STUDIA CROATICA

Year III, Buenos Aires, 1962, No. 9

"The Fraternity and Unity of the Peoples of Yugoslavia" Instead of the Right to Self-Determination

Socialism and Unemployment in Yugoslavia

The Personality of Ivan Mestrovic

Mestrovic the Innovator

Ivan Mestrovic

Croatian Renaissance Literature

The Failure of Titoism in Agriculture and the Countryside in General

Mestrovic as Seen by Argentine Sculptors

TRANSCRIPTIONS

DOCUMENTS

Memorandum from the Catholic Episcopate to the Communist Government of Belgrade

The Difficult Situation of the Islamic Religious Community

The Subjugated Peoples of Yugoslavia and the Assembly of European Captive Nations

Review of Croatian and Serbian Literature in the El Ateneo Encyclopedia

Letter to the Editor

CHRONICLES AND COMMENTARIES

Exiles Demand the Right to Self-Determination for Croatia

Discrimination Harmful to the Refugees from Communist Yugoslavia

Yugoslav "Neutrality" and the Atomic Bases in Cuba

Walter Lippmann, Cuba, and Yugoslavia

First Congress of Croatian University Students in Exile

BOOK REVIEWS

Anton Zollitsch: Josef George Strossmayer

Ante Smith Pavelic: Kairska Afera

Hrvatska Revija, volume dedicated to Ivan Mestrovic

Charles Zalar: Yugoslav Communism - A Critical Study

Anton Knezevic: The Turcisms in the Language of Croatians and Serbs

"The Fraternity and Unity of the Peoples of Yugoslavia" Instead of the Right to Self-Determination

Ivo Bogdan, Buenos Aires

The Untenable Assumptions of the Protests by the Yugoslav Communist Government Against the Activities of Croatian Exiles in West Germany

On November 29, 1962, "Republic Day" or the national holiday of communist Yugoslavia, another anniversary of the proclamation of the restoration of Yugoslavia and the communist government was commemorated. On that day, in many capitals of the free world, where large groups of exiles from Yugoslavia lived, there were demonstrations and incidents occurred.[1]

Their actors were mostly Croatian refugees. In some cases, separate anti-communist demonstrations were organized by Serbian exiles, supporters of the Yugoslav monarchy. While their demonstrations were exclusively anti-communist, Croatian exiles protested not only against the Yugoslav communist regime but also against Yugoslavia itself, demanding freedom and the right to self-determination for Croats and other oppressed peoples and minorities within the multinational state of Yugoslavia.

These incidents were primarily reported by the press in their respective countries. However, the demonstrations by Croatian exiles in Bad Godesberg, where most of the diplomatic missions accredited to Bonn were located, were covered by press outlets worldwide. A group of about thirty young Croatians demolished the offices of the former Yugoslav embassy, which, after the rupture of diplomatic relations between Bonn and Belgrade, served as the headquarters of the Yugoslav trade delegation. The demonstrators did not flee but proceeded openly, carrying signs with slogans alluding to Croatia's right to self-determination.

All these incidents, which became frequent this year, forced the Yugoslav communist government to launch a campaign within the country against Croatian émigrés and, in light of what happened in Bad Godesberg, to accuse the Bonn government of supporting the exiles' activities directed not only against the regime, but also "against the integrity of Yugoslavia."

Furthermore, the Yugoslav communist government, through a series of diplomatic notes and protests, did not limit itself, as would have been logical, to demanding compensation for damages and appropriate punishment for the perpetrators, but also called for a "permanent and radical" ban on the activities of all Croatian exiles, who number in the thousands, in West Germany. The Yugoslav communist leaders justified this demand by claiming that the Croatian exiles were working "against the integrity of Yugoslavia." It is glaringly absurd that Yugoslav communists are demanding severe sanctions from the government of Free Germany against Croats who claim the right to self-determination, given that these same Yugoslav communist leaders, following Soviet policy, oppose the integrity of Germany and its unification through free elections, which led to the rupture of diplomatic relations between Bonn and Belgrade in 1957.

The current campaign against Croatian exiles is directed precisely against the German nation's right to self-determination regarding its unification, as this would amount to the liquidation of the communist government of East Germany, imposed by force just as in Croatia.

By demanding that a democratic government adopt anti-democratic measures against all Croatian exiles without distinction, in order to protect "the integrity of the Yugoslav state," Belgrade brought to the international stage the question of whether or not the existence of a multinational, religiously and culturally heterogeneous state like Yugoslavia is justified.

This state was established in 1918 through the annexation of territories that had previously been part of Austria-Hungary. It disintegrated in 1941, only to be re-established in 1945 by the communists. At no point were the peoples and minorities incorporated into Serbia given the opportunity to decide their political status in accordance with the right to self-determination.

It is clear that compelling reasons dictated such action by the Yugoslav communist leaders regarding the Bad Godesberg incident, as they know they are contradicting their own claim that they had eliminated internal and national conflicts by achieving "brotherhood and unity" among all the peoples of Yugoslavia.

Publicly acknowledging, in official documents addressed to a foreign government, that internal relations in Yugoslavia are so tense that the activities of Croatian exiles pose a threat to "the state integrity of Yugoslavia" implies admitting that the communist regime failed to resolve the national antagonism between Serbs and Croats. It is well known that this antagonism caused the disintegration of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1941 and the subsequent long and bloody war between Serbs and Croats.

The communists exploited this antagonism during the war, receiving military aid and later diplomatic recognition from Western democracies, which they had convinced that they, and not the discredited Serbian dynasty, were the only ones capable of overcoming national conflicts within the Yugoslav conglomerate, thus eliminating the dangerous source of conflict and friction in the turbulent Balkan region. Therefore, while today they seek support from foreign governments to safeguard "the state integrity of Yugoslavia," they contradict the fundamental thesis with which they previously justified not only the existence of their regime but also of the Yugoslav state itself.

Consequently, the reactions of the Yugoslav communist leaders—both the internal campaign against Croatian exiles and the polemic against the Bonn government—deserve special attention from international circles. These are fundamental political and principled issues. In essence, the question is whether or not an artificial state conglomerate like Yugoslavia, created through the violation of the right to self-determination, is justified. Before and after the Second World War, Yugoslavia was able to maintain itself against the will of the majority of its population within a system of dictatorships, first monarchical and then communist. Yugoslavia, an instrument of Serbian expansion—backed by Russia—curtails the national freedoms of several peoples and national minorities dominated by Serbia and infringes upon the rights of neighboring peoples.

This is not merely a matter of internal politics, free from foreign interference, but rather a series of issues that concern not only Yugoslavia's relations with other governments in this strategic sector of Europe but also a fundamental question: the right to self-determination. According to the Charter of the United Nations, this right is valid for all peoples without distinction, and therefore also for the peoples of Yugoslavia. This is of particular interest to "third world" countries where Yugoslavia is presented as a consistent champion of the right to self-determination that made the current socio-political process of decolonization possible.

Therefore, we deem it appropriate to objectively analyze the frequent protests of anti-communist exiles from Yugoslavia, especially the incident in Bad Godesberg, and the thesis, or rather the slogan, of the Yugoslav communists regarding the supposed "brotherhood and unity" of the peoples of Yugoslavia, with which they justify so many violations of the political, individual, and national rights and freedoms of the oppressed peoples, infringements of the rights of neighboring peoples, and the failure to comply with the universally recognized principle of self-determination.

The Yugoslav communist government's primary document concerning the events in Bad Godesberg consists of a lengthy protest note, delivered to the Bonn government on December 10, 1962, through the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden, which represents the interests of Yugoslavia in the Federal Republic of Germany.[2]

[2] The note repeatedly asserts that Croatian exiles, in collusion with German authorities, are carrying out "anti-Yugoslav activities in the Federal Republic of Germany" and working against "the integrity of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia." It not only demands the punishment of those who attacked the Yugoslav trade delegation and security measures, but also that the activities of Croatian exiles be "radically and permanently prevented." The note lists Croatian associations, institutions, and newspapers of a political-patriotic, charitable, and religious nature, obviously based on information provided by the Yugoslav intelligence service.[3]

The totalitarian and freedom-crushing communists of Belgrade, who banned all political parties, patriotic, religious, and charitable associations and institutions, along with their respective newspapers, within their jurisdiction, now want to impose their own criteria on the government of a free country like West Germany.

The demand for a "permanent and radical" ban on all activities by Croatian emigrants in Germany, under the pretext of threatening "the state integrity of Yugoslavia," has been repeated in articles in the controlled press, in speeches by Yugoslav leaders, and in the numerous protests that Belgrade has directed to the Bonn government.[4]

It is not surprising that this time, too, the stereotypical accusations of communist governments against political exiles were repeated, labeling them war criminals who escaped deserved punishment because of the free countries that refused their extradition and granted them asylum. According to official Belgrade figures, the number of political exiles from Yugoslavia exceeds 200,000, the majority of whom are Croatian.[5] It should be noted that in the Yugoslav statement, this argument is presented cautiously and indirectly. Belgrade understands that over time it was established that during the last war those who committed the most crimes in Yugoslavia were precisely its current rulers who, after the war ended, violated the international conventions of The Hague and Geneva so many times and in the most flagrant way[6].

In part, during the final phase of the war, these Germans sought refuge in Austria and Germany. Most were massacred or perished in terrible conditions in concentration camps. These Germans had lived for generations in Vojvodina as very prosperous farmers. Thanks to their diligent and rational work, Yugoslavia was able to export agricultural surpluses before the war, whereas now it must import them. The lands of the expelled or exterminated German settlers were given to the mountain people of the Yugoslav interior. From the cited documentation, it can be inferred that the Croatian population, unlike the Serbian population, displayed friendly behavior toward the German minority.

These horrendous crimes went unpunished.[7] Furthermore, the authors of the note had to consider that both the attackers in Bad Godesberg and those who demonstrated in other countries were young. It would therefore be absurd to call those who were children during the last world conflagration "war criminals."[8] Therefore, the Belgrade government merely asserted that the attack was inspired by the exiles of 1945, disregarding the fact that the young Croatian patriots who carried out the attack unanimously declared that they conceived and organized this act of protest, that they do not shirk responsibility, and that they want the legal process to establish that they acted out of patriotic motives and that the free world should know that Croatia must be free "by reason or by force," as the motto inscribed on the Chilean coat of arms states.

We are, therefore, facing a new and highly adverse situation for the Yugoslav communist regime. The reins of action of the Croatian exiles have passed into the hands of a new generation of young men who studied in communist Yugoslavia before going into exile. Despite all the risks and dangers involved in clandestinely crossing the Yugoslav border and the possibility of repatriation, thousands upon thousands of young people flee Yugoslavia every year, a number surpassed only by East Germany in terms of anti-communist refugees exiled from Yugoslavia.[9] In 1957 alone, more than 20,000 people fled Croatia.

Not only will Yugoslav communist propaganda no longer be able to characterize any action of the exiles as the work of "Nazi-fascist remnants," but the fact that young people, educated in the schools of communist Yugoslavia, who did not participate in the political guerrillas of monarchical Yugoslavia (1918-1941) or in the public life of the Croatian state during the last world war (1941-1945), act against "the integrity of the Yugoslav state" and even offer resistance in the subjugated homeland[10], proves conclusively how wrong the Western statesmen were who, at the end of the last war, believed the propaganda of the Yugoslav communist guerrillas to the effect that they would solve the national problem in Yugoslavia.

National conflicts in 1941 caused the unexpected and swift military and political collapse of Yugoslavia, and during the war they led to such bloody clashes between Serbs and Croats that some Western statesmen seriously considered partitioning Yugoslavia. President F. D. Roosevelt, deliberating with Sir Anthony Eden in Washington in 1943 about the future arrangement of Europe, "expressed his repeated opinion that the Croats and Serbs have nothing in common and it is therefore ridiculous to insist that two such antagonistic peoples should live under one government" [11].

Monarchical Yugoslavia was so discredited because of its anti-democratic policies and its inability to solve national problems that the allied statesmen chose to support the communist guerrillas who declared themselves opposed to Serbian hegemony and promised to divide Yugoslavia along national lines into six federal units and ensure equality for all the constituent peoples. However, this did not happen. Communist Yugoslavia remains dominated by the Serbian and Montenegrin ethnic elements.[12]

Therefore, Tito has ample reason not to allow the issue of the young Croatian generation, whose members are organizing protests abroad against his tyranny and leading the national resistance within the country, to be introduced into the campaign unleashed in the wake of the events in Bad Godesberg, in statements to foreign correspondents, and in diplomatic documents.

It is also significant that the right to self-determination, demanded by Croatian exiles in all their demonstrations against communist Yugoslavia, is not even mentioned in the massive campaign that ensued. This right, consistent with democratic ideals, was recognized for all peoples in the Charter of the United Nations.[13]

The government of communist Yugoslavia should recognize it for all the peoples that comprise it, as it is one of the founding countries of that world organization. It is true that this right was included in the first Constitution of communist Yugoslavia in 1946. Even the right of secession was recognized.[14] In practice, this right does not exist, and it is argued that it was permanently abolished with the proclamation of the restoration of Yugoslavia, although it is known that this was the work of a minority, ratified by the constituent assembly, elected from a single list, according to the communist system, and "unanimously."[15]

Such an "application" of the right to self-determination in communist Yugoslavia stands in stark contrast to Yugoslavia's position regarding the right to self-determination of Afro-Asian peoples, except for those dependent on the Soviet Union. Belgrade defended this right in every planned case and in such a radical manner that it even justified the right of dependent peoples to armed uprising.

Thus, in the Algerian case, the Belgrade government disregarded Serbia's debt of gratitude to France, which had helped it liberate itself in 1918 and expand through the creation of the Yugoslav state, thereby satisfying the most unbridled appetites of Serbian chauvinists and expansionists. Belgrade ignored Paris's arguments that Algeria was part of French national territory and that the Algerian question should be resolved without foreign interference.

The Belgrade government not only recognized the rebel government of Algeria before the Evian agreements, cared for the wounded Algerians and gave military instruction to the rebels, but also smuggled arms and ammunition on such a scale that the French fleet repeatedly intercepted and seized Yugoslav ships.

The Yugoslav government, which behaved this way toward France—without whose support the Yugoslav state might not have been formed—observes the principle of non-interference even less in other similar cases, such as Angola, which has the status of Portuguese national territory, as did the Portuguese enclaves in India, occupied by force and with the diplomatic backing of Yugoslavia.

When the crisis erupted in the newly independent Congo and Patrice Lumumba was violently killed, the Yugoslav communists, in addition to other unfriendly acts toward Belgium, orchestrated the attack on the Belgian embassy in Belgrade. This attack was not carried out by Congolese exiles, but by Yugoslav subjects, incited and organized by official circles.

All of this is done in the name of the right to self-determination, which they claim for all peoples, except those subjected to communist tyrannies that established a sui generis form of colonialism, especially in multinational countries, namely the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.

There are well-founded hopes that the free world will soon confront the problem of communist colonialism, given the stark contrast between communist agitation in the former colonies of Western countries and the harsh reality of the colonial dependence of many peoples in Asia and Europe on the Soviet Union. This contrast between theory and practice is so pronounced that even public opinion in the newly formed Afro-Asian countries is noticing it.

These countries, understandably driven by passionate reactions toward European colonialism, are still reluctant to consider the plight of the old civilized nations under the Soviet yoke. Nevertheless, they do understand that the principles of international conventions are valid only insofar as they are respected equally by all. Neither passionate reactions nor reasons of political expediency justify applying double standards or a double set of values, as these ultimately prove counterproductive. The same principles should apply to Soviet, Czech, or Serbian European colonialism.

While there is an increasingly strong tendency to address Soviet colonialism, it is deplorable that the free world knows little about the colonialism imposed on the multinational state of Yugoslavia, where the majority of the population is dominated and exploited by the expansionism of Serbia, which represents barely a quarter of the total population[16] and territory and is inferior in cultural and economic development to the other regions of Yugoslavia.

In this sense, Yugoslavia is a minuscule and deteriorated version of the Soviet Union. While the imperialism of Russia, heir to Byzantine civilization and a large and powerful nation, might have its historical justification, the expansionism of small and backward Balkan Serbia at the expense of Croatia and Slovenia, which developed within the orbit of Western culture, lacks any justification whatsoever. On the contrary, it is an example of the petty imperialism of a country that is not qualified to fulfill the role assigned to it by its government.[17]

Therefore, the Yugoslav communist leaders who—as we have seen—approve of expeditious methods in the anti-colonial struggle, have no grounds to protest if their victims are sometimes forced to resort to identical methods in their defense. This is all the more true given that the communists, between the two world wars, emphasized the need to vigorously combat Serbian "colonialism" within Yugoslavia.[18]

As is well known, the Kremlin only changed its position on the eve of the Second World War when, with the situation altered, it concluded that it would be easier to dominate the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe if it supported the territorial status created by the 1919 peace treaties, with the sole exception of modifying the borders in favor of the Soviet Union.

As for the thesis on Croatia's right to secession, particularly discussed and emphasized at the Fifth Congress of the Communist International, it was replaced by the thesis on "the brotherhood and unity of the peoples of Yugoslavia," which should be organized according to the Soviet Union model under Serbian leadership. Of course, the right to self-determination, and even the right to secession, was not formally denied. Just as in the case of the forced incorporation of Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, etc., into the Soviet Union, it was argued, and continues to be argued, that the peoples of Yugoslavia freely chose to live in the common state of Yugoslavia.

The federalist formula was thus distorted. Multinational communist states are governed in a centralist manner by the monolithic communist party, with the ethnic element of the privileged nation prevailing, as sociologist D. A. Tomasic demonstrated.[19]

Not only did the Croats and other oppressed peoples and minorities in Yugoslavia never have the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination—a right that cannot be perpetually realized according to ad hoc communist theories—but Western countries never recognized these communist impositions. It is true that the Allies ceased supporting the discredited Yugoslav government-in-exile in 1944, forcing King Peter to recognize the new government under Tito's leadership and Tito as supreme commander of the Yugoslav army.

However, this did not constitute de jure recognition of the established communist system, in accordance with the resolutions of November 29, 1943, which communist Yugoslavia considers the founding act of the second Yugoslavia in a republican form, commemorating this event every November 29 as a national holiday. The Allies, including the Soviet Union, expressly declared at the Crimean Conference held in Yalta from February 4 to 11, 1945, that the decisions of the communist party regarding the restoration and organization of the second Yugoslavia "must be confirmed by the Constituent Assembly" [20].

This aligns with the "Declaration on Liberated Europe" of the same Conference, which emphasized the Atlantic Charter principle concerning "the right of peoples to choose their government," and consequently concluded that the provisional governments of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe under German occupation were obliged to proceed "to holding free elections for the formation of a government representative of the will of the people."[21] This also applied to Tito's government, composed, apart from the communists, of politicians from the traditional parties of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia.

Therefore, this government was recognized by the Allies on the condition that "a truly democratic and federative Yugoslavia" would be established.[22] That the communists made promises to this effect is evidenced by the new official name given to the country: "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia."

[21] None of these conditions were met, although the Yugoslav communist leaders claimed otherwise, alleging that the Constituent Assembly, by accepting the 1946 Constitution, ratified the decisions of November 29, 1943, dictated by the communist party. Western governments never recognized the validity of the Constituent Assembly elections, as they were conducted using a single-list system, without any freedom of process.

II

From the preceding analysis, it follows that Yugoslavia, which deprives its constituent peoples and minorities of the right to self-determination, cannot demand that free countries prevent Croatian exiles, victims of communist tyranny and Serbian expansionism, from invoking the right of Croatia and other Yugoslav peoples to freedom and national self-determination.

Regarding Belgrade's unrestrained campaign aimed at extorting the Bonn government into taking drastic measures against Croatian refugees—who, by invoking Croatia's right to self-determination, would be acting against "the integrity of the Yugoslav state"—it is worth noting the weakness of the Yugoslav position, given the relations between communist Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Belgrade does not address the crucial point of its relations with Bonn, nor does it address the issue of Croatia's right to self-determination. In its official note of December 10, Belgrade expressed itself ambiguously, implying that responsibility for the break in diplomatic relations lay with the Bonn government.

At the same time, Belgrade sought to convince foreign correspondents that Germany's circumspect and proper treatment of Croatian exiles was hindering the improvement of relations between the two countries and that more severe measures could lead to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations.[23] Other reasons were also cited, including "the heavy atmosphere," such as "Bonn's obstinate silence regarding the repeated demands for reparations from Yugoslavs, victims of Nazi concentration camps."[24]

The break in diplomatic relations between Bonn and Belgrade in 1957 was not due to the activities of Croatian refugees, but rather to the shift in Yugoslavia's attitude toward Germany after Stalin's death. Until then, Belgrade had occasionally criticized the Soviet position against German reunification. However, as Belgrade and Moscow gradually reconciled, Yugoslavia identified with Soviet policy regarding Berlin and German unification, to such an extent that in 1957 Belgrade recognized the communist government of Pankow, knowing that this implied, according to the "Hallstein Doctrine," a break with Bonn.

The Croatian refugees could have had no connection to this break, and even had to endure unpleasant consequences of Belgrade's influence in Bonn. Perhaps under the impact of the systematic communist campaign against the supposed resurgence of revanchism and militarism in Germany, Bonn deemed it opportune to yield to the insistent demands of a totalitarian government that was trying by all means to paralyze the activities of the Croatian exiles.[25]

If Bonn, having severed relations with Belgrade, lifted the forced restrictions previously imposed on Croatian émigrés while they asserted their homeland's right to self-determination, it did not thereby violate "international obligations," as stated in the aforementioned Yugoslav note, obviously alluding to the convention on refugees and their political activities. Rather, it recognized the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of the United Nations, which communist Yugoslavia, as a UN member, should also respect.

Among other rights is the right to self-determination for all peoples without distinction. This right cannot be nullified by Belgrade's argument that the Croatian exiles, in demanding that this right to self-determination be applied to Croatia, are threatening the "state integrity of Yugoslavia." All the less so, since, as we have seen, the 1946 Yugoslav Constitution recognizes Yugoslavia as a multinational state and admits, at least in theory, the right to self-determination, including the "right to secession," for the peoples that comprise it.

Therefore, if the Bonn government, before the rupture of diplomatic relations with Belgrade, heeded the Yugoslav government's requests detrimental to Croatian refugees, it did so not out of supposed "international obligations," but rather for reasons of political opportunism, which we refrain from considering here, although it is evident that this constituted a violation of the law and principles in whose name the German people demand their unification, resisted by the communist bloc.

The inconsistency of the Yugoslav position in demanding that Bonn, in violation of universally recognized rights and freedoms and in the interest of "the integrity of the Yugoslav state," prevent the activities of Croatian refugees, is clearly illustrated by the fact that the very demand made by the Yugoslav communists was what provoked tension between Bonn and Belgrade when Yugoslavia opposed the integration of Germany based on the principle of national self-determination through free elections.

What applies to Yugoslavia does not apply to Germany, the communist leaders in Belgrade argue. "The integrity of the Yugoslav state" must be maintained even if the fundamental rights of the majority of its subjects are violated. In contrast, Germany must not be unified, even though this is consistent with the right to self-determination.

It is evident that Belgrade's identification with Moscow and Pankow in matters of German unification, Berlin, and its "wall of shame" is not mere solidarity between communist regimes, but reveals a deeper affinity between Russia and Yugoslavia. Both Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union are countries that deprive the majority of their populations of the right to self-determination.

The consistent application of this principle would inevitably lead to the disintegration of both the great Russian imperialism and the dwarfed Serbian imperialism. The degree to which communist Yugoslavia aligns itself with the Kremlin in its anti-German policy is demonstrated by a series of documents and pronouncements. Here, by way of clarification, we will quote part of the speech that the Yugoslav communist dictator delivered in Skopje on November 13, 1961.

Responding to criticism of his favorable stance towards recognizing East Germany during the Conference of Non-Committed Countries in Belgrade, Tito declared: "I repeat once again that it is fortunate that East Germany exists, that it is fortunate that there is not only one Germany like the West... We fear such a Germany and do not hesitate to fight it... That is why I say that it is fortunate that there exists at least a part, unfortunately small, based on democratic foundations and without revanchist tendencies... For this reason, we continue to think that our attitude towards Germany can be no other than the attitude of the Soviet Union"[26].

III

The Yugoslav communists vehemently refuted the theories of the unity of the people of three names—that is, the unitary people of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes—which the Serbian dynasty's dictatorship used to persecute the Croatian opposition. We have seen that for these reasons, the communists managed to obtain Western aid in the last war against the exiled government of King Peter Karageorgević, dominated by the Serbian hegemons who opposed the right to self-determination of the peoples who had comprised Yugoslavia since 1918.

The communists recognize the multinational character of Yugoslavia, made up of five peoples: Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, and Montenegrins, as well as large national minorities, particularly Hungarians and Albanians. In accordance with the national principle and the right to self-determination, the communist leaders should not oppose the separation of peoples, recognized even in the 1946 Constitution.

However, in practice they apply severe reprisals to any Croatian demonstration in this regard and, moreover, as we know, they demand that foreign governments suppress the activities of Croatian exiles who claim the right to self-determination for their homeland. In this regard, it is worth noting on what principle the communists request sanctions from free governments against Croatian exiles, while the latter attempt to uphold the principles enshrined in important documents such as the Atlantic Charter, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and even the 1946 Constitution of Yugoslavia, a faithful copy of the 1936 Soviet Constitution.

The principle that the communist leaders place above the right to self-determination of all peoples without distinction—that is, above the national principle and the democratic conceptions that generate that right—is summarized in the slogan "the fraternity and unity of the peoples of Yugoslavia," which must be preserved even at the cost of flagrant violations of principles that even the communist governments do not dare to publicly refute, surreptitiously affirming them in their solemn pronouncements and constitutional texts.

