pomemben vidik, ki pogosto vodi filmske ustvarjalce, pa je kulturni in politični kontekst, v katerem delujejo. Pogosto želijo ustvarjalci skozi film izraziti svoje stališče ali komentar o sodobnih vprašanjih in se zato odločijo za poudarjanje točno določenih vidikov zgodovine. Spopadati se morajo tudi z etičnimi vidiki pri prikazu občutljivih ali spornih zgodovinskih dogodkov. Eden izmed ključnih elementov etike je denimo vprašanje spomina in koliko ga je treba korigirati na podlagi zgodovinskih virov, da bi se izognili ohranjanju škodljivih stereotipov in vzpostavljanju novih kontroverz. Kako torej vzpostaviti odnos med zgodovinsko točnostjo in pripovedovanjem, da je pripoved zanimiva, a hkrati znotraj preverjenega zgodovinskega okvira?
V pogovoru so sodelovali Ivan Ramljak, Žiga Virc, Majda Širca, Lordan Zafranović, Tatjana Markošek in Zdenka Badovinac. Pogovor je povezoval Božidar Flajšman.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec
Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
Na temelju obsežne analize virov iz kar štiriindvajsetih arhivov v šestih državah, avtorica razvija perspektive in teoretske koncepte, ki prikazujejo mobilizacijo in sodelovanje nemške in avstrijske družbe v etnični politiki nacistične Nemčije med letoma 1939 in 1945. To stori s pomočjo primerjalnih metod, ko obravnava politiko nacističnega režima na priključenih ozemljih zahodne Poljske, francoske Alzacije in Lorene, ter Slovenije.
Knjiga tako pomembno osvetljuje zgodovino druge svetovne na Slovenskem in slovensko zgodovino na sploh.
Sodelovali so: Alexa Stiller, Bojan Godeša, Božo Repe. Pogovor je povezoval Dušan Nečak.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec
Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
V 20. stoletju so spomeniki med načini, s katerimi se kolektivni zgodovinski spomin ustvarja, spreminja in briše zaradi vojn, ideoloških konfliktov, geostrateških sprememb, dekolonizacije, nastajanja in izginjanja držav, pa tudi modernizacij in urbanizacij, dobili še posebno mesto. V vojnah ali po njih so bili številni spomeniki uničeni zaradi bombardiranj in spopadov ali odstranjeni, ker so predstavljali prejšnje režime, kolonialne gospodarje, zločinske osebnosti … Še posebej so bili temu izpostavljeni t. i. ikonični spomeniki, pogosto povezani tudi s kultom osebnosti in mitologijo, ki so to zgodovino simbolizirali.
S postavljanjem javnih spomenikov in obeležij vodilne družbene skupine izoblikujejo kolektivni spomin po svoji meri. Želijo ovekovečiti določene ideale, vrednote ali dosežke, kot jih vidijo, in posameznike, ki jih poosebljajo. S tem želijo homogenizirati skupnost in jo čustveno povezati.
Z odstranitvijo in zamenjavo spomenikov ob radikalnih prelomih nove politične elite določene ideale, vrednote ali dosežke prejšnje družbe ali države zavržejo in vzpostavijo nove. Gradijo na osnovi nove ideologije, simbolov in osebnosti. Ker se staro ne more skladati z novim, je treba na novo oblikovati tudi zgodovinski spomin. V javnem prostoru ni mesta za oboje, za sobivanje starega in novega. Ob manj prelomnih dogodkih ali v bolj tolerantnih družbah se kolektivni spomin dopolnjuje. Že postavljene spomenike dopolnjujejo z novimi ali z njimi zapolnjujejo praznine o dogodkih in ljudeh, ki so bili prej prezrti. Prejšnjim dojemanjem dodajajo nove interpretacije. Vendar spomeniki sami po sebi niso zgodovina, četudi ima vsak zase svojo zgodovino. So zgolj percepcija zgodovinskih dogodkov, kot jih vidijo tisti, ki so spomenike postavili. Pri uničevanju spomenikov gre za brisanje zgodovine in tudi umetnosti. Z retuširanjem podob in uničevanjem spomenikov ne bomo spremenili zgodovine. Prihodnje generacije bomo zgolj oropali določenih zgodovinskih podob in dejstev, zato jih je treba ohranjati in prikazati v kontekstu določenega časa.