Therefore, in order to appreciate the true extent of the repressive measures of the communist government against the Croatian opposition to the forced unity of Yugoslavia, as well as its insistence to foreign governments that they prohibit the efforts of Croatian exiles to realize the right to self-determination for all the peoples that make up Yugoslavia, it is necessary to analyze the reasons for this opposition of the Croatians to the forced Yugoslav unity.

First, it must be noted that the millennia-long historical process of Serbia and Croatia followed different courses and, crucially, unfolded within the context of two antagonistic cultural and political traditions: the Croats developed within the Western tradition, while the Serbs developed within the Eastern, Byzantine-Russian tradition.

For four centuries, until 1918, Croatia was part of the Danubian Monarchy, fighting for its political rights, especially during the era of national movements. This struggle, however, was waged within the traditions of a state governed by the rule of law, generally based on the assertion of Croatia's historical state rights. The Croatian party that, during the period of consolidation of national thought, was the voice of Croatian demands was called the Croatian Party of Law.

Endless discussions and debates between Zagreb, Budapest, and Vienna regarding historical and state rights so defined the style of Croatian national struggle that some foreign authors, and even certain young Croatian intellectuals susceptible to the anti-Austrian propaganda being disseminated, were inclined to ridicule this style, labeling it anachronistic in the era of revolutionary national principles, while Croatia's eastern neighbors were resorting to more direct methods of struggle, not only against the decadent Ottoman Empire but also against the Danubian Monarchy.

The Serbs, in particular, who managed to establish themselves as a nation-state under favorable international circumstances, failed to grasp this approach to Croatian political struggle. For centuries they had lived under Turkish rule as a rayah, stripped of all rights, and had emancipated themselves through uprisings and subversive actions. Croatia, on the other hand, was part of Austria-Hungary as an associated kingdom with attributes of sovereignty. It had the advantage of optimal administration, and it offered the possibility of common defense and economic development within a community with balanced production.

All Croatian provinces were incorporated into this large community, thus ruling out subversive actions as unnecessary. The Croats sought to unite around the government of the ban (viceroy) and the Parliament in Zagreb and to achieve greater autonomy within the restructured Danubian community, based on modern concepts of democracy and nationality.

Consequently, the Croats' attitude toward the South Slavic question in Austria-Hungary differed entirely from the Serbian position. While the Croats demanded respect for the founding pact of the Danubian Monarchy, the Serbs could not invoke such rights, and in the name of national principles, they justified their revolutionary and terrorist actions against the multinational Danubian Monarchy.

The Serbs, as well as the other adversaries of this community, did not correctly understand the Croats' strictly legal methods of struggle. The extreme was reached of questioning the capacity of a combative people to shed blood for their national freedom. The fact that the Croats had offered armed resistance to Ottoman aggression for 400 years was disregarded, while the Serbs, who so extolled their struggle for freedom, had been submissive and docile subjects of their Turkish masters.

The Croats' willingness to engage in political compromise with the Danubian peoples in defense of Western cultural values had been caricatured as a lack of national consciousness, and it was believed that, after the collapse of Austria-Hungary, Croatia could be kept in permanent subjugation by annexing it to the Kingdom of Serbia, despite the right to self-determination affirmed by President Wilson.

In 1918, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was created, which was declared Yugoslavia in 1929 by decree of the dictatorial king Alexander I Karageorgević. Against Serbian domination, the Croats, in accordance with their traditions, fought for their national rights using legal, even pacifist, methods of non-resistance, under the leadership of Stefan Radić, an admirer of Mahatma Gandhi.

The Serbs saw such opposition as signs of decline and believed it was not worth paying attention to the Croatian protests, but rather to continue with the Balkanization of Croatia in the name of the ad hoc theory of a unitary and indivisible Yugoslavia. Croatian resistance was nothing more than a regional problem, they argued, an inevitable remnant of the centuries-old Habsburg kingdom and the influence of papal Rome, considered the "hereditary enemy of the Slavic peoples."

Indeed, the Croats were unprepared to confront the harsh reality of a Balkan state with the only methods the Serbs appreciated and understood. If there were any political attacks in Croatia before 1918, they were the exclusive work of Serbian conspirators and their sympathizers.

These acts of Serbian conspiracy and political terror culminated in the assassination of the Crown Prince of Austria in Sarajevo in 1914. Since this crime was the prelude to the First World War, the complicity of official circles in Belgrade was initially denied, but, at the end of the war, the cult of the Sarajevo assassins was fostered in the new state of Yugoslavia. The communists continue this same cult, emphasizing that the perpetrators were socialist revolutionaries, precursors of modern communism.

The pacifist nature of the Croatian struggle against Serbian centralism and hegemony led to the liquidation of the Yugoslav pseudo-democracy. Stefan Radić, the self-proclaimed uncrowned king of Croatia and a proponent of a neutral Croatian republic, was gunned down in the Belgrade parliament on June 20, 1928, along with several fellow deputies, victims of an organized attack. Instead of addressing the ensuing state crisis and reorganizing the state according to the democratic right to self-determination, King Alexander I reverted to an autocratic system, one that was in keeping with Serbian traditions but abject and unacceptable to Croatia and the regions formerly under Austria-Hungary.

The assassination of the Croatian deputies and the imposition of the king's personal dictatorship drew unanimous condemnation from public opinion in democratic countries. Regrettably, the governments of the victorious powers of the First World War did not repudiate this act. In the peace treaties, they favored Serbia over the right to self-determination, accepting the theory of the unity of the "Yugoslav people" under Serbian leadership as South Slavic Piedmont.

Based on these assumptions, the king-dictator justified the establishment of his tyrannical regime as a necessity to preserve state and national unity. He not only suppressed political parties and abolished rights and freedoms, but also decreed that the country would henceforth be called Yugoslavia, instead of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. At the same time, he decreed the official doctrine of the Yugoslav people as ethnically one and indivisible.

The Croatian national name, symbols, political parties, and cultural associations were banned. Even the youth organizations of Croatian Catholic Action were dissolved, since Catholicism—they argued—acted as a divisive agent against national unity between Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs. On the other hand, the Serbian Orthodox Church was favored, although its identification with Serbian nationalism is well known.

Western governments, primarily France, which exercised a kind of protectorate over Yugoslavia—that is, an enlarged Serbia—failed to react against these flagrant violations of the individual, political, national, and religious freedoms and rights of the peoples of Yugoslavia, endorsing the decreed political dogma of supposed Yugoslav national unity. This represented a clear violation of their own principles by democratic governments and their passivity in the face of the perversion of political values. They attributed greater importance to the fictitious national unity of a clearly plurinational state, heterogeneous in its political, cultural, and religious dimensions, than to fundamental individual and national freedoms.

Already in the founding act of the common state of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Montenegrins and Macedonians should also be included), the national principle and the right to self-determination were violated. By sharing the monarchical dictatorship's justifications for safeguarding national and state unity, the governments involved became moral co-authors of one of the most brutal dictatorships of that time, which publicly denied the political and national rights and freedoms that were among the war aims of the victorious powers and the architects of the 1919 peace treaties.

This attack on the rights of the majority of citizens of the newly created Yugoslav state—Servia constituting barely a quarter of its population and territory—implied, in effect, the moral condemnation of the fledgling state and the recognition that it could only be maintained through oppression and the deprivation of the fundamental rights of the peoples that comprised it.

All of this emboldened the proponents of Serbian hegemony to such an extent that they believed, in the name of national and state unity, they were permitted to completely eliminate not only the Croatian opposition, but Croatian nationality itself.

It is no wonder, then, that the new generations of Croatians, educated in Yugoslav schools with Serbian textbooks, in mandatory official organizations, and in the ranks of the army where Serbian officers revered the haiku (Balkan bandits who sometimes fought against the Turks) and terrorists, concluded that against official terror, they had to resort to Balkan methods.

The dictatorial king, considered primarily responsible for so many crimes against the freedom of the peoples of Yugoslavia, fell in Marseille in 1934, a victim of the combined action of Croatian and Macedonian revolutionaries. International public opinion correctly interpreted the attack against a king of the Karageorgevic dynasty, who seized the Serbian throne after assassinating the last king, Obrenovic, and his wife, who occupied the throne of Yugoslavia after assassinating the Crown Prince of Austria, and who decreed the unification of Yugoslavia after attempting to assassinate the Croatian democratic leader, Esteban Radic.

The deplorable circumstance that the French Foreign Minister, Barthou, also died in the Marseille attack gave rise to a veritable black legend about Croatian political terrorism, even though it was, in effect, an attempt to attribute to them methods imported from Serbia. From then on, those who previously dismissed Croats as harmless singers, musicians, and artists would maintain that Croats were dangerous international terrorists working against the unity of Yugoslavia on behalf of the former invaders.

To this day, the criticism leveled at Croatian politics by traditional, pseudo-democratic Serbian parties continues along these lines. These parties, by adopting the principle that maintaining state unity takes precedence over democratic rights, prevented the implementation of political solutions after the death of the dictatorial king that could have averted subsequent tragic events.

The majority Croatian party, in view of the imminence of the global conflagration, was willing, despite the feelings of broad segments of the Croatian population, to reach a political compromise to better address the international situation at the time of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Given the attitude of the Serbian parties, a half-baked solution was reached which, two years later, would provide the pretext for the coup d'état.

In other words, the Croatian Peasant Party, in the autumn of 1939, just as World War II was about to break out, agreed to limited autonomy for Croatia over a small territory, on a provisional basis, based on a constitution granted by the dictatorial king and subject to final approval by the Yugoslav assembly. Considering even this partial solution dangerous for "national and state unity," Serbian officials and politicians, taking advantage of the discontent caused by the Yugoslav government's adherence to the Tripartite Pact, staged a coup d'état on March 27, 1941, primarily aimed at abolishing Croatia's autonomy. However, the perpetrators of the coup were unable to convince Hitler, who was preparing to invade Russia and wanted to secure his right flank, so he ordered a Blitzkrieg (lightning war) in the Balkans.

On the eve of the Second World War, the weakness of Yugoslavia's state formation became evident. Western governments had created and supported this state, trusting that an expanded Serbia would be effective in the event of war, following the traditions of the Serbian nation-state in the First World War. It was assumed that the new generations of Croatians, not "infected by the Austrian and papal spirit"—as Belgrade maintained—would forget all internal conflicts.

However, it turned out that oppressed peoples cannot be expected to defend a state they consider their national prison. Moreover, the Serbs themselves were so demoralized that they offered no resistance whatsoever. Yugoslavia collapsed swiftly and was divided, broadly speaking, along national lines just ten days after the start of hostilities.

It was precisely the younger generation of Croats, educated in Yugoslav schools and trained by Serbian officers, who spearheaded the national uprising that led to the creation of the Independent State of Croatia (1941-1945).

While the military collapse and disintegration of Yugoslavia are linked to the Third ERIC's military operation in southeastern Europe—that is, at a time when Western democracies could hardly accept the fait accompli of the disintegration of a multinational state, incapable of a normal existence—democratic principles, including the principle of self-determination, might have prevailed over the supposed need to maintain the unity of Yugoslavia had the communists, i.e., the Soviet Union, not intervened there during the war. Even the Serbian-Croatian War, with all its tragic aspects, could serve as further evidence that there was no point in "forcing two such antagonistic peoples into a common life" (F. D. Roosevelt).}

In the new situation, it was not in the Soviet Union's interest to make Croatia and Slovenia independent states. Although before the war the Kremlin sometimes criticized Serbian expansionism, attempting to exploit the discontent of the oppressed peoples of Yugoslavia, it eventually shared the Serbian communists' view on the need to restore Yugoslavia. Moscow understood that the existence of an independent Croatia and the establishment of an independent Slovenia would hinder Russian penetration toward the Adriatic coast.

The Western Allies would never allow a Soviet occupation of Croatia and Slovenia, countries in the Adriatic, Danubian, and Central European regions. Nor was there any possibility of the communists seizing power without foreign armed intervention. Given this state of affairs, only Serbia, in its traditional role as the exponent of Russian imperialism in southeastern Europe, could provide the armed force that would impose communist authority on Croatia and Slovenia, and also on Albania, expanding the new Russian imperialism of communist satellites in the West.

The communists, following their well-known tactic of exploiting national antagonisms, were able to take advantage of the heightened national sentiments of the Serbs, exacerbated by the disintegration of Yugoslavia, which Serbia perceived as an aggrandized entity. To appease the Serbs, they declared themselves the most ardent fighters for the restoration of Yugoslavia. They attempted to lead the Serbian resistance, capitalizing on the mistakes of the Yugoslav government-in-exile and its representative within the country, General Draža Mihailović.

Since they couldn't adopt the theories of the discredited monarchical Yugoslavia regarding national unity, they invented a substitute and proclaimed the new political dogma of "brotherhood and unity of the peoples of Yugoslavia." Ethnic unity wasn't emphasized as much as state unity, which would guarantee all peoples and minorities full national rights through the federal structure of the future state. Of course, these were merely formal concessions for propaganda purposes, since it's well known that federalism is a dead letter in communist regimes.

However, this promised feudalism and the concealment of the fact that Tito's guerrillas were communists suited Western governments more for appeasing public opinion than for their own conscience. They claimed that the new Yugoslavia, unlike the old one, would be democratic with a federal system based on national principles.

Regarding national rights, there was no radical change in Yugoslavia, except for the abandonment of the monarchical dictatorship's dogma of the ethnic unity of the Yugoslav people and, consequently, the inherent right to defend the supposed Yugoslav nation-state. Behind the façade of false federalism lies the implacable reality of communist centralism favoring Serbia. The supreme principles of "brotherhood and unity," the very foundation of the Yugoslav multinational state's existence, were copied from the Soviet Union, which uses the same slogan to justify the colonial dependency status of so many of its constituent peoples.

In this way, the new political dogma of "the brotherhood and unity of the Yugoslav peoples" serves as justification for foreign domination and economic exploitation at the expense of the majority of the population. It is significant in the Yugoslav case that "brotherhood and unity" as the supreme law takes precedence even over the defense of "the social structure," which in any communist country should be paramount.

The defense of "socialism" might justify, at least to foreign communists and fellow travelers, certain measures of the regime, while the defense of "the brotherhood and unity" of the peoples in a multinational and culturally heterogeneous state, against the will and traditions of the vast majority, lacks any political or moral justification, as it merely serves to promote the chauvinism of the dominant group. No political or moral reasons are given to justify the need for fraternity and unity between Serbs and Croats, unless one takes seriously the Pan-Slavic illusions of the era of European Romanticism, already considered at that time to be the vanguard of Russian imperialism.

Croats and Slovenes, by virtue of their cultural and political traditions, are far more akin to any of the peoples of Central Europe than to the Serbs of Serbia. They cannot even establish good neighborly relations with Serbia as long as it remains an instrument of national oppression. In contrast, Croats feel a deep solidarity with the other subjugated peoples of Yugoslavia, beyond the linguistic similarity and the common origin of the Slavic peoples. In addition to Slovenes, Macedonians, and Montenegrins, one should also include the numerous Albanian and Hungarian minorities, as well as the remnants of half a million Germans from Vojvodina, exterminated or expelled at the end of the Second World War.

The feelings of solidarity among Croatians toward the European peoples of Western culture are deeply rooted and pronounced, as is often the case among peoples bordering a civilization, as in the case of Croatia.

It has been argued that nations are not only an affective community but that their interests must coincide. It remains for us, therefore, to examine whether the forced Yugoslav unity responds to the reasons of the supreme, supranational good of the peoples of Yugoslavia, who would have opposed the creation of the independent states of Croatia and Serbia.

It is worth emphasizing that Yugoslavia could only be constituted from the remnants of Austria-Hungary. The Serbs played a significant role in this. They demanded the disintegration of the Habsburg monarchy, invoking the national principle, even though the Danubian community was a solid economic and defensive unit.

By what right do Serbs now demand that Croats resign themselves to living in a Balkan state, deprived of national rights, forced to accept different cultural criteria, subject to a bad and corrupt administration, economically exploited, and without any prospect of having a democratic regime unless they free themselves from the shackles of a state in which "brotherhood and unity" are the guiding principle, achievable only within a dictatorial system, whether monarchical before or communist after?

The monarchical dictatorship's argument that Yugoslavia was a necessity for both Serbs and Croats in their defense against external enemies was completely invalidated in 1941 when it failed to resist either Nazi or Soviet penetration.

Moreover, as we have demonstrated, Croatia and Slovenia fell under the communist yoke simply because they had been part of the Yugoslav state—in effect, an expanded Serbia—and the Soviets managed to impose their regime in occupied Croatia and Slovenia in 1945 with Serbian assistance, where they had established a communist government by the end of 1944. Similarly, the communist leaders of the second Yugoslavia tried to convince Croats and Slovenes that they fought to protect their national interests against the Third Reich and Fascist Italy.

Today, everyone knows that the communists, following Leninist doctrine, attempted to transform the international war into a civil war in order to seize power. Today, the peoples of Yugoslavia should not fear democratic Germany and Italy, particularly after the brilliant successes of the European solidarity and integration movement. The communists cannot be the guardians of the freedom of Croatia and Slovenia. They want to incorporate them into the Russian-Soviet empire as the vanguard of its penetration into the West, contrary to the traditions, aspirations, and interests of the Croats and Slovenes.

Furthermore, Serbian-Croatian fraternity and unity for defensive purposes should serve as an instrument for Serbia's domination over Macedonia, Kosmet (where almost half of the Albanian population lives), and the Hungarians of Vojvodina, as well as to sanction the extermination and expulsion of 500,000 Danubian Germans.

While we witness the diminishing of national antagonisms among European peoples and the growth of their shared interests, states of importance like Yugoslavia offer no solution regarding their economic and defensive potential in the face of the concentration of economic and military power in the contemporary world. Yugoslavia, once considered a medium-sized country, is now a small one, despite the boasts of its communist rulers. Countries the size and power of Yugoslavia can no longer play an independent role in the economic and defensive spheres.

Therefore, there is no need to prevent Croatia and Slovenia, in the name of the illusory fraternity of the Yugoslav peoples, from exercising their right to self-determination and, should they so wish, from choosing their place within the community of European peoples. Nor can the Macedonians, the Albanians of Kosmet, and the Hungarians of Vojvodina be forcibly prevented from separating from Yugoslavia, unless fundamental principles of international morality are violated, without a single justification of the greater international good.

Only with the grave European crisis, culminating in the two world wars, were situations created that Serbian and Russian expansionism exploited within the sphere of Western culture, with the support of certain Western democratic governments. The Croatian people suffered the unfortunate fate of having to fight simultaneously against foreign domination and the incomprehension of certain governments from whom they could rightfully expect support by invoking Western and European solidarity.

This is all the more true given that they are a people who suffered enormous losses for centuries on the eastern frontier of our Western culture. The Croatian people do not demand reward for the sacrifices made in defense of their own spiritual identity, but they have the right to protest against the absurd phenomenon of Western governments, by favoring real or potential exponents of Russian expansionism, acting against their own interests.

One of these painful phenomena was giving credence to Yugoslav and Soviet communist propaganda, which claims that the Croats are quislings for fighting against the integrity of Yugoslavia on behalf of others, when in reality they are fighting for their national and political freedom and deserve, at the very least, moral support from the free world. The Serbs and the communists skillfully exploited the conflicts between Western countries in both world wars.

The Croats were labeled adversaries of Western democracies, and Serbia, where there has never been a democratic government, was considered their ally. In fact, in both world wars, the Croats fought alongside the Western countries because they were within range of Russian expansionism, while Serbia acted as an exponent and ally of Russia, first Tsarist, then communist.

Yet today, after so much time and following the reconciliation of the peoples of Western Europe, the Yugoslav communist leaders dare to portray the Croats as adversaries of the Western world and demand that the Bonn government persecute young Croats, children during the last war, as war criminals and fascist remnants. That is to say, they wield the same arguments that Belgrade uses against the unification of Germany, unleashing a campaign of denigration and slander against the Federal Republic of Germany.

They attempt to explain the right of asylum granted to Croatian refugees, victims of communist tyranny and fighters against Soviet expansionism, as further proof for the aforementioned campaign against a free Germany, which Tito, in unison with Khrushchev and Ulbricht, presents as a threat to world peace, while in their view, East Germany, under the communist yoke, is a free and democratic country that should extend its jurisdiction and power over all of Germany.

Even objective communists cannot justify Belgrade's claims to persecute Croatian refugees as opponents of Yugoslavia's statehood. If, at least in theory, the right to a nation-state is recognized for peoples within the Soviet bloc, such as Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Albania, etc., why not grant the same right to Croatia?

Even the communist leaders of Yugoslavia acknowledge in their public statements that vigorous opposition to centralism and exploitation in favor of Serbia persists. Therefore, it is not surprising that Croatian exiles, who until recently lived in Yugoslavia and were raised and educated there, upon learning of the lies and amorality of "brotherhood and unity" in Yugoslavia, express their discontent by interpreting the feelings and thoughts of the new generations of Croatians, prevented from expressing their will in their captive homeland.

The communist leaders in Belgrade not only persecute the slightest manifestation in favor of Croatian national freedom within Yugoslavia, but also demand that the governments of the free world act in the same way. The response that these demands of the communist oppressors deserve is summarized in the declaration of Erich Ollenhauer, leader of the German Social Democratic Party, when he stated that the Yugoslav communists have no right whatsoever to lecture free peoples on freedom and democracy.

Socialism and Unemployment in Yugoslavia

Tihomil Radja, Fribourg, Switzerland

"The right to work and freedom of labor are guaranteed. The social community creates the conditions for the realization of everyone's right to work." (Draft of the new Yugoslav Constitution, Art. 38).

According to Marx and other Marxist economists, the capitalist economy cannot function without the "reserve army of labor," that is, without a considerable mass of unemployed workers, which reaches its peak during periods of economic crisis. In contrast, according to Marx and his followers, the planned economy of socialism guarantees full employment simply by following a directed, rational course and not obeying the laws of the blind guide that is profit.

The Yugoslav communists loudly proclaim and uphold this position, striving to give it real substance and even guaranteeing full employment in the Constitution. The Constitutional Law of 1953 already provides for and guarantees the right to work. Commenting on the first Constitution of 1946 (a faithful copy of Stalin's Soviet Constitution), the political-legal theorist and apologist for the Yugoslav communist regime, Professor J. Djordjevic, writes: "The 1946 Constitution is remarkable for its realism... It limits itself to retaining the rights that, under the given conditions, could actually be guaranteed.

Thus, it avoids proclaiming the right to work, which could not be guaranteed at a time when socialist society was in its embryonic stage... It is a commonplace to assert today that the proclamation of rights has no meaning unless it is accompanied by the realization of the economic and political conditions for their exercise" [27]. Referring then to the Constitutional Law of 1953, Djordjevic states: "Unlike the 1946 Constitution, the Constitutional Law of 1953 proclaims the right to work[28]. The above refers to theory and principles. However, the actual situation took a different course, as can be clearly deduced from the following table:

Unemployment fluctuations in communist Yugoslavia[29] (1953-1962)

Año a)	Desocupados	Total de ocupados en economía (sin campesinos)	Porcentaje registrados
1953	81.610	1.497.000	5,5
1954	72.215	1.651.000	4,4
1955	61.223	1.850.000	3,6
1956	99.338	1.812.000	5,5
1957	115.904	1.959.000	5,9
1958	132.004	2.111.000	6,3
1959	161.633	2.261.000	7,1
1960	159.230	2.464.000	6,5
1961	191.283	2.658.000	7,2
1962 b)	240.925	2.781.000	8,7

a) annual average, b) January-August average; data not final.

In 1962, the following similar percentages were recorded in some capitalist countries[30]:

Italia 7,9%

Japón 1,0%

Noruega 1,7%

España 4,0%

Suiza 0,3%

Inglaterra 1,7%

EE.UU. 5,6%

It is clear that unemployment rates cannot be compared without reservation. For example, a comparison between North America and Yugoslavia is not valid, since in the United States it is exclusively a matter of cyclical unemployment, while in communist Yugoslavia structural unemployment predominates—that is, unemployment stemming from an insufficiently developed economic structure and general economic backwardness.

The comparison with Spain and Italy is closer to reality, given that these countries suffer from structural unemployment. After the war, Italy achieved remarkable results in addressing unemployment, especially considering that the unemployment rate in 1962 refers to the total labor force, which is not the case for Yugoslavia in the preceding table, as will be seen later.

It is obvious that the problem of structural unemployment cannot be solved in a couple of years. From this perspective, the increase in unemployment in communist Yugoslavia from 1953 to 1962, as shown by the data presented, is very significant. Of course, the same data tell us that the rate of increase in employment is slowing, especially in the last two years, and that unemployment is rising rapidly.

According to the data presented, from 1961 to 1962 (January-August), employment increased by 7.3%, and unemployment in the same period by 26%. Moreover, the structural unemployment figures do not include latent unemployment, especially in rural areas. According to some reports[31], a third of the rural labor force remains untapped. In other words, if this untapped labor force were to leave the countryside, the volume of rural production would not decrease. Consequently, total unemployment in the People's Republic of Yugoslavia in relation to the total labor force would be as follows: Labor Force and Unemployment[32] (average for 1961)

Total de la población activa	Desocupados	Porcentaje
9.044.000	1.647.000	18,2

Despite the increase in industrial jobs, total unemployment thus comprises almost one-fifth of the active population. If we add that the natural population growth reaches 120,000 per year[33] and that the plan for 1963 anticipates an increase in employment of 3.6%[34], it becomes clear that employment for the new workforce will be scarcely guaranteed. It is true that registered unemployed receive a certain subsidy, already provided for in the draft of the new Constitution.