V pogovoru so se spraševali o spomenikih, njihovem pomenu, dediščini, kolektivnem spominu, brisanju spomina in vplivu politike na njihovo postavljanje in ohranjanje oz. izginjanje. Ter vlogi vsakega izmed nas (posameznika) na ozaveščanje o pomembnosti njihovega obstoja.
Sodelavali so:
Božidar Jezernik, Ivan Smiljanić, Darja Kerec, Irena Stefoska, Olga Pelcer - Vujačić, Milan Hladnik, Tatjana Koprivica, Hrvoje Klasić. Pogovor je povezoval Peter Mikša.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec
Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
razvoj. Program, ki je v takih okoliščinah nastal, je bil podroben, geografsko omejen in tematsko razdelan.
Božo Repe, avtor spremene študije, v uvodnem delu predstavi življenje in delo Brezigarja, ki je bil do zdaj v precejšnji meri neznan, saj je Brezigar svojo življenjsko pot med drugim sklenil v emigraciji kot politična persona non-grata v socialistični Sloveniji. V študiji je tudi podrobno prikazan domači in mednarodni kontekst, v katerem je program nastal.
Sodelovala sta Božo Repe in Zdenko Čepič. Pogovor je povezoval Bojan Balkovec.
Snemanje in montaža Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec. Montaža in režija Bojan Balkovec
Na pariški mirovni konferenci se je dilema med Wilsonovo obljubo o samoodločbi narodov na eni strani in imperialnimi interesi evropskih velikih držav na drugi, izrazito prevesila v korist interesov slednjih, določenih z londonskim paktom. Čeprav so na pariški mirovni konferenci prvič izraziteje
upoštevali tudi kriterij etničnih meja, so bili t. i. zgodovinski cilji daleč v ospredju, poleg njih pa pred etničnimi še naravni, geostrateški in gospodarski kriteriji. Jugoslovansko-italijanska meja je zaradi italijanskega izsiljevanja na pariški mirovni konferenci ostala nerešena, t. i. Jadransko vprašanje pa je postalo grožnja za mir, saj je bila Italija pripravljena svoje interese uresničiti tudi s silo. Zato je še v času pariške mirovne konference začela pripravljati teren za bilateralni dogovor, ki bi bil v njeno korist, za kar je do jeseni 1920 dobila tudi podporo Velike Britanije in Francije, ZDA pa so se umaknile v izolacionizem. Jugoslovanska delegacija pod vodstvom predsednika vlade Milenka Vesnića je na pogajanja v Rapallo odpotovala nemočna, pod pritiskom velikih sil, da pristane na vse italijanske pogoje in ob izraziti zahtevi regenta Aleksandra, da sprejme kakršenkoli dogovor in Kraljevino SHS s tem razbremeni najbolj problematične od vseh nerešenih meja novonastale države. Vodilni slovenski politiki na čelu z dr. Antonom Korošcem, tedaj ministrom za promet, so se umaknili v ozadje. Po dveh dneh pogajanj med 8. in 10. novembrom 1920, je jugoslovanska delegacija pristala na vse italijanske pogoje. Bila je v neenakopravnem in izoliranem položaju ter pod nenehnim italijanskim pritiskom. Ni imela niti redne telegrafske zveze z Beogradom. Delegaciji so Italijani ves čas prisluškovali in delali transkripte pogovorov, torej so vedeli praktično za vse pogovore in stališča jugoslovanske strani. Dogovor je bil podpisan 12. novembra 1920. Gnev zaradi podpisa je bil v Kraljevini SHS velikanski, a brez učinka. »S svojim uspehom si je Italija zagotovila naše trajno sovraštvo … Tega naša rasa ne pozabi«, so zapisali v ljubljanskem Jutru.
Po sklenitvi pogodbe so mejo začrtali na terenu, kar je trajalo vse do leta 1925. Meja je ostro zarezala v življenje prebivalstva, ki je do tedaj živelo skupaj. Na obeh straneh meje so nastale nove administrativne delitve, nova središča, prišla je vojska in obe strani sta začeli graditi sistem vojaških utrdb. Vdor drugačnih kultur je močno vplival na način življenja lokalnega prebivalstva, posledice pa so kljub spremembi meje po drugi svetovni vojni vidne še danes.
Rapalska meja je bila popravljena šele s partizansko zmago po drugi svetovni vojni, vendar je bil proces dolg, trajal je vse do sklenitve Osimskih sporazumov leta 1975. Osimsko mejo je po osamosvojitvi Slovenije Italija priznala, vendar nekatera vprašanja, povezana z njo, pušča odprta. V Italiji je navzoč močan revizionizem. Svoje rasne politike, nasilne italijanizacije slovenske manjšine
med obema vojnama, storjenih zločinov med drugo svetovno vojno italijanska država ne priznava, Jugoslovane (»slavokomuniste«) pa obtožuje za obračune z Italijani na etnični podlagi ob koncu druge svetovne vojne. Rapalska meja in njene posledice na bilateralne odnose in odnose v regiji tako vplivajo še danes.
00:00:00 Uvod (Peter Mikša)
00:07:40 Uroš Lipušček
00:20:12 Božo Repe
00:32:22 Slavko Burzanović
00: 00:49 Matija Zorn
01:02:31 Janez Grom
01:18:14 Mojca Drćar Murko
01:38:58 Razprava
Sodelovali so
: Božo Repe, Matija Zorn, Uroš Lipušček, Slavko Burzanović,
Janez Peter Grom, Mojca Drčar Murko. Pogovor je povezoval Peter Mikša.
Snemanje: Božidar Flajšman in Bojan Balkovec
Montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec
O sklepih konference in njenem pomenu za jugoslovansko odporniško gibanje se je Bojan Balkovec pogovarjal z Blažem Torkarjem.
00:00 Ali je Italija v drugi svetovni vojni resen faktor?
09:12 Kako je bila italijanska vojska uspešna proti partizanom?
18:25 Mednarodni pomen italijanskega izstopa iz vojne
25:41 Italija ni obsodila vojnih zločincev
Slovenes were not shown on the map of the new Nazi Europe, in which the German Reich extended from the North Cape in Norway to the last Greek island, from Moscow to the Channel Islands. They restored their place in the sun with the National Liberation Struggle.
One of the key motives for World War II was the revision of state borders which had been formed after World War I. This revision was carried out to the detriment of smaller nations, including the Slovene one. After the occupation and breakup, state borders between the Axis powers were established in Slovene lands. The borders were set according to the logic of territory division and the planned swift and violent disappearance of the Slovene nation. Only the border with the NDH followed the former rough ethnic division of the territory or (partially) the old administrative borders. It is also the only border which has been preserved to this day.
The occupation of Slovene ethnic territory in 1941 created five different borderlands and borders in Slovenia. They were: the border between Germany and Hungary; the border between Hungary and the NDH; the border between Germany and the NDH; the border between Italy and Germany; the border between Italy and the NDH. Despite the formal annexation of the so-called Province of Ljubljana to Italy, the so-called Rapallo Border was preserved, which separated the Littoral Slovenes from the others. Only the border with Croatia, which was based on older demarcations, has been preserved to this day. 20,000 square kilometres of the present-day Slovene territory was divided by as many as 560 kilometres of occupation borders. They ran from the marshy basins of the Mura and Drava rivers to the summit of Mount Triglav; from the Sotla and Kolpa rivers to Mount Peč above Rateče; from the suburbs of Ljubljana across the Polhov Gradec Hills and the valley of the Sora River to the town of Idrija and onward.