However, this subsidy is very meager. Last year in the "People's Republic of Croatia," 730 million dinars were paid out in subsidies to the unemployed[35], whose average number is 60,000. This means that the monthly subsidy for each unemployed person amounted to 1,000 dinars, or 1.3 dollars according to the official exchange rate.

Therefore, all the facts presented categorically refute the claims of the new Constitution that we cited in the title of this paper. The problem of unemployment in general is long-term, complex, and serious, especially with regard to structural unemployment, and it cannot be solved through political propaganda and constitutional norms that are a dead letter.

II

"When we talk about surplus labor, then that shows what our investment policy was and how much we valued profitable construction." Tito at the Fourth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Alliance of Yugoslavia (Vjesnik, July 25, 1962).

The fact that almost one-fifth of the working-age population cannot find work unequivocally demonstrates that the Yugoslav communist regime, for 17 years, failed not only to solve but even to alleviate the serious problem of unemployment. It seems that the fundamental reason for the failure lies in the economic and political ideology of the communists, who want at all costs to eliminate the peasantry as an influential economic and, therefore, political force, and transform them by any means necessary into industrial proletarians, promoting above all heavy industry without taking into account the objective possibilities and profitability of such industrial development. There is no doubt that industrialization is, more or less, the path to progress for every underdeveloped country that does not abandon agriculture. Practice in Yugoslavia followed precisely this course:

Investments in Yugoslav agriculture (annual average 1945-1958, in dinars[36]

Por ha. de superficie agrícola: 1.912

Por habitante agrícola: 2.783

Porcentaje de inversiones totales en agricultura: 9,2

Porcentaje de inversiones totales en industria: 57,4%

It is understood that such an investment policy led to a decline in agricultural production, necessitating the importation of foodstuffs, which aggravated and continues to aggravate Yugoslavia's trade balance. From 1954 to 1961, food imports accounted for approximately 35% of total imports.[37] This worsened the balance of payments, the deficit of which has been paralyzing the economic life of communist Yugoslavia for years. Interest and annuities on the foreign debt amount to $70 million per year, and the total foreign debt is estimated at $1 billion, equivalent to 20-25% of total income.[38] The payment of outstanding obligations and interest does not allow for the importation of essential raw materials and spare parts for the industrial sector.

Consequently, in 1961, the entire industrial sector was operating at only 60% of its production capacity.[39] We have thus arrived at a frankly absurd situation: in a capital-poor country, even the scarce available capital is not being used to a normal degree. This leads to latent unemployment within the industry itself and in the urban economy. According to several surveys[40], the amount of surplus labor in the economy is estimated at 8 to 15% of the total number of unemployed, which translates to between 220,000 and 420,000 workers. If this figure is also taken into account in the estimate of total unemployment, then total unemployment in communist Yugoslavia reaches 22% of the active population.

Such high unemployment is not solely due to the flawed and "dogmatic" economic development policies in general. Its causes must also be sought in part in the misguided industrial policy. "Although investments in heavy industry were the indispensable condition for the further development of our economy, this does not mean that gross errors were not made in the use of investment resources.

This is conclusively proven by the fact that more than 320 billion dinars of postwar investments remained unused, since in many places the spirit of economy and the purpose of these investments were not taken into account, and above all, the excessive size of industrial plants was overlooked. It is also worth noting that production capacities were poorly utilized, sometimes below 60%"[41]. According to some economic studies[42], the optimal technical equipment for work in those years amounted to 900,000 dinars of capital per job. Therefore, through the squandering of 320 billion dinars, the sum that Tito speaks of, around 350,000 jobs have been lost in the industry.

As for latent unemployment in industry, this is not only due to cyclical factors and the balance of payments, but largely to poor investment structuring, the misguided location of factories and their often megalomaniacal size, with no correlation to the market, the mismatch between industrial sectors, etc.

To illustrate the unprofitability of certain companies, mostly large ones, Tito himself provides a stark example: "For example, in Montenegro, we invested around 40 billion dinars in a steel mill. Every year, we allocate 3 billion dinars to it as a subsidy. This means that the steel mill is devouring itself and us" [43]. Moreover, the tendency to invest in the most modern technology does not allow for the maximum employment of workers. According to some data[44], an investment of about 2 million dinars is required for a job in industry, which is 100% more than the optimum according to the aforementioned study by economist S. Popovic.

Under a more rational investment policy, the number of new jobs could double. While modern technology is unavoidable in some sectors, it is not in all. The key to sound economic development policy lies precisely in knowing how to combine advanced, intermediate, and basic technologies, according to circumstances and possibilities. However, when there is a stubborn and dogmatic insistence on heavy industry, it becomes impossible to implement a rational and successful economic policy. Such a policy inevitably leads to stagnation and even decline in production, and in the tertiary sector (services, crafts, etc.), although a job in these sectors costs 250,000 dinars[45]. In Croatia alone, in 1962, due to excessive taxes, 5,000 of the 27,000 artisan workshops closed, while the number of state-run artisan workshops amounted to only 2,300 [46].

Here, too, we find the same "dogmatic" policy as in the countryside; that is, the aim is to suppress at all costs any economic activity that even slightly escapes state control, regardless of the resulting decrease in production and increase in unemployment.

III

"The cause of the difficulties should not be sought in the existing abundance of labor, but in economic methods" (Ekonomska Politika, 10/XI/1962).

The problem of unemployment in general, and particularly latent unemployment in industry, is of increasing concern to the authorities and party leaders. However, when writing or discussing the problems of unemployment, they always try to conceal the true state of affairs. Thus, for example, in the conclusions of the Fourth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Alliance of Yugoslavia, the problem of unemployment is mentioned in the margin and almost at the end, and its solution is suggested at the level of communes and enterprises![47]

They try to frame the problem of unemployment as a regional issue of the most backward areas. In reality, unemployment is a general phenomenon and a serious problem. Even in the most advanced industrial center, such as Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, there were 11,308 registered unemployed at the beginning of November last year.[48] Throughout Croatia, the most economically developed area within Yugoslavia, unemployment rose by 20.8% in 1962, with only 5,420 people finding work, despite the Plan's provision of 38,000 new jobs.[49] It is also noteworthy that the Executive Committee of the Socialist Alliance of the Working People of Yugoslavia, in its resolution on unemployment,[50] attempted to misrepresent, distort, and downplay the problem.

Regarding the proposed solutions, the resolution first rejects the idea of surplus labor seeking work abroad (West Germany, France, etc.), thereby contradicting the constitutional principle of freedom of labor. It is easy to understand that this stance was motivated by the political danger the regime would face if it allowed large contingents of workers to migrate to democratic and progressive Western Europe. Instead, the resolution discreetly suggests that companies lay off surplus workers and, in some cases, return them to rural areas.

Thus, from one extreme to the other: until recently they were trying to remove as many workers as possible from the countryside, and now they are recommending their return. But returning to the countryside is not only not a valid solution, it is not viable from an economic, psychological, or political point of view. The economic reason: for years an absurd situation has prevailed in the countryside, since with a surplus of labor, agriculture does not produce enough grain to feed the population. Wheat imports continue! The psychological reason: the process of abandoning the countryside is irreversible, given that the urban habits acquired by former peasants are so strong that their readaptation to the countryside is almost impossible. The political reason: the influx of the agricultural proletariat could end in an explosive revolt. Moreover, in some factories, especially in Croatia, workers are resisting layoffs, even agreeing to lower wages for everyone.[51] A characteristic case occurred at the Florijan Bobic factory in Varazdin.[52]

In that factory, the workers opposed the installation of new and more modern machinery, believing it would lead to layoffs and unemployment. The contradiction between labor and machinery arises, as we see, in 20th-century socialism as it did in 19th-century capitalism. But scientific socialism promised, above all, the overcoming of this absurd "capitalist" contradiction.

This contradiction, however, like all other contrasts and difficulties, is inherent in every economic process, whether under capitalism, socialism, or any other socio-economic system. At their core, they are the same in Cuba and Yugoslavia, in Italy and Venezuela. They cannot be resolved with words and political dogmatism, but rather with the methods established by economic science under the circumstances and conditions of a free political society, as independent as possible from political and economic monopolies.

In such a society, the ideal of full employment—work for everyone within a free political society—could be achieved and the essential need for it met. In Yugoslavia, where the state, that is, the party, clings to its political and economic monopoly, this ideal cannot be realized. The fact that one-fifth of the working population cannot find work after 17 years of practicing "scientific" and totalitarian socialism is irrefutable proof that this kind of "socialism" is incapable of solving this fundamental human, social, and economic problem. Methods and paths to a radical and true solution must be sought in another political and social system, with more freedom for all, and, as for Yugoslavia, under conditions of complete national freedom for all the peoples incorporated into that artificial state, and especially for the Croatian people.

The Personality of Ivan Mestrovic

José León Pagano, Buenos Aires

Nearly three-quarters of a century ago, a peasant couple crossed the wild Croatian countryside. They advanced wearily, surrounded by silence. They were heading for the nearest village. The route was arduous and distressing. At times, they both faltered, the strong young man and the woman almost fainting, burdened by the signs of imminent motherhood. And so they arrived at a wretched hut, where hospitality was impossible. Everything there was small and poor. Poor as poverty itself. Perhaps a corner remains, but nothing more than a corner in the stable.

There, exhausted peasants take refuge; and there in that stable, like the White Doctor of Sweetness in Bethlehem, and like the Seraphic Saint in Assisi, the Croatian artist uttered his first cries. Do you remember him? Not long ago, I sought the attention of those who read me. And then I said: Listen, and you will think you are hearing a distant legend. Yet nothing in any of it is unreal. Imagine a shepherd's hut nestled in the mountains. There is a boy in it. He tends the flock.

He has a teacher. He is a blind man who sings folk songs, accompanied by the sound of the single-stringed guzla. He is a South Slavic bard. Can you imagine a rhapsode whose divine blindness has been transformed into melody? The rhythm of the wandering blind man evokes the saga of a people halted in their life's course and subjected to captivity, whose stages are measured in centuries.

The shepherd boy listens. A mystical silence overwhelms him and fills him with anguish. The ballad has the lament of the Hellenic myriologist, but its notes do not groan the anguish of a personal and unique being: they weep for the expression of a people and the freedom of a race.

The young shepherd listens, pale, as if all the visions of that otherworld evoked by the melodious blind man were falling upon his spirit. It was as if the soul of the ballad were penetrating the young shepherd's soul, its rhythm enveloping him in an atmosphere of wonder. He is now as if within a circle that will never leave him as long as he lives. It will go wherever he goes. It will be in everything he does and thinks. Perhaps it embodies within him the august spirit of the anonymous epic.

One day the young shepherd sees his father busy carving rough household utensils, and he joins in, carving in turn the wood that proves itself malleable. Something has just been revealed in the wonder of his childhood. Instinct leads him to discover in clay a material capable of being transmuted into revealing forms. An inner light guides him.

How did he come to know his vocation? The episode has the significance of a discovery. The shepherd boy one day saw a small display of shoes in the village shop. He had never worn such fine shoes. Gathering his courage, he went into the shop and proposed a trade. In exchange for a pair of shoes, he offered a statuette he had carved himself. It would be a virile figure holding shoes like the ones he longed to own.

When the trade was made, the modest country merchant displayed the carving, which had become a means of advertising his business. There, an Austrian army officer, Major König, a man of keen intellect and sharp foresight, discovered it. He inquired, sought out the shepherd boy, and took him to the capital.

But he received an unexpected blow when he put him in contact with the Academy in the person of a renowned professor. This professor was König's namesake. When the academic sculptor saw the child, in whose eyes was reflected the turmoil of his troubled soul, he declared disdainfully: "He doesn't have the eyes of a sculptor. We won't make an artist out of this puppet." After this, a pause is necessary.

The moments that followed the condemning prophecy of the consulted master could only be described by the pain that burst into tears. The light of those tears shone into the spirit of a woman, the soothsaying master, and perhaps because she possessed only the wisdom of pious love, it penetrated to the depths of the trembling boy's soul and saw, in turn, the sign of unmistakable greatness.

Her mediation was decisive. The persuasive means could not have been more prudent or more humble: "Subject him to a test. Appearances can be deceiving. Who knows...?" and the master agreed, convinced that the result would be negative. König, the sculptor, lived two hours from the city. They were—Mestrovic once said—the most terribly long hours of his life. The fate of his vocation was to be decided there. When he arrived at the professor's side, consecrated by every official title, his heart felt as if it would leap from his chest. His legs trembled. He tried to speak but only managed to stammer a few incoherent words. None of this mattered to the teacher, whose failing we already know. He took him to the workshop, placed him before a model, and pointed to the clay.

"Now, sculpt. Let's see what you can do."

The shepherd didn't hear the teacher's last words. He forgot everything, even himself. Instinct—vocation or genius—seemed to seize him. He went to the clay like someone rushing toward an enemy. He squeezed it, churning it, tearing it, displacing fragments to later reassemble them, as if within the formless mass there existed a formal organism struggling to conceal itself from his ordering will. The small boy, with black hair and deep eyes, filled the academic sculptor with astonishment.

This didn't conform to his school rules, but it was the revelation of a talent destined for great things. And upon reconsidering his decision, he uttered the simple and noble words: "My mistake fills me with joy."

Ivan Mestrovic's fate was sealed.

The four hours of walking each day to master the communicative means of visual art are not the only evidence of his unwavering vocation. A rather unpleasant memory accompanies it: the return to the city late at night. The route through uninhabited expanses, in the rain or snow, filled him with terror.

Mestrovic never forgot the unease of those walks along paths shrouded in darkness, where he heard only the pulse of the blood flowing to his brain. Every day he promised himself, "I will stop my work earlier," and every day the yearning to create was stronger than the sharp pang of the return journey. His art grew thus, between fever and anguish, that is, between the joy of producing and the fear of not being able to resume the task interrupted the day before.

What were the first sculptures of this powerful master of form, and what were they like? When the Academy held its trial exhibition, it didn't dare display them. Nor did it deem it appropriate to exclude them. Admired for their representational power, they shocked with the starkness of their naturalism. They were placed behind a curtain, like pieces from a secret museum. There was reason for this. The common man, the untamed man, all instinct and all naiveté, identified with the roughness of his early creations.

They possessed the charm of things that don't offend any sense of refinement because the evoked nudity is imbued with an intention devoid of malice. Nevertheless, the subjects provoked considerable reservations. What were these sculptures? How could one suggest it? They were like the expressions of someone who articulates his thoughts without omitting direct language, since, by employing it without malice, he believes the use of overly expressive voices is acceptable.

From this, it can be inferred that in Mestrovic's early works, only his perceptive sense and his hand, attuned to the perceived vision, had progressed. His spirit, on the other hand, was slower to advance. Someone then advised him to send these sculptures to the Secession, an organization that arose in opposition to the centers of academic establishment. In the Secession, nothing seemed excessive.

This is clearly evidenced by the Austro-German art fostered there, where, moreover, the most representative works of contemporary sculpture and painting were exhibited for many years. When Ivan Mestrovic went to the innovators, they welcomed him as one of their own. He was then approaching twenty. Simply showing himself was enough to achieve notoriety. As Byron could say, "I awoke famous." By transforming his life, he transformed his art.

We find this transition in a satirical bas-relief: "The Lustful Old Man." It is a work situated on the boundary between two spiritual frontiers. I confess it's not to my liking. Sculpture placed at the service of a dubious narrative is distorted, demeaning itself. Mestrovic must have understood this, humanizing himself with the magnificent flourish that elevates him to "The Sacrifice of Innocence," a work of quality, composed and modeled according to different principles. "The Fountain of Life," a bas-relief whose symbolism foreshadows a theme he never abandoned throughout his prolific output, follows a similar pattern. In the circular block of "The Sacrifice of Innocence" and in the flat symmetry of "The Fountain of Life," the gaps and negative spaces that disrupt the unity of the composition still persist, interposing dark zones between one figure and another—admirable, moreover, when considered as plastic fragments. And with this, Ivan Mestrovic closes the period of his initial assertion, which I call "naturalistic."

I believe that the art of this prodigious megaloplast evolves in conclusive cycles. Upon leaving the naturalistic phase, Mestrovic closes behind him a world to which he can no longer return, just as manhood can no longer see in the same way the panoramas contemplated in childhood. Now what progresses is the spirit. He sees things not foreseen, hears accents heard yesterday, whose meaning now penetrates. Before, he was only "a" sculptor born in Croatia; now he is the sculptor in whom the glorifying aspirations of the South Slavs will be embodied. And in this way, we arrive at the epic cycle.

The equestrian monument of Kraljevic Marko—a seminal work—could not be, and is not, the statue of a warrior stripped of the evocative power his name carries thanks to popular poetry. Nor should his horse conform to the conventional standards of the species. Like Homer's horses, as we shall see, it was granted the gift of tears. There, steed and hero attain the distortions that elevate them to the status of symbols, and they are where the epic sensibility of a people placed them.

Such is the work of Mestrovic. It is not the work of a man: it is the work of a religion. It could derive neither from Egyptian static poses nor from the gentle cadence of Hellenic sculpture. He turned to Assyrian statuary, drawing inspiration from the archaism of its finest eras. But nothing more. From all this emerged the most clearly defined mark of his dominant personality. The equestrian statue of Kraljevic Marko bears witness to this. Behold it. A knight on his bare horse, the hero appears tensed as if in a state of untamed rebellion.

His enormous muscles seem ready to spring like steel springs. One hand clenches on his chest, the other rests its back on the horse's rump, which advances with a whinny. Kraljevic Marko's features are of such a nature that they could well inspire a sacred horror. Everything about his features is formidable: his hair springs from between his eyebrows and bristles in a stylized form; his nose is small, his eye sockets disproportionate, his mouth contorts in a grimace, and the whole gives the impression of being concentrated as if about to erupt suddenly. He seems like a hurricane force about to burst forth.

I have insisted on commenting on this equestrian group because we find in it the synthesis of the epic cycle. This cycle includes the marvelous series of widows, slaves, heroes, caryatids, and sphinxes. An entire plastic world that would suffice to fill a long and fruitful life.

They are figures of caryatids, cyclopean sphinxes, gigantic torsos, formidable heads, some vehement, others delicate, all subject to a central idea, an organizing principle. Together they constitute the animated expression of a marble epic. But even within its solemn rhythm, observe how Ivan Mestrovic modifies and softens the expressive modes as he moves from one theme to another.

See "The Widow and the Child." To the impetuous tumult he opposes a modeling made of both gentle cadence and classical harmony. To what era does the profound depth of this work belong? It is not possible to confine it in time. When such levels of beauty are reached, the work is defined by a permanent value. It is of yesterday as it is of today and as it will be of tomorrow. Behold now "The Artist's Mother," universally acclaimed as a pure masterpiece.

The artist stylizes the contingent here—headdress and clothing—but what is human—features, limbs, the living, the sentient, what is love in the august reverence of one who penetrates those features—all of this reaches the highest tenderness with the utmost simplicity. Ivan Mestrovic thus glorifies the blessed peasant woman who nursed his genius.

In the theme of motherhood, Mestrovic discovers a source of constant renewal. The theme recurs throughout the three evolutionary phases of his sculpture. From "The Annunciation" to "The Pietà," and following the delicate and repeated evocations of the Virgin with the Child Jesus, the artist demonstrates his inventive faculties, where it seemed impossible to say anything that hadn't already been expressed through countless versions from diverse schools.

When Mestrovic begins his mature period, the themes that most attract him are religious in nature. He derives his carved works and sculptures in marble and bronze from the Book of Books. He emerges from the epic cycle completely purified. If before he spoke of matter and then exalted himself in national faith, now he delves into matter and feeling and sees in both a single truth: that of the spirit. "All great art is praise," Ruskin said with his eloquent tongue.

All praise is religious, I would add, if the heart is pure. Praise and religion. Nothing defines the current art of Ivan Mestrovic better than these two concepts, in whose formal structure we find a new style and new norms. I do not believe, as I have already stated, that either of these is linked to the Gothic tradition. One could just as easily speak of Romanesque sculpture. Neither, then. Mestrovic's evolution must be related to personal needs, consistent, in this respect, with his religious conversion. See "Madonna." The modeling is summarized in broad lines and simple planes. A convergent rhythm is pursued there. In the wise precision of these planes, the values that determine the expression of form are discerned. Hence its almost primitive grace. But this "Madonna" is still a freestanding statue.

See, on the other hand, the sculptures of the "Mausoleum" at Cavtat. Mestrovic did it all: he drew up the architectural plans, sculpted the statues, carved the gates, even modeled the bell ornamentation, aligning all the parts with the most rigorous stylistic unity. Observe how sculpture is now conceived as a decorative element, that is, as a complement to the architecture, the central theme of the memorial. Form is contained within the expression of the overall mass.

The bas-reliefs and statues seem to have emerged from the very same place, alongside the construction of the Mausoleum. One cannot be conceived without the other, for they complement each other perfectly.

Such is Ivan Mestrovic.

MESTROVIC: AN INNOVATOR

Julio E. Payró, Buenos Aires

It is not advisable to consider an artist's work solely from the perspective of its enduring values; it is also necessary, in order to judge it, to consider its circumstantial values, both when it possesses both and when it is informed only by the latter. Donatello's stature, for example, is not given to us solely by the perennial value of his work; his creations acquire a special significance when compared with those of his immediate predecessors, such as Nanni di Banco or other representative sculptors of the Trecento. Because, apart from being a brilliant sculptor, Donatello appears before his predecessors as an astonishing innovator.

The towering figure of Ivan Mestrovic has been somewhat obscured in recent times by the critics' tendency to be dazzled by what is currently fashionable and to forget what, in the more or less recent past, was precisely what is strikingly relevant today. A diligent study of art history helps avoid such errors.

Mestrovic, at the beginning of the 20th century, is a pioneering artist, not, as some assume, a relic of the past. He stands proudly between Rodin, who represents the past, and Brancusi, Laurens, Archipenko, and others, who propel us toward the future of sculpture.

Rodin, with his prodigious genius, the astonishing multiplicity of his forms, and his ineffable sensitivity as a modeler, represents the final vital surge of Renaissance art: in his works, the enchantment of Michelangelo, Bernini, and Puget is revived, and the grace of Pigalle, the epic vein of Rude, and the robust plasticity of Constantin Meunier find their echo. With Mestrovic's birth, precisely in the year Rodin achieved sudden renown by exhibiting a magnificent collection of his creations in Vienna, we enter the dawn of a new artistic cycle. During this period, art was destined to increasingly distance itself from the principles of the Renaissance, seeking a starting point precisely in everything the Renaissance had scorned: traditions such as Romanesque, Byzantine, Archaic Greek, Egyptian, and Assyrian. For the Croatian Mestrovic, some of these traditions were uniquely alive: he had absorbed them by contemplating the ancient monuments of his homeland. Moreover, his innate sense of modernity was sharpened by his contact with that great pioneer, Otto Wagner.

Thus it was that, after two attempts during his Viennese studies, during which he absorbed, along with academic instruction, the spirit of Jugendstil, the new art movement that inspired the men of the Vienna Secession, the young sculptor astonished the world in 1909 with the sensational group of figures he created to commemorate the epic struggle in Kosovo.

The equestrian statue of Marko Kraljevic, the Widows, the Caryatids, and the Sphinxes destined for the Temple of Kosovo, all designed by the sculptor himself, surprised everyone with their novelty, with a genuine originality that, as Gaudí once said, consists of returning to the origin—in this case, to the origins of statuary—and which at that time had no known precedent, except, of course, in ancient traditions. In that same year, Antoine Bourdelle created his Heracles the Archer, which shares a style similar to Mestrovic's, with a comparable archaic flavor and a similar vigor of execution and expression.

Thus, Bourdelle, more widely remembered, and Mestrovic, unjustly overlooked by some recent historians, established themselves at precisely the same time as innovators of sculpture, as initiators of an independent artistic movement whose ultimate consequences we witness today. It is worth remembering, then, that Ivan Mestrovic was, in his time, at the forefront of the most daring advances of his art and that, therefore, the circumstantial values of his work deserve to be added, in the final judgment, to its enduring value.

Ivan Mestrovic

Romualdo Brughetti, Buenos Aires

There is a fleeting time and a time that endures. Ivan Mestrovic has definitively entered the history of enduring time.

His work was born from a profound inner need, with authentic roots in his people and in the great sculptural tradition that continues to live on in memorable examples. It was not born of mere technical research, arbitrary and ephemeral, nor to "shock the bourgeoisie." His works are founded on a rigorous humanization of life and of humankind, without disintegration, in the fullness of volume shaped by the spirit.

One thinks of the Renaissance masters because of the rigor of their forms; one thinks especially of Michelangelo or Rodin, who praised him, but only to him belongs this way of feeling the plastic organism through volume, powerful, expressive, and vibrant with matter. His marbles and bronzes exalt woman and motherhood, man and Christ, and accentuate the dimension of a believing and hopeful artist. He broke with naturalism in his time.

He sought synthesis on the two-dimensional plane in his remarkable wooden reliefs. At the beginning of the 20th century, 20th-century sculpture found in him one of its innovators; later, it sought other paths, while the Croatian sculptor remained true to himself, rooted in his firm convictions, not out of pure aesthetic necessity; in this, the modern critic may find both his strengths and weaknesses. But Ivan Mestrovic consistently embodies the significant density of a sculpture of noble craftsmanship and vibrant form, born from the passion of his hand and the lofty ideal of his humanist message. This is his glory.