All occupiers enclosed their part of the territory by boundaries that separated individual occupation zones. The formation of these borders was accompanied by war violence, the deportation of population, desertion or migration from one occupation zone to another; simultaneously, due to vital necessity and the partisan resistance (which did not acknowledge this breakup and fought against it), illegal border crossings were being established. All of this inevitably resulted in many traumas and severed the traditional patterns of migrations, agriculture and commerce.
* * *
The three-year project (2018-2020) “Napravite mi to deželo nemško … italijansko … madžarsko … hrvaško! Vloga okupacijskih meja v raznarodovalni politiki in življenju slovenskega prebivalstva/Make this Land German ... Italian ... Hungarian ... Croatian! The Role of the Occupation Border in the Denationalization Policy and the Lives of the Slovene Population” is being implemented by a team of historians and geographers from the Department of History at the Faculty of Arts of the University of Ljubljana, the Anton Melik Geographical Institute – ZRC SAZU, the Faculty of Education of the University of Ljubljana, and the Institute of Contemporary History in Ljubljana; the Institute for Ethnic Studies is participating as an external partner. The project is funded by ARRS.
The purpose of this research, popularly called “Occupation Borders”, is multi-layered:
Using special techniques to transfer data from old maps to a satellite system, thus pinpointing the course of all the mentioned borders;
Discovering the remnants of the borders in the field with the team making use of the so-called lidar techniques, and afterwards gradually, step by step, exploring and recording the remnants of bunkers, watch towers, and barbed wire barriers;
With the help of archival material from domestic and foreign archives, and especially interviews, document the life along the borders as vividly as possible. So far, the research team has collected various texts and conducted more than 110 interviews about the hard life of the border population. Their accounts describe how the borders cut through estates, fields and villages; how people were deported because of the border, and how houses and outbuildings were destroyed; how people crossed the borders to make a living, to till their fields on the other side, to smuggle, to stay in touch with relatives, and to satisfy religious and other needs. How, in order to survive, they tried to reach a modus vivendi with the occupiers and their collaborators on one side and with the partisans on the other. Many accounts speak of relatives or fellow villagers dying on the minefields or being shot by guards. The aftermath of the occupation borders, including the minefield-related deaths, marked the lives of the local population for many years after the war;
Show the topicality of the situation of that time, since certain practices, such as barbed wiring at the border, the closing of crossings, making it hard to cross the borders, are being revived today. The issue of borders and of crossing them is still a key issue within the European Union, which is said to be without borders, and – even more so – in the Balkans, between the countries wishing to join the EU. The current situation indicates that the European Union is slowly, step by step, and without thinking about the broader implications of its conduct, slipping back into the circumstances of that time.
The research team is pursuing the concept of public history – in the sense of working with people in the field, regularly publishing its results, interacting with the local environments, forestry services, hunting clubs and interested individuals, and involving students in the research.
This research is departing from the ideologized history of World War II in Slovenia, to which we are accustomed. Within the familiar context of large-scale processes, it introduces the history of the so-called little people, who were living in an inhumane wartime environment and (if they were not deported) tried to survive along the occupation borders.
Prve volitve na Slovenskem so bile v revolucionarnem letu 1848, ko je imela volilno pravico peščica Slovencev, ki je lahko plačevala davke. Ženske so splošno volilno pravico dobile šele po 2. svetovni vojni. V zgodovini se je volilo na različne načine. Sprva so volivci javno povedali, koga volijo. Zaradi nepismenosti pa se je v zgodovini volilo tudi s kroglicami. Po drugi svetovni vojni so obstajale t. i. črne skrinjice, kamor so volivci, ki so glasovali za opozicijo, lahko vrgli »svoj glas«.