CROATIAN RENAISSANCE LITERATURE

Ante Kadic, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

The Croatian Renaissance developed along the eastern shore of the Adriatic, in the coastal cities of Dalmatia and on the neighboring islands, in the narrow strip of territory spared from Turkish conquest. The literature of this period is considered the beginning of creative Croatian letters and the foundation of the Croatian revival, also known as the Illyrian movement, which occurred three centuries later. Why did literature develop in this small territory, cut off from the Hungarian-Croatian kingdom and annexed to the Republic of Venice (1409-20), and whose high administrative, military, and often ecclesiastical officials were imported from Venice? A brief overview of what happened on the Dalmatian coast—rocky and arid, yet surprisingly rich in events of political and cultural significance—may provide some insight.[53]

When the Croats arrived on the shores of the Adriatic during the 7th century, they found old or newly fortified Latin cities. The inhabitants of Salona, for example, who had destroyed the Avars and Slavs in 614, found refuge in the magnificent palace of Emperor Diocletian, which would later become Split; the citizens of the Greek colony of Epidaurus (Cavtat), later Romanized, soon built a new city called Ragusium, protecting it with high walls. Within this stronghold lived civilized but fearful Latins, while outside, in the oak groves (dubrava, hence Dubrovnik), numerous newcomers camped, combative and eager for a more decent and sheltered existence. It is obvious that, except for economic and social reasons, these two opposing groups could not live permanently as enemies.

When the Croatian people, following the example of their princes, embraced Christianity, the religious differences were eliminated. Latins and Slavs believed in the same God of love and brotherhood; they worshipped Him in the same churches, often built through the combined efforts and funds of both populations. They recognized the authority of the Pope, who did everything possible to bring them closer together. However, even in religious matters, things were not always smooth.

The Latin colonies continued to use Latin in their liturgy, but the Croatian clergy, like the disciples of Saints Cyril and Methodius, defended their right to pray to God in their own language. The Roman Popes reluctantly agreed (1248) and granted the Croats the privilege of celebrating Mass (of the Roman Rite) in Church Slavonic, written in Glagolitic script. Slavic liturgy eventually became the Croats' strongest bulwark against the Latins and the foundation upon which the development of medieval Croatian literature was built.[54]

The Croats enjoyed political independence for more than three centuries (9th-11th) and expanded their national territory to the borders they still claim today. Then, as a result of a dispute between two factions, each seeking to install its own candidate as king,[55] the Croats became easy prey for their powerful neighbors and were forced to unite with the Hungarians in 1102. The Dalmatian cities fought for their old privileges and obtained new ones from the Hungarian-Croatian kings, becoming more or less autonomous communities.[56]

They entered an era of commercial activity and economic prosperity that fueled the extraordinary vitality evident in their architecture, sculpture, and painting.[57] The Croats actively participated in the cultural and artistic life of medieval Dalmatia. At the beginning of the 12th century, the Croatian sculptors Buvina and Radovan created two masterpieces: the carved wooden door of Split Cathedral (1214) and the portal of Trogir Cathedral (1240)[58].

In France and Spain, the invaders were assimilated by the indigenous population, while here the opposite occurred. The already small urban Latin population, isolated from the Italian peninsula and surrounded by the Croatian rearguard, was declining. Realizing they could no longer ignore or distance themselves from the Croats, the Latins began marrying young Croatian women.

These mixed marriages represented the first Croatian victory. Mothers who spoke only Croatian taught their children the language they knew. Dalmatian cities gradually became bilingual; while Latin (and later the Venetian dialect) remained the official language, Croatian was increasingly used in private life.[59] There are clear indications that Zadar was already Croatized by the 12th century. Pope Alexander III, traveling from Venice via Zadar to meet Frederick Barbarossa (1177), was greeted by the citizens in the Cathedral of Saint Anastasia with "loud praises and resounding songs in the voice of the Sclavica people"[60].

When the Crusaders, serving as mercenaries to the Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo, attacked this flourishing city in 1202, Zadar was considered a Slavic colony[61]. (The names Slavs, Illyrians, Slavi, Schiavoni, used interchangeably by several foreign authors, especially Italian ones, refer exclusively to Croats. Editor's note.) Some of these autonomous Dalmatian communities were Croatized earlier than others; all received the Croatian imprint no later than the 14th century[62]. Venetian sources reveal that during the Renaissance, it was primarily merchants and nobles who knew Italian due to their travels and studies abroad; within the country, even these bilingual individuals spoke their native language.[63] The Popes found it necessary to appoint only Croatian-speaking bishops to Dalmatia, as otherwise there would be no fruitful contact between the hierarchy and their flock.[64]

The Neapolitan king Ladislaus, a pretender to the Hungarian-Croatian crown against King Sigismund, sold his title to the Dalmatian cities to Venice in 1409. A decade later, after successful maneuvering, Venice conquered all of Dalmatia (except for the Republic of Dubrovnik and the peasant republic of Poljica) in 1420 and exploited this Croatian outpost until its fall in 1797. Nearly a century after the defeat of Serbia (1389) and a decade after the conquest of Byzantium (1453), Bosnia surrendered to the Turks (1463), followed by Herzegovina in 1482.

The Croatian lands were soon reduced to "relics of the former kingdoms of Croatia, Dalmatia, and Sclavonia." Zagreb and its immediate surroundings bravely resisted Turkish attacks, but suffered heavy losses in life and property. When the Ottomans defeated the Hungarians at Mohac (1526), the Croats and Hungarians separately elected Ferdinand of Austria as their common king (1527).

Dalmatia was reduced to a few coastal towns and islands. The famous fortress of Klis, a few miles from Split, fell to the Turks in 1537 [65]. From the walls, the inhabitants of the coastal towns could watch as Turkish troops ravaged and looted their property. Peasants worked their fields with their weapons within easy reach. Economic development was largely hampered in Dalmatia under Venetian rule; amenities were scarce, as Venice was keen to destroy the trade of these towns, its former rivals. There were several epidemics, and life was very precarious.

Split, revived in the early 16th century as a cultural center, was followed or emulated by Dubrovnik, Hvar, Šibenik, and Zadar. Although cultural life had not entirely disappeared, it was steadily declining. By the middle of that century, all the Dalmatian towns (except Dubrovnik) devoted all their energies to military purposes. Venice needed only soldiers and galley slaves, for it had plenty of writers and artists, merchants and agents. Moreover, the spread of education among the people would discourage the rapid provision of Dalmatian combatants.[66]

Dubrovnik, which gradually achieved its independence and preserved it until the Napoleonic era (1808), was the only bright spot. Due to its enviable location and its territory outside the city, thanks to the skill of its ruling patrician class, which knew how to navigate between opposing powers—bribing[67] and bending to any and every side when necessary—the Republic of Dubrovnik prospered more and more. It became the main Croatian cultural center, the only spiritual oasis, the city rightly called the Croatian Athens or the crown of Croatian cities.[68]

The Adriatic was not a barrier between the Croats and Italians but a bridge connecting them. Everything that happened on the Apennine Peninsula, in that highly civilized world comparable to ancient Greece,[69] sooner or later had its repercussions on the opposite Croatian shores.[70] Many Italians came to Dalmatia to serve as clergymen, teachers, doctors, notaries, or chancellors.[71] Certain more talented Croatians studied in Italy at theological seminaries or universities, usually in Padua[72] and Bologna.

When they were not writing in Latin, which was the usual means of communication among the European intelligentsia,[73] Dalmatians often wrote in Croatian. Nor did they consider themselves part of the Latin world;[74] on the contrary, the Italians themselves spoke of them, greeted them, and praised them as a prominent branch of the Slavic world.[75]

Among the representative Croatian writers, we must first mention the Latinists.[76] Besides the great Marulic, there are such notable figures as the Dominican Vinko Pribojevic (from Hvar, early 16th century), whose work De origine successibusque Slavorum was first printed in Venice in 1532.[77] This pamphlet, originally a lecture delivered in his hometown in 1526, gave impetus to the Pan-Slavic movement and influenced later Pan-Slavists such as Mavro Orbini (Il regno degli Slavi, Pesaro, 1601) and Juraj Krizanic. Pribojevic's main objective was to demonstrate the unity and greatness of the Slavs: "Verum quia Dalmata et proinde Illyrius ac demum Slavus coram Slavis de Slavorum fortunis sermonem habere statui"[78] Jakov Bunic (Jacobus de Bona, 1469-1534), one of the greatest but not so well known of the Christian poets of the Renaissance[79], anticipated Girolamo Vida by writing, based on the four Gospels, mixing in mythological elements, "Christias" (Da vita et gestis Christi, Rome, 1526).

In another poem, De raptu Cerberi (Rome, around 1500), Bunic's style and language are entirely those of Virgil, while his main character, Hercules, descending into the underworld, is a prefigured Christ (in the preface to the second edition, 1526, Bunic states that his verses "canunt figura Christum Herculea")[80]. Ilija Crijevic (Aelius Lampridius Cerva, 1463-1520), a prominent Latin poet from Dubrovnik, member of the Accademia Pomponius Laetus (Rome) and poet laureate, wrote verses in his youth, suggestively describing the charms of the female body, but later devoted himself to religious meditations[81].

Crijevic stands out as a representative of a broad humanist position: despising the vernacular, he maintained that Latin was the only language worthy of the man of letters[82]. Juraj Sisgorić (Georgius Sisgoreus, from Šibenik, 15th century) composed some very moving elegies in his collection of poems (Elegiarum et carminum libri tres, Venice 1477), especially those concerning the death of his brothers and the devastation of the area around Šibenik inflicted by the Turks. Although he wrote exclusively in Latin and followed classical models,

Sisgorić appreciated the folk poetry of his homeland and praised its literary merits.[83] He also considered folk proverbs to be so full of wisdom that he translated many of them into Latin.[84] Sisgorić served as an example to writers of vernacular themes, especially those from northern Dalmatia,[85] who were so enthusiastic about folk poetry that they quoted their favorite poems in their works.

In northern Croatia, cultural life did not entirely come to a standstill. At the court of the Hungarian-Croatian king Matthias Corvinus (1458–90), numerous Dalmatian Croats performed various tasks (the stateless intellectual “proletariat”). Among them was the renowned poet and translator Ivan Cesmicki (1434–72, from Cesmica, Slavonia), better known as Janus Pannonius, who resided in Italy for eleven years, first at the celebrated Guarino school in Ferrara and then in Padua.

Although his models were the classical masters, Pannonius was an original lyricist who often expressed his own experiences in beautiful elegies and epigrams.[86] Croatian historians regard his Elegy VI, which describes the Battle of Jajce (1463) in which he took part, as an authoritative account of the crucial event that would otherwise have gone without proper reporting from his contemporaries.[87]

Besides humanist classicism and Italian literature, Croatian writers had another source of inspiration: medieval Croatian literature and the beautiful South Slavic folk poetry that preserved, more than anything else, the national fighting spirit and the purity of the national language.[88]

Three prominent writers from DaImacia—Marko Marulic, Marin Drzic, and Ivan Gundulic—are generally considered the most representative of the extraordinary period of literary activity from the mid-15th to the late 17th century. Marulic and Drzic belong to the Renaissance period, and we will refer to them. Gundulic, a leading figure of the Croatian Counter-Reformation (Baroque in literature), will be the subject of a separate study.

Among the poets of this new literature, Marko Marulic Pecenic (1450–1524), from Split, occupies first place.[89] He has been called the "founder of modern Croatian literature," not for chronological reasons (other vernacular poets wrote before him), but because of the importance of his literary work.

Marulic studied in his hometown at the school of the famous teacher Tadeo Acciarini, and later in Padua. He was well-versed in theology, philosophy, and literature, and apparently also practiced painting. In his rich library, one can find, besides theological volumes, works by many classical authors and some contemporary Italian humanists (Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, Marcantonio Sabellicus, Lorenzo Valla, etc.)[90] but not books on love and other "despicable" pleasures.[91]

Marulic was surrounded by a group of enlightened friends who respected him as their leader. We do not know if he, like Savonarola, suffered any disappointments with women in his youth, but when the great reformer was burned at the stake in Florence (1498), his contemporary Marulic was known as Marko "innocuam, simplice et sine crimine vitam" [92]. In his old age, he retired to the island of Šolta, where he lived as a hermit for two years before returning home. Marulic's life was entirely devoted to restoring the country's declining moral values [93] and protecting it from foreigners and their pretensions [94]. His noble figure still lives on in the minds of his countrymen.

Although his classical education and his interest in the Roman monuments of Split and ancient Salona mark him as a humanist, Marulic was deeply rooted in medieval Catholic theology. His writings radiate the spirit of Thomas à Kempis, whom he translated into Croatian. He viewed the past entirely through a Christian lens. Marulic sought to combine classical form with medieval content.

Like Jacopo Sannazaro, Girolamo Vida, and many other Italians, and in the footsteps of Jakov Bunic and, to some extent, Crijevic in Dubrovnik, Marulic believed this union to be entirely natural. Like so many humanists, he did not consider it incongruous to glorify the Redeemer and extol strict morality in Ciceronian prose or Virgilian verse. He did everything in his power to place the new artistic perception of formal beauty at the service of his entirely Catholic worldview.

Marulic was first and foremost a Latin author. His moralistic and didactic books, written in a clear and convincing style, demonstrating his vast erudition, attracted many readers and admirers throughout Europe.[95] His most celebrated book, De institutione bene beateque vivendi (Venice, 1506), was frequently reprinted and translated into many languages. The main reason for its popularity lies in the fact that during the Counter-Reformation, this work was considered the most useful manual for Catholics in defending their faith.[96]

Marulic also wrote lyric and epic poetry in Latin. Certain lyric poems, containing a personal touch, are among his finest works. In them we see the man, with his physical weaknesses, with his, we might say, jovial disposition to acknowledge the unpleasant aspects of human existence[97] (note 44), but we also notice Marulic's great willpower, his irresistible kindness, and his unbridled joy.

His most extensive work in Latin, Davidias, although highly praised by his compatriots, remained unpublished. During the 19th and 20th centuries, Croatian scholars searched for the manuscript of this work. When Davideidos liber primus[98] (note 45) was published in 1904, it was hailed as Marulic's most accomplished literary creation. Finally, his entire epic composition came to light in 1952 when the Italian scholar Carlo Dionisotti discovered a copy in the National Library of Turin (Codex G VI 40).

The edition published by the Zagreb Academy of Sciences and Arts, with a substantial and valuable introduction by Josip Badalic, was published in the series Stari pisci hrvatski (Vol. XXXI, Zagreb, 1954). Miroslav Markovic also published an edition of Davidias (University of Mérida, Venezuela, 1957), without repeating the inaccurate reading of the Zagreb edition. This second edition, quite strangely, claims to be the editio princeps and, much to the readers' dismay, contains no evaluation of the work. (See: Pedro P. Barnola, S.J.: "American Epiphany of a Distinguished Croatian Humanist," Studia Croatica, Year 1, No. 1, pp. 58-60; Editor's Note).

Davidias is an epic poem in fourteen books about the life of King David as a prefiguration of the life of Christ.[99] Despite its dedication to the powerful Cardinal Grimani, the censor refused to allow its printing. Several explanations were put forward, the most plausible being that Marulic's messianic interpretation of events in David's life often did not entirely align with orthodox doctrine.[100]

In the preface to his *Inscriptiones Salonitanae Antiquae*, later published by the historian Ivan Lucic, Marulic recounts the pitiful conditions of his country and how he lamented, repeating Virgil's verses: "Fuimus Troes, fuit Ilium..." Driven by love for his country, he wrote to Pope Adrian VI, imploring him to exhort all Christian rulers to unite in joint action against the Turks.

However, it is not because of his Latin works, despite his worldwide reputation, that Marulic's compatriots still remember him. Croatians love him for having written in their language. The most moving short poem Marulic wrote in Croatian, Molitva suprotiva Turkom ("Prayer Against the Turks"), paints a tragic picture of the atrocities inflicted by the Ottomans in the Balkans. In this poem, Marulic opens his heart to the Almighty, imploring mercy for his Croatian people.

Marulic composed (in 1501) the epic poem Judith in Croatian ("uversih hrvacki slozena" (composed in Croatian verses) to encourage his countrymen in the struggle against the Turks and to instill in them the hope that, ultimately, with God's help, they would overcome all difficulties.

As he admits in the Preface, Marulic followed ancient Croatian religious poetry ("po obicaju nasih zacinjavac")[101] in terms of subject matter and the classics in terms of formal elaboration ("i po zakonu onih starih poet"). Following the classics, he did not mechanically transplant Latin forms into his native tongue, but rather drew upon his skills in poetic invention.

Thus, Marulic described concrete, sometimes very realistic, scenes, employing striking comparisons drawn from his own experience, in language that often abounds in turns of phrase. picturesque.[102] Judith was written for those who did not know Latin. Its response was immediate: this first literary work written in Croatian (Venice 1521) went through three editions in two years.[103] Marulic's example was contagious. A whole host of poets emerged, aware that Marulic's work in Croatian opened new and broader horizons; many paid him homage and praised him in the dedications of their books in Croatian.

In short, Marulic is a writer who treats Croatian vernacular themes with effect and emotion within classical literary forms, inspired by Italian humanism.

The first two known Croatian poets from Dubrovnik, Sisko Mencetic (1457–1527) and Dzore Drzic (1461–1501),[104] are important for having developed, or perhaps adopted and cultivated, a poetic style that reached This style is characteristic of the later literature of Dubrovnik and the rest of Dalmatia.

Although their lyric poems are closely related to Petrarchism (with its typical models of courtship, passionate infatuation, and eventual disappointment)[105], certain national peculiarities can also be found. Drzic, in particular, more sensitive and spontaneous than the conventional and cerebral Mencetic, can be described as an original lyric poet. His poems contain many elements borrowed from peasant love poetry; some of them are entirely of folk origin.[106]

Much more important is the work of two noblemen from Hvar, Hannibal Lucic (1485–1553) and Petar Hektorovic (1487–1572). Although troubled by popular discontent and sporadic Turkish raids, Hvar was a prosperous trading port. Among its privileged class were educated men in contact with humanist literature. Italian, who corresponded with the writers of Split and Dubrovnik. At that time Hvar was the most important literary center in Dalmatia, which was ruled by Venice.[107]

Lucic translated Ovid (Paris Helenae) and was well acquainted with Petrarch, Bembo, and Ariosto. These poets particularly influenced him when he wrote a small collection of love poems (Pisni ljuvene). The most exquisite poem, a true gem, "Jur nijedna na svit vila," shows the influence of folk poetry. In this poem, there is a common description of the female body (especially the fingers), but Lucic expressed this theme in original and enchanting verse.

Lucic's outstanding work and the first secular Croatian drama is Robinja ("The Slave," Venice, 1556), which shows both Petrarchan influence and the unmistakable stamp of folk poetry; it deals with the bloody reality and mentions figures praised by Croatian peasants and shepherds (e.g., Ban Derencin, who fell at Krbava, 1493)[108]. The central part of this drama—in which the young Derencin, disguised as a merchant, converses with the slave girl who confesses that she has loved him since her early youth—is well-crafted; Lucic has a keen sense for style and dramatic action. The action takes place in Dubrovnik, which Lucic also praises in his epistle "U pohvalu grada Dubrovnika" (To the Highest Point of Dubrovnik).

Hektorovic was born in Stari Grad, on the island of Hvar; he devoted much time and energy to the construction of the Tvrdalj fortress (still standing) that was intended to protect him and his fellow citizens from sudden Turkish raids. He exchanged numerous poetic epistles, especially with two writers from Dubrovnik: one of them the hermit monk Vetranovic, and the other, Naljeskovic, a dissolute nobleman.

"Hektorovic's principal epistle, Ribanje i ribarsko prigovaranje (Fishing and the Fishermen's Conversation), Venice, 1568)[109], addressed to the nobleman of Hvar, rector scholarum, and poet Jeronim Brtucevic, is a delightful and realistic poetic account of three days spent at sea with two fishermen, although it idealizes these fishermen here and there.[110] The oldest extant text of oral poetry consists of two heroic and three lyric poems included in Hektorovic's "Fishing," which the author heard from the fishermen and reproduced word for word.[111]

Even more important than heroic poetry was the delicate lyric poetry that flourished on Dalmatian soil. Hektorovic was deeply attached to his native land. In 1555, approaching his 70th birthday, he visited the neighboring islands again. Since the poet considered himself a member of the Croatian Renaissance literary movement and was on warm terms with the writers of Dubrovnik, he was deeply moved when his ship approached Necujam, on the island of Solta, as it was there that Marulic, whom he remembered with respect, had lived for two years in complete seclusion.

Although modeled on the Piscatorian Eclogues of Jacopo Sannazaru (1458–1530) and other Italians, these verses by Hektorovic demonstrate once again that the best writers of the Croatian Renaissance were not mere imitators, but transformed the classical and humanist heritage to suit their own time and place.

The third nobleman and poet of Hvar, Misa Pelegrinovic (died 1563), has recently acquired a certain reputation. Some critics, contrary to the traditional view, try to show that Pelegrinovic was the first to write "The Gypsy" and that Andrija Cubranovic later used the same theme.[112] Leaving aside the question of priority, it can be safely said that Cubranovic's "The Gypsy" (Jedjupka, Venice, 1599) is far superior to Pelegrinovic's. Cubranovic's Jedjupka is a delightful love poem in the troubadour style; its joviality, personal touches, naturalness, musicality, and the fluidity of its octosyllabic verse closely resemble popular language. Its prestige was enormous, particularly in the 16th century, and it was frequently copied or imitated.[113]

A very active writer was Mavro Vetranovic (1482–1576) of Dubrovnik, a deeply religious Benedictine monk and great patriot. In his satires, he criticized the laxity of Christian morality and the selfishness of European rulers, who did not even attempt to halt the advance of the Ottoman army; he deplored the destruction of Croatian regions and the Venetian occupation of Dalmatia; in light of this difficult situation, Vetranovic praised the political acumen of his native city.

Although most of his poems give an impression of excessive bombast and possess a cumbersome, plaintive tone, some of his poems are excellent (e.g., Pjesanca sturku, Poem to the Cricket). His allegorical poem Pilgrin (peregrinus, pilgrim), written under the influence of the Divine Comedy, remained unfinished. As a playwright, Vetranovic continued the tradition of medieval Croatian autos sacramentales, but with greater concision and rigor (especially in his Posvetiliste Abramovo, The Sacrifice of Abraham).

Also worthy of mention is Nikola Naljeskovic (c. 1510–87), who wrote lyric poems, epistles, pastoral plays, and three comedies. His comedies are of interest to historians of the Republic of Dubrovnik during the Renaissance. There are passages of extreme vulgarity (comparable to those of Pietro Aretino and Andrea Calmo). Naljeskovic preceded Marin Drzic, who took two names from him (Radat and Ljubomir), assigning them different roles[114].

The Renaissance is not a uniform phenomenon. It presents several, often contradictory, aspects. It is never advisable to focus on a single aspect and try to explain the others through it. The whole is much more complex, profound, and fascinating. Marulic, for example, wrote in the classical style but retained a medieval perspective. In contrast, his compatriot Marin Drzic, a Catholic priest born in Dubrovnik (around 1508), when Marulic was at the height of his creative period, acted in the opposite way.

Living in Dubrovnik, which paid the Ottoman sultans the annual tribute and consequently enjoyed freedom, Drzic was not particularly concerned about the advance of the Turks; nor was he alarmed by the symptoms of moral and religious decline or by the worldliness of the clergy.[115] He avoided quiet places, suitable for meditation on the transient nature of human life; he liked to eat and drink; He drank, entertained others, traveled, and was always short of money; "he was an excellent musician and played all kinds of instruments" (Genealogy of Drzic)[116]; he was more jovial than studious; he read little, but walked with his eyes open; he was interested only in the problems of this world and even tried to overthrow the government of the only free city, Dubrovnik, since he believed that its ruling class had not provided enough freedom and opportunities for a decent life. Marulic and Drzic presented a stark contrast: the ascetic layman for whom religion was the most sacred thing in life, and the Epicurean cleric who sought only personal gain. However, both were children of the Renaissance, its most typical representatives.

Since Drzic's ecclesiastical income was meager, he was forced to perform many other tasks. Not only was he organist at the cathedral, but he also served as a servant and interpreter to the Austrian adventurer, Count Christof Rogendorf, with whom he traveled to Vienna and Constantinople (1546)[117]; for two years he was employed at a saltworks (1554-56).

The important date in Drzic's life was his departure for Siena (1538), perhaps to study canon law. For a year he became rector of the Domus Sapientiae, something like an international house (1541-42), and thus vice-rector of the University ("rector Sapientiae et vicerector Universitatis studii senensis")[118]. During that year he had frequent conflicts with the administrative authorities and the student body[119]. What was he doing during those years?

Did he travel around Italy? Did he live for a time in Florence? We know for certain only that during his rectorship he took part as the lead actor (amasius, the lover) in the performance of a banned comedy and was reprimanded by the police authorities ("si citi e si riprenda in collegio")[120]. After spending, in all likelihood, seven years in Siena without obtaining any degree[121], Drzic returned home (1545).

Siena was then an important center of culture. Drzic, who prior to his time in Siena had written mediocre verses in the artificial Petrarchan style (published in Venice in 1551)[122] (note 69), after his return began to write pastoral plays and comedies that still attract audiences no less than the works of the most renowned modern Croatian playwrights. There is no doubt that Siena was the turning point in his literary career.

Drzic spent almost fifteen years in Dubrovnik, during which time he wrote eleven plays (from 1547 to 1555 or 1557) and was also pursued by many creditors for failing to repay his debts.[123] He then moved to Venice (December 1562) and, in 1566, took the strangest step of his life: he went to Florence and wrote three letters to Cosimo I de' Medici and another to his son Francesco, requesting the duke's support in order to overthrow the aristocratic government in Dubrovnik.[124]

How did he come up with the idea of addressing a man like Cosimo I? Jorjo Tadic believes that the author of these letters (which went unanswered) was no longer in full possession of his mental faculties; The handwriting resembles that of a man suffering from complete nervous exhaustion.[125] Milan Resetar suspects that Drzic, always short of money, was perhaps prepared to betray his native country.[126] But Jean Dayre cautiously questions whether this decisive step was not, after all, a logical one for Drzic, who was aware of the depravity of some of the Dubrovnik patricians.[127]

The discovery of the letters to Cosimo I had a significant impact on the perception of Drzic in present-day Yugoslavia. Some critics see him as a great champion of equality for all men. Zivko Jelicic, for example, published a pamphlet about Marin Drzic entitled *Pjesnik dubrovacke sirotinje* (The Poet of the Poor of Dubrovnik)[128]. Drzic spent his last years (1562–67) generally in Venice as a chaplain in the service of the Patriarch of Venice[129].

His brother Vlaho, married to a Venetian woman, lived there for many years and became friends with Pietro Aretino. Drzic maintained close contact with some of his compatriots who were prosperous Venetian merchants (e.g., Pero Primovic). Little is known of the rest of his life. The necrologies from the church where he was buried (SS. Giovanni e Paolo) have not been preserved, and death certificates for 1567 are missing from the National Archives of Venice. The archives of the Patriarchate of Venice, which probably contain valuable information, are at the moment "rudis indigestaque moles," and it is to be hoped that which will soon be organized and opened to the public.

Since Drzic dealt with the same themes that Shakespeare and Molière would later employ, South Slavic critics favorably compare him to these two illustrious playwrights.[130] While Drzic does not benefit from this comparison, it should be noted from the outset that he did not blindly follow his sources, which were part of the cultural heritage of Renaissance literature, the workhorse of Plautus's comedy writers. Italian scholars overestimate the fact that Drzic had studied in Siena, was familiar with Italian comedies, and that in some of his comedies he was influenced by Boccaccio, Ariosto, and other Italian writers. Based on these premises, they soon draw the false conclusion that Drzic was merely an adapter of Italian comedies into Croatian.[131]

A born writer, Drzic cultivated the pastoral genre (drama rusticale), in which he introduced—in addition to shepherds, Arcadian and mythological nymphs and satyrs—characters modeled on the shepherds and peasants of the Dubrovnik countryside, with their characteristic mentality and language. His first known pastoral, Tirena, had three editions (1551, 1607, 1630).

A peculiar charm of this verse piece lies not in the conventional shepherds and its ending satisfactory to all involved, but in the poor peasants who successively fall in love with a water nymph, either of their own volition or struck by Cupid. The judicious and sober peasant Radat, who deplores Miljenko's passionate love and believes in cheerful and reasonable affection, feels powerless when Tirena appears; his son Dragic, who doesn't understand what's happening to his father, upon being touched by Cupid, naively expresses his admiration for the nymph.

Love is presented as an emotion beyond the control of reason. ("S ljubavi mudrovat, ma bratjo, ni "Reasoning about love is not possible, brothers; even if I do crazy things, I must follow the nymph," Radat replies, troubled, to the three horrified peasants.

A fragment of Drzic's most original pastoral piece, Plakir ("Pleasure"), sometimes called Grizula, shows how skillfully he could combine fantasy with reality[133]. Through the bitter complaint of the maid Omakala, we learn of the servants' feelings toward patricians or wealthy merchants: "I can have no worse memory than the life my mistress made me lead.

I cannot tell you even a hundredth part of what I suffered with her. She calls me in the morning, with a handful of pins in her hand: 'Pin here, pin there, pin here,' until I am dizzy from pinning so many. If I do anything wrong (and I can never do anything right in her eyes), she pulls my nose with her delicate hand so that the whole room floats around me...

What torture I suffered! If I did not suffer enough to redeem all my sins, no one will ever get out of purgatory... When they go to church or to a wedding, our mistresses carry a load of clothing that even a vigorous stallion could scarcely bear... My master shrieks: 'You, ass, you, donkey; when will you go to the Butcher shop?' When I return from the butcher shop, it's time to prepare lunch. I prepare it—the mistress returns from church; I unbutton her dress—the soup boils; I undress her—the soup is bubbling; I give her the dressing gown—the pot overflows.

The master comes to eat, and the food isn't ready yet. He shouts: 'Go buy the wine, set the table, feed the children first, and fetch water from the well.' All at once! And my mistress throws my shoes at me: 'You donkey, what do you have to talk to the master for so long...' And, God help me, I don't know how I didn't go mad with so much trouble. I made vows, crossed myself, and ran off to that barren field."[134] In the end, he returns to Dubrovnik with Grizula, more interested in his manners than in his services. Drzic's courage in so sharply criticizing the prevailing social conditions in Dubrovnik, where strict Senate censorship was in effect, deserves recognition.[135]

Just as Drzic adapted his pastorals to the Dubrovnik setting, so too in his comedies, no matter how much he drew on traditional plots, he always remained independent and original, bringing to the stage characters from the life around him.[136]

The only comedy by Drzic that has survived in its entirety is Novela od Stanca ("Jokes about Stanac," Venice 1551). The setting of this short and well-balanced farce is Dubrovnik on a carnival night. Three young Ragusan noblemen are wandering about, bitterly complaining about their parents, forgetting that they too were once young and longed to enjoy life's pleasures, especially in the company of women. [Ne ce im se njekad da su i oni bili svi lovci kako i mi sad" –

They cannot deny that they too were hunters like us now] [137]. At that moment, they notice a peasant from Herzegovina dozing by the spring. He had come down to the town to sell his farm produce. One of them, the witty Dzivo Pesica, convinces Stanac that he had once been a horrible old man, but thanks to the nymphs, he was rejuvenated. Stanac is extremely interested in this tale, as he had left behind in his village a young woman who was almost "already" "sought out."

Then the three lads, with Stanac's permission, painted his face, shaved his beard, tied his hands, and left with his belongings, leaving the corresponding money. It seems likely that Drzic wrote his main work, Dundo Maroje ("Uncle Maroje"), upon his return from his pilgrimage to Rome in 1550 [138]. Drzic knows many details about Rome and is well He learns about certain popular Roman types. The protagonist and other Ragusans go to Rome as pilgrims during the Jubilee. This play, often revived on Croatian stages and consistently included in the Dubrovnik festival repertoire to the delight of audiences, has been the subject of much scholarly analysis. Some of these studies are dubious. Certain contemporary critics go so far as to claim that Drzic was thinking of communism[139], when he wrote in the first prologue (spoken by Long Nose [Dugi nos], a sorcerer) to Uncle Maroje, of the future country where "mine and yours are unknown, since everything belongs to everyone and everyone owns everything. And the people who enjoy these lands are peaceful, quiet, wise, reasonable people.

And just as nature endowed them with wisdom, it also gave them exquisite beauty. They are not ruled by greed... They always look straight ahead and do not disguise their hearts. Their hearts are reflected in their eyes, so that everyone can see their good thoughts." And now—to cut a long story short—those people are called "good people" [140]. She must struggle and live alongside the evil bourgeois class. Even in communist Yugoslavia, some critics ridicule such an interpretation of a common theme, widespread throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance [141].

Despite its complex plot, Dundo Maroje reveals no particular Italian source. How is this possible, some Italians wonder, convinced that every work of the Croatian Renaissance derives directly from some Italian source? Miss Yolanda Marchiori, following Professor Cronia step by step,[142] undertook an almost microscopic examination of Dundo Maroje.[143]

Both Cronia and Marchiori strive to convince us that if an Italian author speaks, for example, of a tavern where good food and drink are served, and Drzic happens to mention that one of his characters enjoys the same things—no matter how different the context—then Drzic is copying the Italian original; or, if Drzic writes that a young man has fallen madly in love with a beautiful but virtuous girl, and that his avaricious father tries to save his money ("vece ljubi dinar nego sina"—he loves the money more than his son) and bring him to his senses, then all Italian plays with similar plots are cited.[144]

Undoubtedly, Drzic saw or at least read Italian pastoral plays and comedies [commedia erudita] [145]. From the Italians, he learned the basic techniques. Without his time in Siena, he would not have become a prominent writer—in some pieces, even greater than some of his Italian models.

And although he explicitly states, as he does in the prologue to Skup ("The Miser"), that he "stole" his comedy from Plautus [146], he not only sets it in Dubrovnik but also introduces a group of new characters into the plot. The central theme is the genuine love between a young man, Kamilo, and Andrijana, the daughter of a miser. Drzic emphasizes his right to love and condemns mismatched marriages, a blight on commercial society in Dubrovnik at that time.

In 1890, M. Srepel wrote an extensive study of Drzic's Skup, highlighting the similarities between Skup and G. B. Gelli's La Sporta and Lorenzino de Medici's L'Arzdosia [147]. Italian scholars cite Srepel's study and conclude that Drzic successfully adapted these two Italian comedies for the Ragusan stage. However, as Vatroslav Jagic pointed out, Skup is partly dependent on Plautus's Aulularia; where it departs from Aulularia, Drzic has nothing in common with either La Sporta or L'Arzdosia [148]. Recently, Franjo Svelec, who devoted several in-depth studies to Drzic, re-examined Skup in relation to its possible sources and demonstrated that Drzic created an original work [149]. The comparison with the Italian comedies proves advantageous.

Drzic's comedies offer a complete picture of Dubrovnik during its period of prosperity and decline. Most of his characters seek pleasure and entertainment; they live and dream only for and through women, good food, and a life of leisure. Adultery and amorous intrigues are not considered sins. Deceiving a foolish husband or replacing a poor lover with a rich one or a nobleman are signs of skill and wisdom.

In this respect, there is no difference between clergyman and layman, nobleman and peasant, rich and poor, young and old. But Drzic was not content to be a mere painter of society; he also wanted to be its critic. He seems to wonder how those senile, selfish, and petty patricians managed to obtain the right to govern the common people of the Republic of Dubrovnik.

The plots of his plays are interesting, but sometimes not well-constructed; The introduction of numerous secondary characters and the multiplicity of episodes, related to a greater or lesser degree to the main theme, are rather annoying. His characters are there to entertain the audience; some, however, serve as arbiters, judging the others: this is entirely true of the servant Pomet, in whom we rightly suspect the author has incarnated himself. Drzic's style is exuberant and brilliant.

His monologues and dialogues overflow with wit and humor ("non sine sale et lepore"). He still delights the audience with his effervescent humor, ingenious dialogues, vivid language that suits his characters and their social standing so well, and with his skill in breathing life into them with few words and gestures.[150] His ear was so keen that he was able to present various social strata solely through the speech patterns of his characters; he knew the variations of the Croatian language in Dalmatia so perfectly that his characters from different cities and islands are recognizable by their speech. Based solely on the evidence of his expressive power, we can justly assign Drzic the foremost place among Croatian Renaissance writers and draw worldwide attention to him.

Drzic had followers in Dubrovnik and other cities. The most important was Martin Benetevic (died 1607) of Hvar, author of Hvarkinja and perhaps another comedy, Rasko, which contains passages taken from Ruzzante (1502–42). Benetevic's Hvarkinja exhibits the same fundamental characteristics as Drzic's comedies: an interesting and amusing plot with too many characters and episodes; compared to his brilliant predecessor, Benetevic is less gifted and a weaker writer.

We have already seen that Zadar was the first Croatian city on the Dalmatian coast. Despite repeated Venetian conquests, Zadar remained the most Croatian of the Dalmatian cities. Around the middle of the 16th century, when it became a literary center, Zadar and its poets were closely linked to the Croatian rearguard, to which the political center of Dalmatia had moved.

Apart from comedies, Croatian Renaissance literature consisted almost exclusively of verse. The first important example of narrative in the Croatian language, Planine ["The Mountains," Venice 1569][151] (was written by Zoranic (1508-ca. 1569) of Zadar. We know nothing of Zoranic's education; he was probably a layman. He followed many models, both national and foreign (Ovid's Metamorphoses, Sannazaro's Arcadia), but poured them into something distinct and his own, for his subjects are the peasant life of the Croats, who led a primitive existence, frightened and disturbed by the constant Turkish threat. Planine contains many separate fables, and its characters are scantly motivated. Zoranic's style is rather ponderous, and his sentences are often poorly constructed.[152]

The main reason Zoranic set about writing Planine was his fervent patriotism. He wondered why every Greek river and mountain had its poet, while the captivating Croatian landscape remained untouched. unnoticed. The Croatian nymph (Vila Hrvatica) reproached Croatian writers who preferred to write in foreign languages instead of their own.

She placed moving lamentations in the mouths of her shepherds because of the destruction and pillaging of the Croatian border region by the Turks; one of these shepherds, Marul, is none other than Marko Marulic, whose poem "Prayer Against the Turks" Zoranic slightly modified. Planine is a glorification of the natural beauties of the Croatian homeland, but it also condenses the poet's sorrow for his miserable condition ("rasuta bascina"); this work is rightly considered the most patriotic piece of old Croatian literature.

Another writer from Zadar is Brne Krnarutic (1520-72). Abandoning the usual borrowed themes, Krnarutic treated the heroic figure of Siget in his epic poem Vazetje Sigeta grada ("The Capture of Siget," Venice, 1584). The Croatian Nikola Zrinski, who preferred death to surrendering to the powerful Turkish army in 1566. Krnarutic's work is more of a chronicle of events than a poetic vision.

His warm description of the defenders of Siget ("gospoda i knezovi hrvatski" - Croatian lords and princes) and his personal participation in the fighting against the Turks give Krnarutic some literary merit. He demonstrated his understanding of contemporary history when he asserted that German Protestantism and French intrigues were responsible for the weakening of the Habsburg Empire and, consequently, the Ottoman advance.[153]

More significant than Krnarutic is the third writer from Zadar, Juraj Barakovic (1548-1628). Barakovic spent much of his life as a canon in Sibenik and died in Rome. His principal work is Vila Slovinska ("The Slavic Nymph"), Venice, In 1613, Barakovic described characteristic episodes from the history of Zadar. The work as a whole is poorly composed, as it includes in the second part passages that have nothing to do with the main plot.

Like Zoranic, Barakovic is a patriot who rebukes his countrymen for not showing more pride in their native language; he considers the reintroduction of Latin into schools ("zac jazik slovinski vas nauk od skula promini u rimski") to be the main reason for the decline of Croatian literature since the glorious days of Marulic and his immediate followers. Barakovic included in his poem one of the most beautiful folk ballads, Majka Margarita ["Mother Margarita"][154].

The two prominent poets of the second half of the 16th century, Dinko Ranjina (1536–1607) and Dinko Zlataric (1556–1609), were born in Dubrovnik.

Ranjina traveled mostly on business throughout southern and central Italy. He wrote and published poems (some in Italian) in his youth (Pjesni razlike, Florence 1563). Ranjina attempted to innovate somewhat in Croatian versification, using several shorter lines instead of the monotonous twelve-syllable form. For this reason, he was held in high esteem, but now, with the discovery that he plagiarized some Italian poems[155] (note 102), his reputation has diminished; he imitated certain weaker Petrarchans of the Quattrocento (e.g., Serafino d'Aquila).

In his poems, it is not difficult to predict which detail from the catalog of female beauty will be described next and with what adjective. This is true even when he is influenced by popular oral poetry. Ranjina is hardly original or stimulating, since his personal feelings are seldom expressed. His language lacks poetic flexibility, and his metaphors are heavily decorative.

Zlataric, who studied in Padua and distinguished himself there,[156] was a cultured man and a versatile translator of Greek (Sophocles' Electra), Latin, and Italian (Tasso's Aminta, Venice, 1580); all these remarkable translations were published together (Venice, 1597) and dedicated to Juraj Zrinski.

Zlataric's name was romantically linked with the famous beauty Cvijeta Zuzoric, in whose honor even Torquato Tasso wrote some sonnets and madrigals.[157] Although Petrarchan like Ranjina,[158] Zlataric possessed many considerable poetic qualities; his language is flexible, his taste refined, and his feelings genuine. Zlataric's verse is often carefully constructed, avoiding commonplaces. Some of Zlataric's poems, from both *Pjesni razlike* and *U smrt od razlicieh*, are the finest examples of Croatian Renaissance lyric poetry.[159]

Most of these writers (from Zadar, Split, Hvar, and Dubrovnik), in close contact with their homeland and the people to whom they belonged, were creating their own literature that corresponded to national needs and aspirations.[160] Those of their contemporaries who blindly imitated Italian writers may be of some interest to cultural historians and linguists, but in other respects, they communicated very little that was new or valid. It is right, in specialized studies, to emphasize not only the undeniable influence of Italians like Petrarch and his followers on some of the writers discussed[161], but also to point out the detrimental effects of Petrarchism. It must be stressed that the best pages of Croatian Renaissance literature are precisely those where the native language and spirit are present.

THE FAILURE OF TITOISM IN AGRICULTURE AND THE COUNTRYSIDE IN GENERAL

Jure Petricevic, Brugg, Switzerland

I - Communist Plans and Reality

Agricultural policy in communist Yugoslavia still lacks direction.[162] Following the catastrophic consequences for the entire economy and the resulting food shortages, the collective farms (kolkhozes) were dissolved in 1953, and the individual peasant holdings were granted the right to subsist alongside the so-called socialist sector. Despite the fact that peasant holdings constitute 90% of the arable land, the state invests virtually all its resources in the socialist sector, which comprises only 10% of the total area. Peasants are encouraged to cooperate with state cooperatives in order to use agricultural implements and machinery, benefit from short-term loans for harvesting, and acquire seeds and fertilizers.

Despite intense propaganda, this cooperation made very little progress, and in 1959 it was applied to half a million hectares, or 5% of the total area of peasant holdings, which is relatively small. This area generally consisted of wheat fields and did not increase during 1960 and 1961, given the unfavorable conditions for the peasants.

This area of peasant holdings in cooperation with cooperatives, together with the collective farms (kolkhozes), the assets of various institutions, and other peasant labor cooperatives, constituted the so-called socialist sector, whose purpose was to solve the supply problem. Consequently, it enjoyed all official benefits, absorbing almost all social resources, which represents one of the great paradoxes of communist Yugoslavia.

A small part of the agricultural sector, comprising 10% of the total arable land and employing a negligible percentage of the agricultural population, was supposed to solve all the economic and social problems in agriculture and the countryside. The vast majority of free peasants and peasant holdings are not only left behind, but are targeted for complete elimination. This is the essence of current agricultural policy in Yugoslavia.

In recent years, all available resources were used to increase production. Thanks to considerable investments by the socialist sector, as well as access to credit, machinery, fertilizers, and seeds, and later, the concentration of experts in that sector, production was increased in some areas. Since the persistent wheat production deficit made Yugoslavia dependent on large, free shipments of American wheat, and since low production affected the entire economy, the government and the Party strove to solve the bread supply problem through domestic production.

Substantial investments in the socialist sector and favorable weather conditions made a satisfactory harvest possible in 1959, allowing for domestic bread production. This harvest was proclaimed a record, and the communists interpreted it as a victory for the socialist system in agriculture. Compared to previous low yields of 8-16 quintals per hectare, the 1959 harvest, at 19 quintals per hectare, was indeed very good. But compared to that of Western Europe, this average is quite modest, if not low. In 1959, a bountiful year for Western Europe, the following wheat yields per hectare, in quintals, were recorded: Austria 22; France 26; Sweden 27; Switzerland 32; West Germany 34; Great Britain 36; Belgium 39; and the Netherlands 41 [163].

As we can see, Yugoslavia, despite having very favorable natural conditions, lags far behind the advanced free countries, even in its most progressive production sector, namely wheat. This, however, does not prevent the communist leaders from looking down on the more advanced countries for their own benefit, which have no difficulty increasing their production; on the contrary, they sometimes have to slow down to avoid producing large surpluses that are difficult to sell. However, the 1960 grain harvest in Yugoslavia was lower than in 1959, which undermined confidence in the "victory over nature" that Yugoslav communist propagandists had boasted about after the 1959 harvest.

The 1960 wheat harvest, at 17 quintals per hectare, could not meet domestic needs, and the 1961 harvest was even less productive. Due to drought and anti-peasant policies, it yielded only 16 quintals, covering just over half of the country's requirements. Thus, the problem of grain production remained unresolved, despite the premature boasting of Tito and other communist leaders after the bountiful 1959 harvest, in which they gloried about having overcome nature, solved the supply problem, and no longer being dependent on imports, etc.

The situation after the 1960 and 1961 harvests was such that Yugoslavia, to meet its bread needs, depended substantially on foreign sources, primarily on the importation of American grain under very favorable conditions. Therefore, the problem of grain production remained unresolved. As for other products, the situation was even more unfavorable. While the production of agricultural crops, and particularly grain, was relatively straightforward given the extensive land area and the possibility of mechanization, other sectors of production in the centrally planned communist economy encountered serious difficulties.

For example, a satisfactory solution to the problem of meat and milk production and supply was not found, despite intensified efforts. Here, the role played by the peasant farm was more important, while the organization of socialist "livestock factories" presented significant challenges, especially regarding their profitability.

The production problem, despite a more liberal agricultural policy, remained unresolved. Organizational, cost, and profitability problems, along with serious social and economic issues, create new difficulties. The rural population is becoming impoverished on a large scale, and a considerable number of peasants are leaving the countryside. Rural workers' incomes are very low, and the migration from rural areas to cities and industrial centers is significant. Inadequate education and new occupations give rise to further problems and conflicts.

These preliminary explanations are necessary to better understand the current situation of Yugoslav agriculture, the views of the communist leaders on agricultural problems and the peasant estate, as well as their plans for the future. Dr. Vladimir Bakaric, one of the communist agrarian theorists in Yugoslavia and president of the government of the People's Republic of Croatia, referred to these important problems twice in 1960, devoting particular attention to them in meetings with representatives of agricultural organizations in late October 1960 in Osijek and Vinkovci, and at the closing ceremony of the centenary celebrations of agricultural and forestry education in Croatia, held on November 21, 1960, in Zagreb.

In his speeches in Osijek and Vinkovci, Bakaric focused primarily on current production difficulties, while in his Zagreb address he tackled the fundamental problems of agricultural policy in Yugoslavia in general, as well as the role of the socialist sector and the individual peasant farm. Wishing to present a truthful and well-documented picture, we will quote the most important content and excerpts from these speeches, commenting on them alongside. The problems and difficulties analyzed by Bakaric remained unchanged at the beginning of 1962, with no prospect of significant changes during that year.

II. Production and Profitability

Wheat and Maize

Although official circles had recently emphasized that the wheat problem was solved, Bakaric admitted that many aspects of it remained unresolved. In his presentations, he gives priority to wheat, saying the following in Osijek, according to the Vjesnik newspaper of October 23, 1960:

"...It seems to me that my comrades agree that maintaining the current level of production—I'm referring first and foremost to wheat, the current level of wheat—could be better than it is. I believe that the subsequent wheat production was approached too hastily, and that the problems that have arisen now, after an unsatisfactory harvest, were, in a way, foreseen. It's just that we didn't think they would necessarily occur. Therefore, it seems to me that there is only one conclusion: intensive wheat production is not achieved by chance; rather, we must strictly adhere to its rules and processes, just as in industrial production, which followed its predetermined processes."

"I think we must consider both sides of the issue. If we were to stop at a yield of 40-45 quintals per hectare, we would be producing at a high cost, and all those enormous efforts would be counterproductive. Therefore, where there are no other impediments, we must raise wheat production to a higher level... If we were to achieve 50 quintals of wheat per hectare, I believe production would not be profitable... That is why I think that through better organization, we should establish the minimum production level as soon as possible... This year, with regard to wheat, a number of weaknesses were revealed. The increase in production did not meet our expectations, while production costs increased."

Nor is corn production, especially in terms of profitability, satisfactory. Bakaric said on the matter:

"In my opinion, we have also neglected corn. Almost everything said about wheat applies to corn... Certainly, the general trend of expanding the area and production to the current level of about 40 quintals per hectare is not yielding great success..."

The amount of costs varies considerably, which Bakaric attributes to these reasons:

"Such a disparity should not be reflected in these state cooperatives. The reasons for it are quite varied. Not only have the prices of production inputs and other materials increased, but we also have the problem of prohibitively high administrative expenses. These prove that almost all state cooperatives were not proceeding entirely according to economic calculations. Administrative expenses very often radically alter the final cost of production..." "People aren't particularly interested." That's why experimentation is taking place where it's not necessary. It's because no one feels the success reflected in their income.

The cooperatives are not satisfactory. Livestock production is not profitable.

"Regarding the wheat cooperatives, I'm not so worried. My comrades here explained the reasons why the farms aren't performing well. As for me, I'm not entirely happy with their production, and on the other hand, I think we shouldn't expect much from the cooperatives, since the cooperative is the link between the private farmer and the socialist sector, and can maneuver in various ways."

"I believe that cooperative economies, despite having moved at a 'hurray-hurray' pace lately, have played a positive role, and if they haven't acted entirely wrongly, they should continue. However, the sector that has been affected by a lack of forethought is livestock farming. I've heard many things here today that I already knew in general terms, but without precision. It's about dairy production, which is still pending a solution and is operating at a loss."

I didn't know that here, except for those who process the milk into its final products, people are operating at a loss with no end in sight, and yet they continue to be involved in dairy production. It seems to me that, without prior calculations, we will pay dearly for this experiment and that we should work systematically. Furthermore, the organizations in charge of oversight should try to find a solution, because this way the business is not going to be successful.

"The beef cattle industry is also on the verge of profitability, due, I believe, to insufficient attention. Over the last two years, we've bought too much cattle, and now people think we're modern producers. Not only were the funds invested in this ill-considered cattle acquisition taken from other essential areas, but we also incurred obligations for several years to maintain that cattle, operating at a loss..."