O volitvah in zanimivih prigodah, povezanih z njimi, bodo govorili prof. dr. Božo Repe, dr. Irena Selišnik, dr. Bojan Balkovec in Franc Perko.
Spomeniki so nastali v različnih obdobjih in v različnih slogih: od socrealističnega do modernističnih, kar je vse tudi izraz dinamičnega razvoja povojne Jugoslavije, njene enkratne mešanice kultur in ideologij vzhoda, zahoda in neuvrščenosti (tretjega sveta). Ustvarjali so jih najboljši jugoslovanski umetniki, ki so na različne načine izražali trpljenje, upanje in boj jugoslovanskih narodov, pa tudi jugoslovanski poskus graditve pravične socialne družbe.
Potem, ko je Jugoslavija razpadla v krvavih vojnah, so spomeniki doživljali različno usodo: ponekod so jih ohranjali kot spomin na protifašizem in socialno pravičnost, ki sta se v neoliberalnem svetu izgubila, drugod so bili zanemarjeni ali so utonili v anonimnost ( t.i. »nevidni spomeniki«), mnogokje so bili uničeni ali zamenjani z novodobnimi, ki simbolizirajo nacionalistične ideologije in politike.
Ekipa Središča za javno zgodovino je šla po njihovih sledeh. Od Triglava do Vardarja je preverjala, kaj se je zgodilo s protifašističnimi spomeniki in idejo, ki so jo simbolizirali: idejo bratstva in enotnosti, to je jugoslovansko izpeljanko iz gesla francoske revolucije: svoboda, enakost, bratstvo.
The film The Power and Powerlessness of Monuments was produced by the Center for Public History at the Department of History of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. The film shows the attitude towards the monuments dedicated to the national liberation struggle. The relationship in all former republics and provinces of the SFRY is presented.
Scenarij / Screenplay: Božo Repe, Božidar Flajšman, Bojan Balkovec
Režija / Director: Božidar Flajšman, Bojan Balkovec
Snemanje / Recording: Božidar Flajšman, Sonja Bezenšek, Bojan Balkovec
Montaža Editing: Božidar Flajšman, Bojan Balkovec
Branje veznega besedila / Reading the text: Lenča Ambrožič
The film is the result of a research project Make This Land German ... Italian ... Hungarian ... Croatian! The Role of the Occupation Border in the Denationalization Policy and the Lives of the Slovene Population.
Rezultati projekta so dostopni tudi na spletnih straneh / More
www.okupacijskemeje.si
https://www.facebook.com/OkupacijskeMeje
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRtNtrQJTHOwr9R_8Rgj1KXtJo1T7nB0o
in v knjigi Vinceremo, videt čemo: okupacijske meje v Beli krajini 1941-1945 dostopni na
https://e-knjige.ff.uni-lj.si/znanstvena-zalozba/catalog/book/195 (book is in Slovene)
Sodelovali so /Participants
Tončka Adam,
Katica Adlešič, Gabre Bogdanović, Darka Čop, Božidar Flajšman, Janko (Janta) Goleš, Marija Jelenič, Jožef Klepec, Franc Kočevar, Marija Koležnik, Marija Kordež, Ljudmila Mihelič, Peter Rauh, Ivan Starešinič, Jože Starešinič, Marija Starešinič, Ivan Špehar, Frančiška Tahija, Franc Zepuhar, Boris Anton Weiss in Angela Žugelj.