"The current trend of increasing fattening in the private sector, and everything related to it, is quite risky. Rising prices are unfavorable for large producers. That's also a problem. It's obvious from the corn purchase figures and what you've presented here that people prefer to grow corn rather than beets. This is a clear shift towards fattening cattle and proof that farmers can sell their livestock more easily. This is also where the danger of excessive cattle fattening lies, if it isn't modernized."

"The current trend of increasing fattening in the private sector, and everything related to it, is quite risky. The price increases are unfavorable for large producers. That's also a problem." Cooperative Officials - Rentiers

Returning to the unsatisfactory work of the cooperatives, Faric states verbatim: "So far, not much work has been done in the cooperatives, and yet the losses incurred are relatively small. This means that there are enormous reserves there, from which much could be obtained with serious work..."

"A whole series of unprofitable operations in the cooperatives did not occur because of the high rent (referring to the cooperative's land lease, author's note), because the cooperative officials lease their own land. Many operations were carried out under such conditions, given that the members of management profited from it, etc. It is a great task to fix all these things."

"I believe, therefore, that the cooperatives should do much to regularize their internal affairs. Something similar also occurs in the nationalized farms. There, the tendency to follow the well-trodden, routine path clearly demonstrates that the collective's internal interest is meager or that the internal elements are not sufficiently stimulating..."

The aforementioned presentations by Bakaric are very revealing. They expose to the public things that are usually presented in a rosy light. Bakaric acknowledges that the major problems of agricultural production are unresolved and that agricultural policy is in crisis.

The most important and most difficult problem is the relationship between costs and income. It is clear from Bakaric's presentations that production costs are too high. His observation that the wheat yield must be at least 50 quintals per hectare in the "socialist sector" reveals a catastrophic state of the organization and management of social agricultural assets.

Achieving that yield, even with Italian wheat, which is of inferior quality, is not easy. For comparative purposes, it is worth noting that in the advanced and free countries of Western Europe, wheat yields of 30-40 quintals per hectare ensure profits for private producers, whom Bakaric considers incapable of modern production. In some European countries, even lower yields guarantee the recovery of expenses and a satisfactory profit.

Tito's Yugoslavia, in order to solve the problem of food supplies, invests all social resources in agriculture within the socialist sector. By 1960, these funds amounted to 100 billion dinars. Since the socialist sector comprises a very small portion of the agricultural land, enormous sums are wasted irrationally and arbitrarily. At the same time, individual peasant land ownership is neglected and abandoned, resulting in great harm to society as a whole.

Here we must add the irresponsibility of the communist leaders and the bureaucracy, the lack of popular control, and the disinterest in rational and successful work. It is therefore not surprising that large losses occur, even with high-yield harvests. These losses are the logical consequence of the economic system. Since the State wants to solve the food problem through the socialist sector, the necessary funds must come from social, not private, sources.

Thus, the State and public institutions become irresponsible for the burdens and risks. In this way, it is possible to force certain sectors of production and produce sufficient quantities of certain goods, but extending this system to all production means assuming a material burden and losses that are unbearable for the community. Even in the current restricted "socialist sector," the expenses and losses incurred are excessively onerous, and what would happen if all agriculture were "socialized"? The situation for all important products is unfavorable: wheat, meat, and dairy products alike.

A keen observer of agricultural development in Yugoslavia in recent years has noted that the production problem remains unresolved, even from a technical standpoint. In other words, sufficient average production of basic food staples is not guaranteed. The situation is relatively better for wheat and corn. However, regarding wheat, there is a risk of declining production.

To achieve high yields, Italian wheat varieties are being introduced, but these are unsatisfactory in terms of quality. Moreover, these varieties are grown in more temperate climates. The winter of 1959-60 in Yugoslavia demonstrated that these varieties cannot withstand harsh cold and are susceptible to frost damage. The best solution would be to cultivate native, hardy, high-yielding, and high-quality wheat varieties. It was announced at the time that such a variety had been developed in Croatia. Time will tell if it lives up to all expectations in practice. For now, Italian varieties are being cultivated, which, lately, farmers are forced to sow in their fields under threat of severe penalties.

Another interesting observation is the inability of agricultural cooperatives to fulfill their assigned purpose. After the dissolution of the collective farms (kolkhozes), especially after 1957, these cooperatives played a significant role in agricultural production. One of their main tasks involves so-called "cooperation" with the peasant, based on a contract, to work a portion of the peasant's private land and share the harvest.

To this end, they provide the peasant with seeds and fertilizers and work the land with machinery, while the peasant agrees in advance to give the cooperative a fixed share of the harvest. The communists believe that, in this way, through the cooperative, they will gradually assume control of the peasant's private farm and integrate it into the socialist sector.

Step by step, the peasant will become entirely dependent on the cooperative, subordinate to it on his own land. So far, they have only managed to involve 5% of privately owned arable land. The peasants distrust the cooperative. The success achieved so far is negligible. The next step is to apply this system to livestock production. From Bakaric's speeches, it can be deduced that the communists fear that this could harm socialist goods, especially in terms of prices.

Furthermore, the general agricultural cooperatives are unable to solve the production problem within their internal economies. It is well known that these economies operate at a significant loss, a fact that Bakaric himself admitted.

The chronic ailment of communist state farms, cooperatives, collective farms (kolkhozes), and all forms of socialist agriculture is that administrative costs are so high that they preclude any profit. Officials are appointed and the administrative apparatus is expanded without considering whether the enterprise can bear the additional expenditures. There is no economic calculation, as the communists often say.

This is an integral part of the system, since there is no accountability on the part of the officials nor control by the people. This cancer can only be cured through a radical change of the system, not with palliative measures, as the communists attempt.

III. The Evolution of Science and Society According to the Communists

At the end of November 1960, the centenary of the founding of the Krizevci Higher Agricultural and Forestry School was celebrated. This was the first such school in Croatia and played a crucial role in promoting agriculture and forestry in the country and in training experts. When the Faculty of Agronomy and Forestry was founded in Zagreb after the First World War, the Krizevci school was transformed into an agricultural school, and today there are several schools there for training agricultural experts.

At the closing ceremony of the three-day celebration of the centenary of agricultural and forestry education in Croatia, Dr. Bakaric, President of the People's Republic of Croatia, delivered a solemn speech on November 21, 1960, at the Student Residence in Zagreb, addressing several fundamental issues of agricultural policy. We reproduce the content and main passages of his speech according to the Vjesnik newspaper of November 22, 1960. It will be instructive to compare his conclusions with the actual situation in Yugoslavia and other countries:

"The transition to the new century and the time leading up to the Second World War marked a great surge in agriculture in this part of the Old World. In contrast, here, stagnation and crisis alternated to a greater or lesser degree. The main issues were providing aid and preserving small peasant holdings, since another solution, the revolutionary one, had not yet 'ripened.'

This posed serious problems for both scientific work and teaching, without encouraging greater scientific and practical endeavors. Theoretical possibilities far outweighed practical, material, and social ones. This gave rise to ideologues like David, Chaianov, Laur, and others. It is no wonder that such ideology increasingly permeated the curricula of our educational institutions. Nevertheless, a solid foundation for the study of our field was established during those years, in which the members of your schools played a significant role." The scientific foundations for research into the social conditions for the application of agricultural and forestry sciences were laid.

Communist Agronomists and the Role of Specialists

Referring then to the unfavorable situation of newly graduated agronomists and the "pessimism" in agriculture at that time, Bakaric states that around 1931 "the process of peasant awakening began." Here he alludes to communist influence in the countryside. According to Bakaric, this process unfolded as follows:

"The sudden increase in the number of students began around 1931 and reflects the beginning of the peasant awakening. This is the beginning of the access of the peasant 'plebeian' element, that is, their aspirations, to the university. This element does not recognize the dead end and seeks solutions. It seeks them in the countryside, perhaps there first and foremost."

That is why its prevailing leftist and revolutionary orientation, why it rejects compromises, and why agronomy students quickly rose to prominence within the ranks of progressive students and were the first to legally "win" their club. Consequently, they provided a large number of combatants during the war and a large number of prominent leaders of the Revolution.

"Current conditions, as well as the purposes of agricultural and forestry schools and faculties, differ substantially. The environment, the milieu to which the efforts of these educational institutions were directed in the past, is gradually disappearing. The peasant who, driven by poverty, had to struggle and sell his produce, is practically nonexistent today. Those peasant enterprises maintained solely through extraordinary effort, great sacrifice, and hardship are also disappearing as a primary source of income. Statistics on monetary income show the course of its transformation from a basic to a supplementary source of income."

Bakaric now seeks to demonstrate, based on the increasing participation of the socialist sector and cooperatives in supplying wheat to the market, how the importance of individual peasant property is diminishing. He asserts that an identical or similar trend exists with regard to other products, although the importance of socialist assets and cooperatives is greater in the grain sector. In 1960, the contribution of peasant holdings to total wheat production was 61%, and that of cooperatives 20%, while the contribution of socialized assets was 19% of total production.

For this situation, communist society needs a new kind of expert, who, according to Bakaric, must have these characteristics:

"This means that we need, first and foremost, not bureaucrats, propagandists, and men confined to limited laboratories and institutes, but practical men who master the results of science and possess the utmost audacity in transforming current reality. The doors are wide open for such people. But precisely for this reason, the doors are also open to the needs of broader scientific research and the verification of the results achieved. It seems that the opportune moment for you is now."

At the end of his speech, Bakaric returned to the issue of production. He emphasized the large harvest of 1959 and a certain decline in 1960, focusing particularly on the cost-price ratio. He said verbatim:

"There is one more element that hinders quick solutions. It is the price relationship. Currently, we are almost at a level where only those who benefit from various reserves of the peasant economy (or from concomitant elements) and who resort to the most modern methods can produce profitably.

The middle ground often yields losses. This also constitutes one of the difficulties of economic growth and the transformation of society. Prices were conditioned by two factors: production with peasant reserves and the relatively very restricted market... The policy of low prices for agricultural products will very soon contrast with subsequent economic development and will necessarily be modified. It is a reflection of the previous low social level and must disappear along with it. However, you should not interpret my words as if I were taking advantage of this meeting to advocate an immediate and unconditional increase in the prices of agricultural products."

Partiality and contradiction. Incapacity of the communist leaders to solve the agrarian and peasant problem.

Bakaric condemns individual peasant ownership as a form outdated. Science, according to him, is mistaken when it seeks new paths and ways to preserve the individual peasant farm. He underestimates and disdains the scientific findings of the Russian agrarian economist Chaianov and the Swiss economist Laur, who have thus far provided the best explanations of the economic laws and conditions governing the organization and subsistence of the family peasant farm.

They deserve credit for establishing that the peasant economy occupies a special place within the private economy and constitutes a unique economic category. Their principal research complements the studies of the great German scientists Thaer and Thünen of the last century, who laid the scientific foundations for the organization of the agrarian economy in general and considered larger holdings and their relationship to the market. Chaianov and Laur deepened these studies, explaining the essence of the peasant family economy. Chaianov considered Russian conditions and studied the limited-sized natural peasant farm, while Laur situated the peasant family holding within a developed industrial society with a monetary economy. The essence of the farm Family farming in the peasantry consists of the peasant cultivating the land with their own labor. They are both entrepreneur and employee.

Since they are not a capitalist entrepreneur in the Marxist sense, Marxist theory could not explain this phenomenon. Nor can the Marxist theory of surplus value or land rent be applied, given that the peasant, employing their own labor, does not retain the surplus value of others' labor or the land rent, considering the enormous significance of the income derived from their own labor on the farm.

It is important, however, that free peasant land ownership in democratic countries adapts to new situations and demonstrates great resilience. The family farm did, indeed, go through various phases of development and encounter difficulties, but it did not succumb; rather, it proved to be the best form of organization in agriculture, and in the social sense, as an independent and balanced unit.

Bakaric condemns private peasant land ownership and opposes it with the "revolutionary path," envisioning socialization and a communist system of agriculture. In the first part of this work, we saw that, in Bakaric's own opinion, agriculture in communist Yugoslavia faces serious difficulties, the solution to which he does not foresee.

Bakaric does not compare Yugoslav agricultural production with that of free Western countries. He refers to the state of the peasant economy in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. It is widely known, however, that after the Second World War, the peasant family farm adapted to the new technological era and the new economic conditions, fundamentally modifying its outdated structure. The main change consisted of the fact that, in the subdivided estates, as many plots as possible were moved outside the village, creating new integrated units.

Their size, if necessary, was expanded with land from smallholdings—whose owners no longer tended them—and with land belonging to the commune or other communities. New properties were formed with an area of 10, 20, or more hectares; new buildings were constructed according to current technical requirements. The remaining holdings were expanded and integrated; the small plots disappeared and became secondary occupations if the previous owner became an industrial worker or chose another profession, retaining the house and land, which they worked with their family in their free time.

This great reform is considered the pinnacle of agrarian reform, and its purpose is to create as many large farms as possible, capable of sustaining them for a long time and providing peasant families with full employment and a permanent livelihood.

Given the vast possibilities offered by modern machinery and facilities, as well as rational organization and sound management, the new peasant holdings are much larger than when all work was generally done manually. Where a family once worked a field of 5 hectares, today they can work an area several times larger. This process of improving the agrarian structure is now well underway in much of Western Europe and is gradually spreading to other free countries where such measures are necessary.

The most significant transformation in this regard is taking place in West Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, and is also gaining considerable momentum in other free countries. This process is not forced; rather, the respective state finances it with substantial resources, and the peasants, seeing the advantages of the new measures, readily accept them.

Thus, new foundations are being laid for the solid and independent peasant farm for the new times in which high labor productivity, the security of sufficient income, savings and relief from human labor, the application of all available technical means and the reduction of production costs, also dictate new forms of organization in agriculture.

Those participating in the centennial celebrations of agricultural and forestry education in Croatia, and the general public, would have been interested in seeing a comparative chart of current peasant landholdings in Western Europe and in Yugoslav agriculture. Bakaric failed to provide it. He silently ignored the recent changes in agriculture in free countries, referring only to peasant landholdings of 30 and 50 years ago.

Bakaric certainly knows that the situation has changed profoundly, and that is why he omitted mentioning it. This comparative chart would be even more negative for Yugoslavia if production in free European countries were also taken into account. It is well known that yields in these countries, due to the application of the most modern scientific and technical advances, are increasing rapidly and that more is produced than the market can absorb. There are surpluses, not shortages of food or production crises, a normal phenomenon in communist countries.

Bakaric's account of communist influence in the Croatian countryside during the 1930s is also one-sided. He fails to mention the significant social and national resurgence of Croatian peasants led by Esteban Radic. Peasants became a crucial force in Croatian political life without embracing communist ideology, except in a very few cases. Radic and the Croatian peasants defended individual and free peasant holdings, which the communists were dismantling.

These Croatian peasants, after the violent death of their leader Esteban Radic, assassinated in the Belgrade parliament, remained opposed to Greater Serbian Yugoslavia and demanded the creation of a Croatian state, while the communist minority, unlike the overwhelming majority of Croats, supported Yugoslavia. Before the war, the Communist Party encouraged its young members to pursue agricultural studies.

Thus, beginning in 1930, a certain influx of communist students enrolled in the Faculty of Agronomy and Forestry in Zagreb, following Party directives. Bakaric links this phenomenon to the supposed awakening of the peasantry to the communist spirit. This, however, was an integral part of communist propaganda and the dissemination of ideas foreign to the Croatian people. It was the imposition of an alien ideology, not the awakening of Croatian peasants who had long been awake. Bakaric and the then "progressives" in agronomy are now applying every measure at their disposal against these same peasants to annihilate them. I will discuss the "conquest" of the agronomy students' club, mentioned by Bakaric, in a separate chapter. I took an active part in student life at that time, and with full knowledge of the facts, I can say that this "conquest" was a momentary success of the "popular front" tactic.

Let us briefly analyze the current scientific and specific work in agriculture and the role of the communists. Bakaric demands a new kind of expert. He doesn't want "men of laboratories and technical institutes, but practical men who master scientific results and possess the utmost audacity in transforming current reality."

He insists that the purpose of science should be to investigate and verify the results achieved. In the free world, science typically achieves new knowledge and results in institutes and laboratories, verifying them in practical application, not the other way around. Communists, on the other hand, proclaim certain theses as scientific truths and apply them willingly or unwillingly, demanding that science verify that these theses are accurate. This is particularly true for the economic and social sciences. In this way, politics is introduced into all sectors of science, making it difficult for specialists, scientists, and technicians to work freely and draw objective conclusions in communist regimes.

Professional and scientific work must be carried out according to the official line established by the Communist Party. The results achieved in postwar agriculture are largely due to non-communist specialists. Communist agronomists and other Party members occupy the top positions, while non-Communist technicians carry out the work and contribute significantly to the advancement of science and its specialization. Communist leaders are generally incompetent people who use their non-Communist colleagues as mere tools and keep them subordinate. Communists despise these experts and make no secret of it, but they need them and cannot dismiss them all.

Bakaric dedicated a significant portion of his speech to proving that individual peasant land ownership is an outdated phenomenon, ultimately acknowledging that only those who benefit from multiple reserves within the peasant economy can produce profitably. Such a resounding recognition of the failure of the communists' agricultural policies and the vitality of peasant land ownership could not be expected even from the most ardent opponent of the communist system. This conclusively demonstrates the precariousness of the situation in the countryside and in Yugoslav agriculture.

Communist Agronomy Students

In his aforementioned speech, Bakaric described the influx of communist students into the Faculty of Agronomy in Zagreb during the 1930s and their temporary takeover of the student club as a turning point in the development of the Croatian countryside. A few words should be said about these "progressive" students, their working methods, and the role they play today.

During and after the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union, agronomy was very fashionable among students, and the Communist Party instructed as many of its members as possible to pursue such studies. As a result, there was a sudden and disproportionate influx of communist members into the agronomy faculty. Many had neither a preference nor an inclination for this field of study, but they obeyed the Party's orders, which considered agriculture a crucial sector for the future. These students did not act under the communist name, but rather disguised themselves as "progressive youth." And they did so not only because the Communist Party and its activities were banned. Students with a nationalist orientation were also persecuted, and their anti-Yugoslav stance was considered subversive, yet they did not conceal their affiliation.

The communists disguised themselves because they knew they were a minority, and, using various slogans, they attracted disoriented students with their demands for improvements in student life. In this way, they won the agricultural students' club for the only time in the annual elections. It was the first club at the University of Zagreb to fall into communist hands. In the subsequent elections, they lost it, never to regain it.

The club passed into the hands of students with a Croatian national orientation, who formulated a clear and decisive program with national, social, and democratic content. We then carried out such professional activity within the club (lectures, publication of notes and books) and organized such financial support for club members that we were overshadowed by the communist attempts.

The communists lost the club for two reasons. First, for publicly opposing Croatian national demands. For them, the Croatian national question was a bourgeois invention. Many Croatian communist students did not subscribe to this policy and deserted the Party. Their lives afterward were quite bitter. Anonymous leaflets labeled them as agents and corrupt individuals; they were subjected to incessant attacks and slander.

The communists displayed such a lack of nationalism that at an event held in the National Theatre, they booed during the playing of the Croatian national anthem. This had negative repercussions for them, as they had always been a small minority at the University of Zagreb.

The second reason for the communists' failure in the Faculty of Agronomy and their loss of control of the club was the intense activity of nationally oriented students and their deep awareness of social issues. They undertook extensive work to help students in need, protecting them from tuition fees and other contributions.

Furthermore, the club's specific activities offered its members many benefits, including engaging lectures, excursions, the publication of notes and books, its own library, and a reading room. Thus, in practice, it became clear that the communists did not have a monopoly on social work; for them, it was merely a facade to mislead the disoriented, and that nationally conscious students could solve all of life's problems.

Reading Bakaric, one might think that this generation of communist agronomists is currently doing great scientific and practical work. The reality, however, is bleak and meager. These individuals squander their energy vying for higher and better-paid positions. The results of their scientific and specialized work are extremely modest.

Many are incompetent, but they excel at persecuting their political adversaries and non-communists in general. These supposedly progressive and pseudo-democratic expelled the outstanding and highly capable Croatian professors from the Faculty of Agronomy in Zagreb. Some were dismissed, others forced into retirement, and the chairs are now occupied by incompetent and opportunistic men.

This is why the academic level of that faculty has dropped considerably. Important professorships are currently held by individuals who, prior to their appointment, did not perform any scientific work and, in practice, did not distinguish themselves in the slightest. A typical example is Nikola Rapajic, appointed professor of agricultural economics organization and administration simply for being a communist. This man has no qualifications whatsoever and to date has not published any noteworthy scientific work worthy of a professorship.

Professor Alois Tavcar played a significant role in the expulsion of Croatian professors from the Faculty of Agronomy. Before the war, he favored communist and Yugoslav-oriented students, harming Croatian students whenever possible. When the communists came to power, Tavcar played a crucial role in the expulsion and dismissal of the Croatian professors. He committed numerous injustices against his colleagues. In doing so, he also betrayed his loyalty to Croatia, which had enabled his successful career without discrimination between Croatians and foreigners.

This precipitous decline of the Faculty of Agronomy in Zagreb should have been emphasized on the occasion of the centenary of agricultural education in Croatia, as it constitutes a necessary complement to Bakaric's discourse.

IV. Increasing Pressure on the Peasants

"Cooperation" with the Peasants in Practice

The Yugoslav communist leaders boast of carrying out, without coercion, "the socialist transformation" of the countryside. Along with state and cooperative assets, they seek to secure the collaboration of the peasants with general agricultural cooperatives, which supposedly provide the peasants with favorable conditions by making available seeds, fertilizers, machinery, and experts, thus enabling high yields and, consequently, benefiting the peasants.

This cooperation with the cooperative, based on a signed contract and the cooperative's participation in the production of the individual peasant's farm—guaranteeing the cooperative in advance a percentage of the harvest, regardless of the yield—is called the cooperative's voluntary cooperation with the peasant and constitutes a specific form of Titoism.

We have already noted that, despite intense official propaganda, this system only managed to extend to a small percentage of the total area of peasant lands. It is clear that "cooperation" does not offer the peasant any advantages; rather, it ties him to the cooperative, makes him dependent, and exploits him. This is confirmed by two letters written by a peasant from Slavonia, who describes the so-called "voluntary cooperation" and several disadvantages that are increasing and worsening. In the summer of 1960, Titoism, as a new "favor," decreed a tax on peasant housing.

We are transcribing an excerpt from the first letter, written in December 1960, which deals with the forced planting of Italian wheat varieties. Our farmer friend says:

"I can tell you that we were all forced to plant Italian wheat under penalty of jail and fines, and that we had to request the seed from the cooperative. As a barter, we had to give 175 kilos of our wheat for 100 kilos of theirs, or, by contract, approximately 602 kilos per acre, which includes fertilizer and insurance. Now, if this wheat doesn't produce well, we'll be in debt; that is, we have to pay 19,600 dinars per acre. We can also tell you that we now pay rent on our own houses and taxes on everything else, except the cat. I don't know what else they'll invent for us to pay. Every day more onerous burdens."

In our response, we asked further questions, including whether the cooperative, in requiring the planting of Italian wheat, in addition to providing seeds, fertilizer, and insurance in exchange, also carries out the planting and harvesting operations with its machinery, in compensation for the 602 kilograms of wheat per acre that must be paid to the cooperative, or 19,600 dinars in cash. We also inquired about the amount of property tax that farmers are currently paying on their homes and other contributions. We received the following response:

"First, you ask about wheat, and whether the cooperative plows and sows; no, it only provides seed, fertilizer, and insurance for the plot you sow. We have to plow and sow ourselves. You ask if the farmers sow under contract or do it on their own. If they had us sow under contract, we wouldn't even have the wheat straw left. Some tried it and had to add two to three meters of wheat per acre, because the harvests sometimes fail, so the farmers sow on their own and whatever comes, comes."

"You ask me about the rent, that is, the tax on our house. A commission came and inspected all the rooms, found out the materials and age of the house, then calculated it per square meter and converted it into points, so we have to pay 120 dinars per month for our house. We also pay 360 dinars for our well, so we can't even drink our own water for free. That tax was decreed in 1960. Our neighbor has a bigger house and has to pay 960 dinars per month in taxes.

You ask what else we have to pay. We pay 13 dinars for each grapevine, 2,400 dinars for each cart, 300 dinars for each ox or horse, 400 dinars for each dog, and 15 dinars for each chicken, because they say they vaccinate them, but they still frequently die. Now they've imposed social security, and 5% of our income is deducted for that. Our income has been estimated." "100,000 dinars per year. Then we must pay 4% of that same income for electrification and 5% for water. And so, adding it all up, last year (in 1960 we had to pay 50,150 dinars for various taxes and contributions)."

This simple and clear letter from a Croatian peasant in Slavonia requires no comment. The "cooperation" of the communist cooperatives with the peasants, which Tito and Bakaric so often emphasize as a new and just solution to the peasant problem, in fact means the most common exploitation and great injustice. This forced collaboration with the cooperative is such an onerous burden for the peasant that he will not be able to bear it for long. In reality, this is the primary objective of "cooperation," which seeks to completely subordinate individual peasant land ownership and definitively eliminate it.

High taxes are levied, only to then argue that peasant farming is no longer suited to contemporary production and must be abolished. It is irresponsible and cruel to force peasants to sow Italian wheat varieties. It has not yet been proven that these wheats are suitable for the climatic conditions of Central Europe, and their quality is generally unsatisfactory. The peasants are compelled to sow these types of wheat and pay the cooperative for the sowing. To this end, the peasant must cede 602 kilos per acre, or 1,060 kilos per hectare, to the cooperative.

The burdensome taxes became unbearable for the peasants. This is evidenced by all the aforementioned burdens placed on the Slavic peasant, whose 4-hectare field is small, leaving him with very little to sell after household consumption. The income of this family was estimated at 100,000 dinars, including the value of the house and household goods.

Although it is a small farm, whose income is insufficient to support a medium-sized family, the peasant landowner must pay half of his annual income in taxes. These burdens constitute the most brutal exploitation of the working people in whose name the communists claim to speak. The tales of Tito, Bakaric, and other communist leaders about the "voluntary cooperation" of the peasants with their agricultural organizations and about progress in the countryside are blatant lies. Titoism brought oppression, misery, and despair to the countryside. The letters cited from the Slavic peasant are a tremendous indictment of Tito's regime. The extremely difficult situation prevailing in the countryside categorically refutes all the fallacies of Tito and his acolytes regarding their agricultural policy.

The peasant suffers and is discontented; the employee and the intellectual also consider themselves exploited and oppressed. The overwhelming majority of the people feel discontented and exploited, living in abject poverty. Only the small ruling clique, headed by Tito, is satisfied, since they live in luxury and leisure at the expense of the working people.

MESTROVIC AS SEEN BY ARGENTINE SCULPTORS

Branko Kadic, Buenos Aires

The influence and work of Ivan Mestrovic, the exiled Croatian sculptor who died in South Bend, USA, on January 16, 1962, have universal dimensions. As Auguste Rodin said, he is "the greatest phenomenon among the sculptors of our century" and "the greatest sculptor of religious subjects since the Renaissance" (Sadler). Given the undeniable impact that Mestrovic's art had on new generations of visual artists in the early decades of the 20th century, we interviewed four leading figures in the Argentine art world, different in age, artistic creed, school, and style, asking for their opinions about the deceased sculptor.

Mestrovic was known in Buenos Aires mainly through photographs and graphic reproductions of his sculptures, as there were no exhibitions of his representative works in any South American capital. Only Mestrovic's first wife, Ruza Klein, organized an exhibition of her own minor works in 1928 in Buenos Aires, Santiago de Chile, and Lima. New artistic movements arriving from Europe, such as Cubism, abstract, non-figurative, and Informalism, brought new perspectives and criteria, new artistic expressions, and appropriate styles. Despite the clear polarization and confrontation between figurative and abstract art, we have been able to verify that, in the opinion of prominent art critics and sculptors, Mestrovic is one of the most distinguished masters of contemporary sculpture. Below, we publish the opinions expressed by four representative Argentine sculptors.

Troiano Troiani

Almost the same age as Mestrovic, he was born in Buia, Udine (Italy), in 1885. He settled in Argentina in 1914 and is considered an Argentine sculptor. In Buenos Aires, he executed almost his entire vast artistic opus. The work of this distinguished sculptor includes figures large and small, numerous bas-reliefs, funerary plaques, medals, portraits, and statues that adorn parks, institutions, public buildings, and necropolises in Argentina. Troiani participated in several group exhibitions and exhibited his works in solo shows. He is a figurative sculptor, but not an academic one. His art contains both classical and modern elements. It is classical in its inspiration and overall line; modern in its modeling, refined style, and the rhythm of its bold movement. "The peculiarity and differentiation of his art reside in the 'musicality of the line,' the 'heroic expression,' and that air of sublimated grandeur that has come to be called 'monumentality'" (Dante Mantovani). He was awarded and honored repeatedly in Argentina and abroad. In 1957, the Academy of Udine, founded in 1606, made him an honorary member.

Troiano Troiani impresses with his vitality, nobility, and simplicity. A man of few words, like so many true masters of the chisel, instead of answering the questions we intended to ask him, he preferred to write the following brief and insightful judgment on Mestrovic's art: "...I would like to give my words a very limited and personal scope, for I am not just another critic; as an artist and as a man I have always been a passionate admirer of Mestrovic—even in his exaggerations, which he had, and which revealed the measure of his sincerity." "Being an anti-classicist, he gave with his works a testament to modern art that has the universality and perpetuity of the classical."

Alfredo Bigatti

Born in Buenos Aires in 1898, he studied at the Academy of Fine Arts in his hometown and later in Paris with the master A. Bourdelle. He was a professor of sculpture and drawing at the National School of Fine Arts in the Argentine capital. He is a full member of the National Academy of Fine Arts. During his prolific artistic career, he participated in numerous group exhibitions and held several solo shows. In 1937, he won the National Grand Prize for Sculpture and the First Prize for Sculpture at the International Exposition in Paris. In collaboration with the renowned sculptor J. Fioravanti, he created the magnificent Monument to the Flag, erected in Rosario.

Bigatti favored architectural figuration in his sculpture. His works are held in Argentine museums, galleries, and private collections. Several of his drawings are in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. In addition to the vast bibliography on the important work of this already established Argentine visual artist, two prominent art historians, Julio A. Payró and Romualdo Brughetti, dedicated profusely illustrated monographs to him. Bigatti, who knew Mestrovic's works in Europe as well as those owned by the daughter of the deceased Croatian sculptor, who resides in Buenos Aires, was very pleased to answer the questions posed. What place does the sculptor Mestrovic occupy in contemporary art? "With the major exhibition of his works organized in Rome in 1911, the then young master Mestrovic established himself in the universal art world with the renewing force of a sculptural work conceived on eminently architectural principles. These works, made of stone, with a profound humanism, signaled a return to the geometrization of volume, marking a vanguard within the new aesthetic currents that were stirring at that time." Master Mestrovic contributed a new yet old element: the geometrization of form, as in the great sculpture of bygone eras. Rodin, at the height of his powers, foresaw such a return, and in his last book, 'The Cathedrals,' as a testament for future generations, he extolled, in his analysis of Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals, this core architectural value within sculpture.

Mestrovic, as a precursor, contributed this concept to the world of art by creating that series of magnificent works that completed the cycle of the temple to the heroes of Kosovo. What influence did the Master's art exert on the Río de la Plata sculptural scene? In our country, the dissemination of photographs of these works brought a breath of fresh air to our small artistic world. The influence of Rodin and Mestrovic predominated among the youth of the time. Rodin, with his profound modeling of an exalted reality, and Mestrovic, with his contribution of renewed faith in the architecture of form. Mestrovic occupies and will continue to occupy the position of precursor of contemporary sculptural art. So far this century, current trends fully confirm this, as sculpture has once again become intertwined with architecture, as in the finest periods of great eras, thus justifying the work of this precursor who struggled in isolation in his time. "I recall that in 1924 I had the opportunity to see in London, displayed in two large pavilions of the Tate Gallery, the work of Rodin and Mestrovic, which had the virtue of simultaneously showing the world these two great masters, pointing to the coordinated evolution of their concepts for the future."

Humberto Eduardo Cerantonio

Born in 1913 in Buenos Aires, where he completed his studies. He currently teaches art history, sculpture, and drawing at the Prilidiano Pueyrredón National School of Fine Arts. His sculptures and reliefs have been exhibited in numerous group and solo shows. Cerantonio is an entirely figurative artist with a profound humanist sensibility. He was awarded several times in 1943, 1951 and 1953 by the National Fine Arts Salon, and the Municipal Salon of the City of Buenos Aires in 1958. He is currently finishing the execution of a large monument in memory of the outstanding philanthropist and educator of Buenos Aires, William C. Morris.

His works are featured in several Argentine museums, as well as in private galleries. He created Crucifixion and Flagellation for the Stations of the Cross in Tandil.

We interviewed the artist in his studio, and while leafing through prints of Mestrovic's works, he gladly answered our questions:

What impact did Mestrovic's work have on the Argentine sculpture scene?

"I believe that Mestrovic's influence on Argentine sculpture has been significant, considering that it had to be balanced against the various stages of the evolution of art worldwide. Here, we had the great direct contribution of the works of Rodin and Bourdelle, while we knew Mestrovic primarily through graphic reproductions. Nevertheless, Mestrovic's archaic expressionism and exasperated Gothicism left a deep mark on the generations of that time. Some of our masters felt this fundamental contribution in their own work, particularly in terms of the sense of rhythm and the monumental-architectural. After the last world war, it became evident that abstract art movements were gaining more prominence at the expense of Mestrovic's figurative and humanist content."

In your opinion, what place does Mestrovic occupy in the history of modern art? "Mestrovic is an outstanding representative of sculpture rooted in post-Rodin expressionism, prior to its conversion or deviation into abstract movements. His sense of rhythm and figurative composition is crucial in this respect. He repeatedly revisited old themes, which he knew how to refresh and renew. The peak of his sculpture was limited by the global influence of the latest non-humanist schools, such as Cubism, and the abstract, informalist, and anti-figurative movements. We must place him in a prominent position in the history of art alongside masters like Rodin, Bourdelle, and Wildt."

Libero Badii

Badii, along with the recently deceased precursor Curatella Manes, is the most representative Argentine sculptor of the new abstract movement of geometric forms. Born in Arezzo, Italy, in 1916, he arrived in Argentina in 1927 and, after completing his studies, traveled through several South American countries, becoming acquainted with prehistoric art and the reality of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. After World War II, he traveled through Europe and became intimately acquainted with the works of the ancient Greeks, the Etruscans, the Romanesque, the Gothic, the Renaissance, and the "intrepid" sculptors of our time. Figurative in his early works,

Badii abandoned classical and traditional forms and sought his individual expression by combining rough materials with a polished, bare, abstract surface. "Badii feels, on the one hand, the emotional, sensitive force that focuses him on expressiveness and, on the other, the pure concept that leads him to abstraction, to pure form in space" (Romualdo Brughetti). Badii, who received the Palanza Prize in 1949, held several solo exhibitions, the last of which (August 18–September 19, 1962) was at the National Museum of Fine Arts, sponsored by the National Fine Arts Fund. The opinions of this talented visual artist, whose concepts differ from those of Mestrovic, are particularly interesting. In his modern studio, where abstract and geometric compositions stand alongside his earlier figurative works, Badii answers our questions with spontaneity and simplicity.

To what extent did Mestrovic influence Argentine artistic movements?

"Mestrovic's influence in Argentina was integrated during the 1930s and 40s through a series of reports that made a significant impact on our artistic circles. During that decade, as a student, I recall that in our conversations with teachers, the topic of Mestrovic's work arose. It's important to remember that this information reached us during a period when all our teaching was highly baroque. Seeing Mestrovic's work through graphic reproductions, his application of a particular vision of his plastic composition, it was natural that I, eager for new forms, felt a surge of admiration. Indeed, if we examine the works created during that decade by various Argentine artists, we will notice that these graphic reproductions of Mestrovic's work had a certain impact."

In your opinion, what place does Mestrovic occupy in the history of 20th-century visual arts, and what accounts for the decline in his fame and influence after World War II? "From the beginning of our century, the great creative currents in art, in the course of events, caused these currents, which were initially rejected, to gain such vigor that every work that was then considered highly creative was overwhelmed by that very force of creation. Mestrovic's work has been swept away by these latest visions of the artistic spirit in general. In his period of splendor, he was undoubtedly an illuminating force between the prevailing Baroque style and the new visions that were taking shape within artistic practice. It is a pity that this great sculptor did not feel the preponderance of new artistic concepts.

"At the beginning of our century, Auguste Rodin dominated sculpture. From this central point, two paths diverged, two currents in modern visual arts." The most notable exponents of the first movement are: Despiau (1900s), Maillol (1910s), Bourdelle (1920s), and Mestrovic (1930s), and the most representative figures of the second movement would be: the Cubists Lipschitz, Laurens, and Archipenko (1910s), then Brancusi (1930s) and Posner (1950s). Mestrovic, therefore, is the last great representative and champion of figurative art.

TRANSCRIPTS

The Croatian Struggle for Independence as Seen by a German Newspaper

The German newspaper Deutsche Soldaten und Nazional-Zeitung, published in Munich, ran an informative article on September 22, 1962, entitled "As Long as There Is a Single Croat, the Thought of an Independent and Free Croatia Lives On." In this article, drawing on sources and circumstances, the struggle of the Croats for their national independence during the last war is recounted. We transcribe it below due to its impartial approach, despite certain inevitable inaccuracies in a narrow analysis of such complex relationships.

The Croatian state, founded 21 years ago, on April 10, 1941, and dissolved on May 15, 1945, existed for only four years. And yet these four years live so deeply in the consciousness of the Croatian nation, which feels forever linked to Central European culture, just as this people will cling to the idea of a free and sovereign state as long as there is a single Croat left. Croatia once belonged to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, and when the peoples of the old Austria were classified as victors and vanquished, Croatia was considered among the latter and, therefore, among those without rights. Against their will, they were pressured, based on the then European colonial policy, into the newly founded Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, which King Alexander, assassinated in Marseille, decreed would be called Yugoslavia on January 6, 1929. All Croatian attempts, both democratic and parliamentary, aimed at legally establishing this much-maligned state, failed from 1918 to 1941 due to brutal methods of oppression, culminating in the assassination of their uncrowned king, Stefan Radić, along with deputies Pavle Radić and Gjuro Basarček, in the Belgrade Parliament, shot dead by Serbian deputy Punisa Raćić.

From this assassination, carried out within the Parliament building—a method of warfare previously unknown in European parliamentary history—the hopes of the Croats were pinned on revolution. The first failed attempt, known as the Velebit Uprising, was organized in 1932 by the future leader of the Croatian state, Dr. Ante Pavelić. The uprising was unsuccessful because the moment was not yet opportune and because the Ustaše movement, led by Pavelić, was too limited and insignificant.

Yugoslavia, in the period between the two world wars, practiced a policy of "balancing" its allegiances, always relying on the then-great European powers. This typical example of a weak and artificial state lived then, as it does now, on continuous credits, aid, and loans. These were obtained from wherever they could be found, a situation that has not changed to the present day.

When the Axis powers assumed supremacy in Europe, Yugoslav policy, which had traditionally been Francophile and Anglophile, shifted towards Germany and Italy. The proponents of this policy were Dr. Milan Stojadinovic, who recently died in exile in Argentina, and his successor, Dragisa Cvetkovic, who currently lives in exile in Paris. His government, which joined the Tripartite Pact on March 25, 1941, was overthrown on March 27, 1941, by the coup (Putsch) led by Air Force General Dusan Simovic.

The fall began with a demonstration by officers, students, and Serbian citizens in the streets of Belgrade, as the crowd chanted, "Better war than a pact." The coup (Putsch) was organized by Air Force General Bora Mirkovic, who, as the only former Yugoslav general currently in England, received a brigadier general's pension. According to Seaton Watson, the coup was financed by the British Intelligence Service and, as other sources indicate, also by the head of the Office of Strategic Services, then Colonel, later General William Donovan. It is said that the leaders received 500,000 pounds sterling and an unknown sum of US dollars for their coup.

In any case, Churchill misled world public opinion when, on March 27, 1941, he told the House of Commons that Yugoslavia "has finally found its soul."

In addition to Cvetkovic's government, Prince Paul of Yugoslavia was also overthrown by the coup leaders, who enthroned the still-minor Peter II. It is significant that the proclamation of the throne, addressed to the people of Yugoslavia, was read by a young Serbian lieutenant named Jakov Jovovlc, without the knowledge of the newly enthroned king, who was asleep at the time.

While demonstrations were taking place in Belgrade and the German military attaché was spat upon by Serbian officers during the Te Deum for the new king, a deathly silence reigned in Croatia. The calm before the storm.

Simovic personally had his Foreign Minister, Momcilo Nincic, clarify that his government recognized all signed agreements, including Yugoslavia's accession to the Tripartite Pact, while a Yugoslav delegation held negotiations in Moscow. On April 6, 1941, the German response arrived: With a heavy bombardment of Belgrade, directed by General Löhr, the troop movement against Yugoslavia began, which would end, to the great surprise of world public opinion, more quickly than the attack on Poland. An attempt by England to penetrate through Greece to aid Yugoslavia failed, just as the attack through Norway had.

The Croats did not want to die for Yugoslavia. Even before the German troops entered, they had founded independent Croatian republics in Čakovec and Bjelovár. Those who had deserted out of conviction, along with members of the peasant and urban militia—a paramilitary organization of the Peasant Party—disarmed the few units and regiments willing to fight. Alongside this peasant and urban militia, the Ustaše movement of Dr. Ante Pavelić, led by the future Field Marshal Slavko Kvaternik, also gained strength as a smaller but more radical group.

Neither Hitler nor Mussolini, still considered in Allied propaganda today as founders of the Croatian state, had expected or demanded a similar uprising in Croatia. Hitler himself was more of a friend of Yugoslavia and the Serbs, whom he called "Prussians of the Balkans." Moreover, he and Mussolini had handed their mutual friend Stojadinovic over to supporters of the Ustaše movement, and when war broke out against Yugoslavia, most of the Croats in Italy and Germany were interned in concentration camps.

However, the Allies labeled the Croats fascists because they aligned themselves with the Axis powers. In reality, a fascist party never existed in Croatia, and by the same logic, the Western powers could be called communists for having been allies of Stalin.

On April 8, just five days after leaving Zagreb, the leader of the peasant party, Macek, reappeared in the Croatian capital, which was captured by German troops on April 10, 1941. That same afternoon, he was visited at his home by two German representatives. They came to inform Macek that the German army had transferred all power in Croatia to then-Colonel Slavko Kvaternik, who, in accordance with the plans of the German Reich, had proclaimed an independent Croatia. They asked Macek to issue a proclamation to the Croatian people, urging them to remain calm and support the authorities of the new state, which he did.

With the proclamation of the new independent Croatian state in Zagreb on April 10, 1941, the Yugoslav monarchy ceased to exist. Eight days later, General Kalafatovic signed the surrender.

On April 15, the leader of the Ustaša movement, Dr. Ante Pavelić, appeared in Zagreb and received command of the new state from Kvaternik, which he held until his tragic end. He was accepted by Hitler and Mussolini as leader of this new state after Macek had refused to take command from Hitler.

What followed was the tragedy of a nation that had fought fiercely and tenaciously for its freedom, even when defeated. "We didn't care who opened the doors of our prison," most Croatian émigré leaders still think today. Croatian divisions fought alongside German troops against communism during World War II. Everywhere, the Croats renewed their long-standing reputation as soldiers and demonstrated their traditional loyalty, even in Stalingrad.

The Independent State of Croatia survived the German surrender by only a few days. Tito's last war communiqué was issued on May 15, 1945, as the last organized resistance of the remnants of the Croatian army was being crushed in Odzaci, Bosnia. The long ordeal of the Croatian armed forces and the Croatian people had begun. A Katyn far surpassing the Polish one.

The Croatian state is dead, but its ideal will live on until this European people, too, is granted the right to self-determination.

DOCUMENTS

Memorandum from the Catholic Bishops to the Communist Government of Belgrade

The Catholic bishops of Yugoslavia, gathered at their annual plenary conference in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, addressed the following memorandum to the Federal Executive Council (Federal Government) of Belgrade on September 13, 1962. We reproduce it verbatim in Spanish as our exclusive scoop:

"We are on the eve of the promulgation of the new Constitution. The Catholic Bishops have not yet seen its draft. However, since new norms for ecclesiastical and religious issues will likely be established at that time, the Catholic Bishops of Yugoslavia, gathered at their annual plenary conferences, consider it their duty, taking into account past experiences, to draw the attention of the Federal Executive Council to certain problems of vital importance for the future of the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia.

The Catholic Bishops must insist, as they have done until now, on full freedom of religion, not only in matters of worship but also in all other obligations." which affect the integrity of religious life in practice.

On this occasion, we must emphasize that our faithful and priests complain more and more each day that they and their children are prevented, under various pretexts, from exercising their religious duties, and especially from attending Holy Mass on Sundays and holy days. Such obstacles are found everywhere: in institutions and businesses, in children's summer camps, and particularly in children's homes. Something similar could be said regarding young conscripts. Although in recent times cases of formally prohibiting enlisted conscripts from exercising their religious duties are not so frequent, the conviction prevails in the army that practical religiosity clashes with the duties and honor of the Yugoslav soldier. Religious freedom, in accordance with our constitutional guarantees, should, in the opinion of the Episcopate, also be manifested in this sphere.

Likewise, the Episcopate is aware of cases, unfortunately quite frequent, in which the children of Catholic parents They encounter difficulties in attending regular religious instruction. This is particularly true for children living in foster homes.

Our faithful deeply regret not being able to celebrate even their greatest religious feast, Christmas. The Bishops duly presented their complaints and wishes on this matter, but without success. This time, they reiterate them, hoping that, at last, this justified request from the Church and the faithful will be heeded.

The Bishops consider it a particular difficulty that, even today, some seminaries (in Rijeka, Split, etc.) cannot serve their purpose, either because they have been nationalized or because they are occupied.

An equal difficulty for the Bishops is the fact that the relevant authorities are reluctant to grant permits for the construction of churches and other buildings, especially in cities.

The Catholic Bishops are particularly concerned about indications that, following the reform of education, a decree might be inserted into educational legislation stipulating that the Church could only accept into its seminaries and religious schools those candidates who have already completed secondary education. In the opinion of the Bishops, this would completely preclude the regular education and instruction of candidates for the priesthood as prescribed by canon law. Should such a trend materialize, the Bishops will vigorously oppose it.

The Catholic Bishops of Yugoslavia hope that the new Constitution will not contain any provision that conflicts with the rights of the Church, but rather that any eventual legal stipulation, while ensuring normal relations between Church and State, will fully guarantee and respect the inalienable rights of the Church and its faithful.

Formulating these observations, driven by the desire that they may contribute, as stated above, to normal relations between state and ecclesiastical authorities in our country, the Catholic Episcopate respectfully greets the Federal Executive Council.

Signatures follow.

THE DIFFICULT SITUATION OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY

In Croatia, a message from the assembled representatives of the Islamic officials of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Islamic Religious Community in Yugoslavia to their congregations is circulating in numerous copies. This circular describes the precarious situation of the Islamic religious community in communist Yugoslavia, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where approximately one million Muslims of Croatian nationality reside, constituting a third of the population of this "people's republic." We reproduce the aforementioned circular according to the version published in the Croatian exile newspapers Bosanski Pogledi (Bosnian Perspectives), London, October-November 1962; Danica, Chicago, December 5, 1962; and Hrvatski Glas, Winnipeg, Canada.

"The undersigned officials of the Islamic Religious Community, gathered in the assembly of representatives from various Muslim communes of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, consider it our Muslim duty to address a few words to our Muslim brothers, who may receive this circular, on the occasion of this meeting.

The Islamic Religious Community is neither competent nor authorized to give instructions to its members regarding how they should resolve their political and financial problems, as long as those problems conform to the prescriptions of Islamic principles. But in the current circumstances, we consider it our duty to draw the attention of our Muslim brothers to certain problems that we can, with the help of Allah and united efforts, resolve. Already in the final phase of the war of national liberation (the official term for the communist guerrillas), our government had declared that it would respect freedom of religion and conscience, as well as private property. The government of the People's Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina initially adopted these principles, but always implied through the press that, in its In our opinion, the prevailing situation within the Islamic Religious Community was unsatisfactory.

Since the new spirit of the administration contradicted the statutes and rights of the Islamic Religious Community, which had been guaranteed until then, and was therefore, in part, detrimental to the application of the principles of Sublime Islam, we endeavored to persuade the competent authorities that we should resolve several disputes among ourselves quietly. In this regard, we obtained promises from the higher authorities that they would proceed accordingly. However, despite our efforts, the situation worsened. Looking back on the situation of the Islamic Religious Community, we must frankly describe all the difficulties and hardships the Community endures.

Our most serious problem is the lack of muezzins and their precarious financial situation. During the war, a large number of rural and provincial religious officials, such as muezzins, registrars, and preachers (imamas, hatibas, imama-bativaras, muderrishas, and vaizas), were killed or disappeared. It is not possible to provide exact figures on the religious officials who were murdered and beheaded, but we can say that their number far exceeds that of those who survived.

Even after the war, many highly capable and qualified religious dignitaries were imprisoned and sentenced to long prison terms or even death, without their guilt being proven and without being afforded the right to a defense granted to the worst criminals. The list of such people is quite long, and it is very difficult to recover from their loss. We still do not know, nor have we been told, why many of them were prosecuted, unless it was for holding political opinions different from those of the current regime. Even now, beloved brothers, there are countless Muslim dignitaries in prisons, condemned to forced labor for many years. This situation prevails in these prisons because of men who are by no means, not even remotely, worthy of being considered human, not even human scum (mahluk).

The situation of the Islamic religious press constitutes another grave and irreparable grievance inflicted upon us by the irresponsible element. Of the numerous Muslim newspapers we once published, only one remains: The Spokesperson of the Islamic Religious Community ("Glasnik Islamske Vjerske Zajednice"). When we requested its expansion, our request was denied due to an alleged shortage of paper and printing difficulties. All Muslim printing presses are now closed.

An even harder blow for us is the situation in the Muslim religious schools. The religious foundations (Vakuf) built and maintained numerous primary and secondary schools (mejtefe and medrese) at enormous expense. Thousands upon thousands of students—rural, urban, and working-class—passed through these schools; today's scholars and artisans of all professions are now educators.

Currently, these schools, including the religious high school (seriat) and the higher religious-theological school, are closed. Regarding the religious education of Muslim children in schools, the Islamic Religious Community suffered the most severe blow. Religious instruction is not compulsory in any school. In all primary and secondary schools, religious instruction was reduced to one hour per week, while in the upper grades of secondary schools it was completely eliminated.

This was justified by invoking the principle of so-called freedom of conscience. Religious instruction, religion, and all divine morality were declared medieval and outdated. Because "Glasnik" is under the strict control of the official censor, the Islamic Religious Community is deprived of information and has no opportunity to discuss with the relevant bodies whether it has the right to a normal existence or whether this is all mere propaganda to provide foreigners with evidence of the authorities' tolerance and leniency. Our Muslim youth, the hope and future of Islam in this corner of the world, face the greatest danger. The new morality deprives parents of the right to control their children (it seems there are more competent people for that), so young people spend their free time at parties and dances, dancing and drinking, without anyone mentioning the dangers such a lax lifestyle poses to public morality. Statistics on illegitimate children and venereal diseases, to which our minors are exposed, are the best proof that this system aims at the moral destruction of the nation and the Islamic religious community, whether the responsible authorities want to acknowledge it or not.