Uporabljene fotografije in gradivo
/ Photo
Arhiv projekta Okupacijske meje, fotografiral Božidar Flajšman
Arhiv Republike Slovenije
Belokranjski muzej Metlika
Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana
Osebna zbirka Božidar Flajšman
Osebni arhiv Frančiška Tahija
Osebni arhiv Ana Starešinič
Osebni arhiv Mojca Kopač in Vlasto Kopač
Osebni arhiv Jani Bračika
Osebni arhiv Blaž Štangelj
Tone Ferenc, Fašisti brez krinke, dokumenti 1941-1942
Alma M. Karlin, Moji izgubljeni topoli
Zvonko Rus, Kronika mesta Metlike II
Lojze Jože, Žabkar, Izpovedi
Glasba / Music
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giovinezza.ogg
https://www.zapsplat.com/,
Oberstajeris (splet belokranjskih pesmi) izvaja Folklorna skupina Dragatuš
Zemljevidi / Maps
Arhiv projekta Okupacijske meje
, avtorji zemljevidov / Archive of the project. Authors of maps Manca Volk Bahun, Rok Ciglič, Matija Zorn
Snemalci / Cameramans
Božidar Flajšman
Danilo Orlič
Srečo Muc
Jure Tičar
Bralka veznega besedila / Narrator
Karmen Dekleva
Montaža / Edited by
Bojan Balkovec
Scenarij in režija / Script and directed by
Bojan Balkovec,
Božidar Flajšman,
Blaž Štangelj
Prevod podnapisov / Subtitles translated by
Tine Zupan
Bolj natančno je predstavljenih osem spomenikov (v tem posnetku šest), ki so predstavljeni v sliki, besedi in preko 3D-vizualizacije.
Razstavo in spomenike je predstavil Gregor Jerman.
Fotografija: Zasavski muzej Trbovlje in Bojan Balkovec.
Snemanje, montaža in režija: Bojan Balkovec.
Sodelavci
Marjan Kos, Marjan Linasi, Bojan Balkovec, Peter Mikša
Scenarij
Lea Knez, Marjan Kos, Marjan Linasi, Bojan Balkovec, Peter Mikša
Snemanje, montaža in režija
Bojan Balkovec
Scenarij
Barbara Šatej, Maja Božič, Ana Marija Lamut
Snemanje, montaža, fotografija in režija
Bojan Balkovec
Fotografsko gradivo
arhiv Oddelka za zgodovino FF UL
Petdeset let slovenske univerze v Ljubljani 1919-1969
Matija Zorn
Božidar Flajšman
Besedilo je brala Lenča Ambrožič
Prevod podnapisov Furocat d.o.o., Tine Zupan
The film The Power and Powerlessness of Monuments was produced by the Center for Public History at the Department of History of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. The film shows the attitude towards the monuments dedicated to the national liberation struggle. The relationship in all former republics and provinces of the SFRY is presented.
00:00:00 Bojan Balkovec je predstavil knjige
The Tito - Stalin Split, 70 Years after https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/230
Okupacijske meje v Sloveniji 1941 — 1945 (ur. Božo Repe) https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/196, knjiga je izšla tudi v angleškem prevodu https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/371
Življenje ob meji: Rogaška Slatina in Obsotelje kot jugovzhodna meja nemškega rajha (1941–1945) https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/194
Vinceremo, videt čemo: okupacijske meje v Beli krajini 1941–1945 https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/195
Razkosana Slovenija: okupacijske meje med drugo svetovno vojno https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/266, knjiga je izšla tudi v angleškem prevodu https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/420
Obmejni trikotnik: okupacijske meje med Idrijo, Žirmi in Polhograjskimi Dolomiti, 1941–1945 https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/271
En krompir, tri države: okupacijske meje na Dolenjskem 1941–1945 https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/269
Hlev je bil pod Nemci, hiša pod Madžari: okupacijske meje v Prekmurju 1941–1945 https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/270
00:19:44 Ana Cergol Paradiž je predstavila svojo knjigo »Bela kuga«: ilegalni abortusi in zmanjševanje rodnosti na Slovenskem v obdobju med obema vojnama https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/book/404
00:33:15 Božo Repe je predstavil svojo knjigo »Vsakdo mora imeti priliko, da udejstvi vse svoje telesne in duševne moči.«
Milko Brezigar in prvi slovenski program narodnega gospodarstva