Even more painful is the dangerous increase in marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims. The higher authorities encourage these marriages, which for us means the total extermination of Islam, of our homeland. The practice of Friday midday prayers (Dzuma Namazah) and attendance at Ramadan sermons are almost always ruled out due to official schedules, meetings, assemblies, and rallies that take place precisely at those times and on those dates. Likewise, young people are forced to participate in so-called piecework during the most important Muslim holidays and at times when they should be gathered to fulfill their religious duties.

Since the seriat courts and seriat law have long been abolished, and civil marriage, which in almost every aspect contradicts Islamic ethics, has been implemented, it happens that a woman marries two or three men, and divorces one without knowing who the real father of her child is. The immediate future will reveal the consequences this will have for normal family life, the fundamental basis of all progress for a nation and a state. How many children will be deprived of a proper and moral family upbringing, and how many abandoned children will thus become a burden on the community and the people!

The land reform, as approved by the National Assembly, represents a great injustice to the Islamic Religious Community. All the assets of the Vakufi (religious foundations) originated from these foundations and belonged to the community. Their resources supported soup kitchens for the poor, mosques, primary and secondary schools, and orphanages. They also supported the staff of the Vakufi and the Islamic Religious Community.

The land reform stripped the Vakufi of all its lands and related implements without any compensation, as if the Vakufi and the Islamic Religious Community had stolen them. Such a land reform made it impossible to maintain the normal operations of Muslim religious institutions and to preserve the Muslim spirit among our people. Furthermore, it imposes tax burdens on the maintenance of existing institutions at the expense of the faithful, whose incomes are already diminished by the country's difficult economic situation. We particularly abhor the atheistic and materialistic spirit that is currently being propagated officially and unofficially in our homeland.

We, the ulema, as doctors of Islamic law, custodians of Islam, and representatives of the religion, condemn this materialistic spirit, from which humanity should expect nothing good. At the same time, we condemn all ideologies and all social systems based on atheistic philosophy and secularism.

In view of the moral and material pressure that is being exerted with ill intent on the Islamic religious community, it is clear that Muslims in the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia are in a very different situation than before. The current situation of Muslims differs only in name from open persecution and the prohibition of Islam.

Whatever happens to us, we look to the future with unwavering faith and hope, for we have been convinced countless times that the vast masses of the people remain devoted to divine precepts and are so deeply rooted in religious and ethical traditions that not even the most intense atheistic propaganda can alter their convictions.

We deliver these words to you, Muslim brothers, with the best of intentions and without any desire to provoke a conflict with the national authorities. Our proposals have been made public with the aim of normalizing relations and without any intention of inflaming passions. Therefore, we demand full freedom of the Muslim press, of Muslim religious schools, and free religious instruction in all primary and secondary schools. We ask that the courts of our religious community be reinstated and that mixed marriages for Muslim women be prohibited, at least until they reach the age of majority.

We request the restitution of the confiscated property of Vakufi, the reconstruction of all mosques that have been destroyed or altered, and, among the first, the mosque in Zagreb. We demand the autonomy of the Islamic Religious Community, for only in this way will the Muslim population regain confidence in the national authority and its good intentions. We hope that we have expressed what weighs on the heart of every Muslim and that no one can accuse us of bias or pettiness. With the wish and invocation that the Almighty and Merciful Allah show us the true path and give us patience and comfort in the new year 1382 after Hidzra month of Muharram.

On behalf of the ulema of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Islamic Religious Community in the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, at the conclusion of a meeting with numerous distinguished Muslims from the working class, artisans, and teachers, we have signed this circular letter, informing our brothers of the current situation of the Community and its uncertain future if each of us does not contribute to improving this state of affairs.

Given in Sarajevo, June 16, 1962.

Signatures follow: Hafiz Ibrahim Proho, Hafiz Kamil Silajdzic, Hadzi Masid, Hadzi Muhamed Begler, Abdullah Dervisevic, and Hadzi Hafiz S. Sahacic.

THE SUBJUGATED PEOPLES OF YUGOSLAVIA AND THE ASSEMBLY OF EUROPEAN CAPTIVE NATIONS

Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture

From November 12 to 19, the Week of European Captive Nations (ANCE) was held in Buenos Aires with the permission and support of the Argentine government. Coinciding with these events and the presence of delegates from the Central Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, the formation of the Argentine Association of Friends of ANCE was publicly announced. This association is comprised of prominent figures in the political and cultural life of Argentina. On this occasion, the Argentine government was asked to raise its voice in protest at the United Nations "against the absurdity and abnormality of maintaining historical nations subjected to captivity and slavery," victims of Soviet colonialism in Central and Eastern Europe.

As is well known, exiles from Yugoslavia do not participate in ANCE activities, which lends itself to confusing interpretations, as if the peoples of communist Yugoslavia were not as captive as other peoples under communist governments. Such blatant favoritism toward the Yugoslav communist dictatorship by an international anti-communist organization as prestigious as ANCE constitutes one of the most flagrant anomalies regarding Belgrade's ambiguous stance following the exclusion of the Yugoslav Communist Party from the Cominform.

The Croatian Latin American Institute of Culture, lamenting this absurd situation, sent a letter on November 14th to Dr. Brutus Coste, Secretary General of ANCE, pointing out the untenable nature of such a practice, which is detrimental to the organization itself. Copies of this letter were delivered to Dr. Walter J. Perkins, President of the Argentine Association for the Self-Determination of Peoples, and to Dr. Manuel V. Ordóñez, President of the Argentine Association of Friends of ANCE. These distinguished Argentine figures expressed great understanding of the Croatian perspective on the matter.

The following is the text of the memorial addressed to Dr. Brutus Coste:

The Croatian Latin American Institute of Culture, which brings together Croatian exiles and Argentinians of Croatian descent, is pleased to extend its greetings to the distinguished representative of the Assembly of European Captive Nations, wishing them every success in their noble efforts to obtain the understanding, solidarity, and support of the people and Government of the Argentine Republic in the struggle for the liberation and self-determination of the European peoples under communist oppression.

Wishing only that this necessary and worthwhile endeavor may receive unanimous support, we feel compelled to point out an unjustified and detrimental absence from the events commemorating the Week of European Captive Nations, an absence detrimental to the cause of the oppressed countries.

This refers to the absence of the oppressed peoples of Yugoslavia, noted by prominent figures in Argentine public life as early as the inaugural ceremony. Standing before the monument to General José de San Martín, alongside the representatives and raised flags of Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania, there were neither representatives nor flags of the captive peoples of Yugoslavia, victims of communist tyranny, as prominent as the aforementioned nations.

Many also noted the absence of Croatia, which actively participates in the frequent events organized by the representatives and organizations of the captive nations. In this country, the struggle of the oppressed peoples of Yugoslavia, and especially the Croatian people, is not unknown, as a large, active, and well-organized group of Croatian exiles resides here.

Our Institute, for example, sponsors the journal Studia Croatica, published in Spanish, which addresses the problems of the nations enslaved by communists. The Argentine public, starting from the principle that freedom is indivisible, cannot separate the struggle of the peoples of Yugoslavia for their liberation from the same struggle of the countries that make up the ANCE, so the question arises: How is it possible that within ANCE there is discrimination to the detriment of the peoples subjugated in Yugoslavia, that is, in favor of communist Yugoslavia?

That question was posed to you spontaneously at the press conference in the City Hotel. You correctly answered that in Yugoslavia "the rights to self-determination are suppressed" and that its people "must be helped, since their right is similar to that of any other people on earth" (La Prensa, November 12, 1962). Your clear and defined position encourages us to explain to you the reasons in favor of the participation of the peoples of Yugoslavia in the work of the ANCE, from which they have been excluded until now.

If, after the 1948 Cominform Resolution against the leadership of the Yugoslav Communist Party, it might have been considered appropriate and advisable to adopt a flexible and expectant attitude toward communist Yugoslavia, under the assumption that its "national communism" could be in the best interests of the free world, such reasons and premises are now untenable. Even the democratic governments that provided substantial aid to communist Yugoslavia have recently reiterated that the government in Belgrade is as communist as that in the Kremlin.

Furthermore, communist Yugoslavia acts in solidarity with the Soviet Union on all major issues of international politics. It scandalously supported the Soviet repression of the Hungarian Revolution, and now supports the Soviet position in the Cuban crisis. On the eve of the Cuban Missile Crisis, on October 3rd, Tito and Brezhnev, Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, issued a joint declaration expressing the solidarity of both governments with the communist dictatorship in Cuba. In the same declaration, they called on the Washington government to normalize its relations with Cuba on the principles of "peaceful coexistence."

It is obvious, therefore, that the peoples of Yugoslavia cannot be excluded from international action that strives for the recognition of the right to self-determination of all European peoples under the communist yoke. If it is absurd when communists insist on recognizing this same right for all Afro-Asian peoples while upholding Soviet colonialism in Europe, it is even more absurd that a relatively small country like Serbia maintains entire populations and numerous national minorities in colonial dependency and continues to receive not only abundant material assistance but also moral support from democratic governments.

Furthermore, an attempt is made to conceal the fact that Yugoslavia, in its structure and form of government, is nothing more than a miniature and deteriorated version of the Soviet Union. While the Soviet Union recognizes, at least formally, the independence of some nations represented in the ANCE, the government of Yugoslavia deprives several peoples and numerous national minorities, particularly the Albanian and Hungarian minorities, of the right to self-determination.

The absence of representatives of the oppressed peoples of Yugoslavia in the ANCE is sometimes justified by claiming that the exiles from Yugoslavia failed to form a representative body (impossible to constitute for the simple reason that there is no people of Yugoslavia) and that including representatives of each people separately, for example the Croats or Slovenes, would mean declaring themselves in favor of the dismemberment of an independent country, recognized by all between the two wars, which is also a victim of communist aggression.

Such criteria would be beyond reproach if Yugoslavia were a nation-state. However, a rigorous application of these criteria to a multinational state like Yugoslavia, created in 1918 and restored in 1945 through the violation of the rights to political and national self-determination, means sacrificing the fundamental principles upon which the work of the ANCE is based to political opportunism. Furthermore, recognizing the right to self-determination for the peoples of Yugoslavia does not imply advocating their dismemberment, but rather the inalienable right of all peoples to freely decide their political status.

To oppose the recognition of these rights today is tantamount to adhering to the thesis of the Yugoslav monarchical dictatorship, established in 1929 under the pretext of preserving the fictitious unity of the Yugoslav people—a unity in which even those who upheld it did not believe. They needed that theory to justify Serbia's hegemony over the other peoples and national minorities in Yugoslavia and to maintain the situation that led to the well-known bloody conflicts, which the communists exploited to seize power.

That Yugoslavia is not a nation-state but a multinational one is recognized today by exiled representatives of all the parties in Yugoslavia. No democratic group today denies the right to self-determination to all the peoples of Yugoslavia, nor does the communist regime. Moreover, the communists emphasize that pre-war monarchical Yugoslavia was a typical country of national oppression. Article 1 of the 1946 Yugoslav communist Constitution, a faithful copy of the 1936 Stalinist Constitution, states that Yugoslavia is "a community of peoples," just like the Soviet Union.

The peoples of Yugoslavia, "by virtue of the right to self-determination," are entitled to "the right of separation." Consequently, Yugoslavia was constituted as a federation of six "people's republics," with the borders of each republic defined according to national criteria. Therefore, the "people's republics" of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Montenegro would have the status of nation-states, while the autonomous territories of Vojvodina and Kosmet within the Serbian People's Republic would guarantee the national rights of the Hungarian and Albanian minorities, respectively.

Of course, federalism in a communist state, governed centrally by the monolithic communist party, is a mere form without substance, so—as you rightly stated—in Yugoslavia, to this day, there has been no possibility of exercising the right to self-determination. Nevertheless, by formally recognizing the right to self-determination, the Yugoslav communists acknowledged the multinational character of Yugoslavia.

They implicitly recognized that Croatia, one of the oldest nations in Europe, possesses all the conditions for self-determination. In addition to its millennia-old state tradition, Croatia has a highly developed culture and national consciousness. Croatia was an independent kingdom under the kings of the national dynasty as early as the 8th to 12th centuries. From 1102 to 1526,

Croatia was a kingdom associated with Hungary, and then, until 1918, it was part of the Habsburg Danubian Monarchy. At the end of the First World War, Croatia was deprived of the right to self-determination and incorporated into the Yugoslav state, dominated by Serbia, although Croatia and Serbia had never previously been part of a single state. Croatia was denied all sovereign attributes, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Croatians voted in every election between the two world wars for the Croatian Republic Program, and despite their tenacious and sacrificial struggle during the last war against the communists and against the restoration of Yugoslavia. The Metropolitan of Croatia, Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, emphasized before the communist tribunal that the Croatian people have repeatedly and overwhelmingly declared their support for their nation-state, to which they are entitled by both human and divine law.

In this struggle for freedom and national rights, the Croats gave hundreds of thousands of their lives. The communists were able to subjugate Croatia by employing exceptionally brutal terrorist methods and perpetrating massacres that bear all the hallmarks of genocide. Countless Croatians were forced to emigrate and today live in every free country in the world. Among them are distinguished cultural and political figures, potentially valuable collaborators in the activities of the ANCE.

It follows, therefore, that there can be no valid reasons for Croatia and the other captive peoples of Yugoslavia to be excluded from the work and scope of the ANCE, and that, under the current circumstances, this problem requires an urgent and just solution. On what principles is it permissible to exclude entire peoples from the ANCE, victims of communist tyranny like those who comprise it? Any discrimination against the captive peoples of Yugoslavia calls into question the purity and justice of the ANCE's motives and ideals.

Therefore, while we warmly welcome your noble efforts in promoting the ANCE's cause in the Republic of Argentina, we consider it imperative to end this discrimination, which could be interpreted as support for the oppressive policies that curtail the rights of the peoples of Yugoslavia, rights that must take precedence over the fiction of a nonexistent Yugoslav nation.

We are well aware that the question of Croatian representation in the ANCE must be resolved by its central body in New York. Meanwhile, during the Week of European Captive Nations in Argentina, the right to self-determination of all peoples, without exception, under communist captivity, will be highlighted, particularly in the announced request to the Argentine government to raise the plight of the European captive nations at the United Nations and plead for their prompt liberation.

We are confident that you will appreciate, with your characteristic high judgment, the reasons we have just presented on behalf of this Institute, which, while bringing together exiled Croatians and Argentinians of Croatian origin, does not claim to represent the cause and interests of the Croatian nation. Our aim is for Croatia to be granted the same rights as the other captive nations within the European Union.

Grateful in advance for the attention you may deign to give to this presentation, and wishing you a swift and complete success in your noble endeavors in favor of the rights and freedom of the captive peoples with whom we feel entirely in solidarity, we greet you, distinguished doctor, with our highest consideration and esteem.

REVIEW OF CROATIAN AND SERBIAN LITERATURE IN THE EL ATENEO ENCYCLOPEDIA

Luis Gerzinic

In the third volume of the magnificent El Ateneo Encyclopedia, an incomplete or inaccurate account of Croatian literature was published. This is not due to the incompetence of the author or editor, but rather a new manifestation of Serbian chauvinism against Croatia. The El Ateneo publishing house obtained a substantially objective and balanced review from its contributor, Luis Gerzinic, a professor of Slavic languages and literatures, a qualified and impartial Slovenian specialist. His article, without his consent or knowledge, was published in a distorted and falsified form. Croatian Renaissance literature was lumped together with Slovenian literature, while several prominent modern Croatian writers are listed as Serbian playwrights or novelists. The editors of the El Ateneo Encyclopedia were taken advantage of by a Serbian chauvinist who, in his proselytizing, showed no respect for either historical truth or the trust placed in him. Unfortunately, these are the usual methods of Serbian propagandists and authors regarding Croatian literature, history, and culture.

As an illustration, we publish the letter that the reviewer's author, Luis Gerzinic, addressed on January 2, 1963, to Mr. Eustacio García of El Ateneo Publishing House, clarifying Mr. Petkovic's role in the distortion of Slovenian and Croatian literature. At our request, Mr. L. Gerzinic wrote a supplement to the aforementioned letter, which we also publish.

Finally, we wish to inform publishers in Latin American countries who strive to offer their readers accurate data and information that they can find highly qualified advisors among Croatian intellectual exiles regarding the culture and history of South Slavic countries. It so happens that Yugoslav sources, primarily consulates and embassies, provide inaccurate and distorted information that favors Great Serbian expansionism.

This is because Mr. Eustacio García

El Ateneo Bookstore and Publishing House

Florida 340, Buenos Aires.

Dear Sir: I am writing to you regarding Volume III of the El Ateneo Encyclopedia, to which I contributed articles on Polish, Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian, Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Lusatian, and Austrian literature, and I also oversaw the sections on Russian literature—to which I added Ukrainian literature—and German literature.

I am sincerely pleased with the excellent presentation of the work and wish you every success.

I understand that in works of this kind, the editors have the right and the obligation to modify the various contributions "provided that this represents some improvement," whether within the individual articles or in the structure of the work as a whole.

However, I believe that all modifications of any significance should be decided "after consulting the responsible specialist," that is, the author of each article.

Unfortunately, these principles were not followed in the case of my articles, and the result is poor, in some cases very poor.

Before pointing out the main shortcomings, I must state that despite my repeated complaints and numerous promises from Mr. Bozzi, I was not sent a single proof (with the exception of the abridged introduction to Slavic literatures, which deals with the orthographic issue). Nor was I given any information about the printing process until I learned from another source that the work was practically printed and that no further changes could be made.

From this source I also learned that in the articles on Slavic literatures, the editors granted full powers (?) to Mr. Petkovic (whom I don't know and who, it is said, had never studied Slavic philology).

I would have liked to have met this gentleman when he first appeared as supervisor and proofreader of the Encyclopedia. In a direct conversation, we could have resolved any of his doubts and determined the true value of his objections. I would have liked to meet Mr. Petkovic in time all the more because Serbian literature was the only one for which I couldn't find (even with the kind assistance of Dr. Debeljak) a qualified person to read my respective article and supplement my information regarding Serbian literary activity after 1941. (All the other Slavic literatures had been read by such experts—their names are available—who also provided a large part of the graphic material.)

But no: neither the Encyclopedia's management nor Mr. Petkovic felt that the only correct course of action, and the one that would benefit the work, would be to consult the author of the articles before making any changes.

Unfortunately, the consequences were inevitable. Below I outline the most serious ones; I can only briefly address the Croatian and Serbian literatures, which are in a much worse state than the others; at the moment I cannot go into greater detail since Mr. Bozzi did not give me the section on pages 721-736 where these two literatures are found, although he did send me all the other sections containing articles I wrote or supervised.

I. - Brief introduction on the adopted orthographic system: from the first version, the assertion remains that the names of literatures using the Cyrillic alphabet are transcribed in the Latin alphabet with diacritics. These, as you will recall, were first accepted, but ultimately rejected as a typographical impossibility.

II. - Slovenian Literature (pp. 718-720). 1. It begins with the chapter entitled: Early Slavic Period—actually referring to the literature of Dubrovnik and Dalmatia, 15th-18th centuries—for which someone wrote, as if in introduction, "Who is responsible for this incredible confusion? Who removed this flourishing period referred to in the introduction from Croatian literature, of which it is one of the glorious titles, leaving nothing there but the name of Marulic?" 2. Someone nonsensically changed the lines dedicated to Kersnik and Ivan (not Josip) Tavchar. 3. Cankar's most poetic drama has nothing to do with la dolce vita; its heroine is named Dida, a name with no connection to life. 4. The artist who achieved unique effects by combining satire with romantic yearning is not Zhupanchich but Cankar. Who separated the last sentence belonging to Cankar, changing it into the first sentence concerning Zhupanchich? 5. Who altered the text concerning Kette and Murn, describing the former with an untrue and hollow phrase? 6. Bearing in mind the space allotted to Slavic literatures, I should have carefully selected the names. I have preferred to present the most representative ones, characterizing them with at least one fitting adjective; an enumeration of people of no importance on the world stage only serves to blur the picture and make the reading unpleasant.

Furthermore, in the period after the Second World War, it was necessary to maintain a fair balance between the quality poets and writers writing in their respective countries and the émigrés. In my absence, the following sentence was added to the characterization of the latter: "Also noteworthy in Argentina is Stanko Kociper (1917), novelist and playwright, and in Italy, V. Kos (1915), poet." Will the two individuals included agree to this arrangement—it should be noted that the second is not a poet but a singer and actor? But that is not the point; the crucial question is: Can they be included in this reduced selection of contemporary Slovenian writers, according to their objective importance, or would their inclusion require a number of other names, both in Slovenia and among the émigrés, of equal or greater merit, without considering the essential issue of the overall balance of the article, which must offer a proportionate picture of Slovenian literature as a whole?

Such an arrangement proved far worse in the case of Serbian literature, as will be seen later.

III. - Croatian Literature (pp. 720). I am unable to list the main errors and distortions in the Croatian and Serbian literatures since I do not yet have—as I have already explained—the respective texts. The following observations stem from a quick reading I was able to do in the bookstore.

1. In general, Croatian literature was terribly mutilated by the transfer of Dubrovnik-Dalmatia literature to Slovenian literature.

2. The playwright Voinovic was also taken from Croatia and placed within Serbian literature. The same happened with Nobel laureate Ivo Andrić. How can we characterize acts of this nature? What epithet can be given to the trend from which they arose?

3. Among other "improvements," I recall the assertion that Vidrić is the best Croatian lyric poet. Undoubtedly, an interesting thesis; but I am unaware of the arguments on which it is based.

IV. Serbian Literature. The Yugoslav literatures—Slovenian, Croatian, and Serbian—emerged from my hands equal in length, roughly corresponding to their importance. The "supervisor" completely altered this proportion. Croatian literature was greatly reduced, having vital parts cut out; Slovenian literature, as I have already mentioned, had a foreign body tacked on at the beginning, and at the end, two names that the "supervisor" fancied. Serbian literature, on the other hand, grew excessively; but this quantitative advantage is associated with a qualitative decline.

Indeed, the original balance between different parts was lost, the well-considered proportion between the characterizations of the various writers and periods disappeared. The "supervisor" added the names of minor writers wherever space allowed, thus breaking even the chronological order, and added adjectives (especially superlatives) and comparisons of dubious value. And in the end, instead of completing my information on current literature—if that was even necessary—he added countless names, including his own. If the Encyclopedia's editors decided to adopt this criterion for Serbian literature, why didn't they adopt it for the other literatures as well? It's understood that in that case, all the articles would have to be rewritten.

V. – In the other Slavic literatures, the "supervision" isn't as noticeable. There are typographical errors (e.g., Korneichul instead of -k (709), Tuwin (-m, 713)). The omission of the pronunciation of names such as Chelchicky (p. 714, pron. Jelchitski), Mácha (714, -ja), Vrchlicky (715, vrj-), Chech (715, chej), Machar (714, májar), Olbracht (716, -jt), and Chalupka (716, Jálupka) is a mistake.

I will reserve a detailed analysis for a future opportunity. The most serious errors can be partially corrected by inserting an errata sheet in the volume. I am at your disposal to draft it.

I considered it my duty to clarify the stages prior to printing and the current state of the relevant section of the Encyclopedia El Ateneo; to protest against the procedures of the Encyclopedia's management with one of its collaborators who were also employed by the company for over 12 years; to warn against possible criticisms that might exploit so many—unnecessary!—flaws; to propose a way to correct the worst defects and defend the seriousness and accuracy of the information in the Encyclopedia.

I am most happy to be available for a conversation in which I could provide you with further explanations and in which we would have the opportunity to arrive at the truth regarding any remaining unclear issues.

I take this opportunity to greet you with my highest esteem.

Additional Note: By comparing my original manuscript with the current text of the El Ateneo Encyclopedia at the bookstore, I was able to complete the information in my letter of January 2, 1963, regarding Croatian and Serbian literature:

Croatian Literature

1. When Vojnovic moved to Serbian literature, he forgot to adjust the text that remained in Croatian literature. Thus, the paragraph that ends with the poet S. S. Kranjcevic is followed in the Encyclopedia by another paragraph that begins: "Beside him, the skillful theatrical man M. Begovic sought new paths..." "Beside him" referred to Vojnovic; the current connection with Kranjcevic is false.

2. After Domjanic and Matos, two poets were introduced, one (Vidric) described as "the greatest Croatian lyric poet" and the other (Harambasic, a typical poet of patriotism and freedom) as "the poet of platonic love."

3. In contemporary literature, Sudeta became Sudec, and D. Cesaric was highlighted with these words: "...called the Yugoslav Neruda (by whom?), with his concentrated and lyrical metaphysical poetry he broke the mold of modern socialist poets."

4. Among the émigrés, there is no mention of the "Croatian Review," which for the past 13 years has gathered, and continues to gather, around its editor, the poet Vinko Nikolic (who is also not mentioned), the best poets and prose writers of contemporary Croatian literature in exile.

Father Rajmund Kupareo even appeared as a pseudonym Kukareo.

Serbian Literature

1. To the original paragraph on popular epic poetry, the last part of which discusses attempts to organize the songs of the various cycles into an epic, another paragraph was added: "Created later (when?), the epic (which one?) was divided into 10 cycles (!), from the time of the Nemanids to the Balkan Wars. It is considered, along with the Nordic ballads, as the most important in European literature (!)".

2. Njegos. To the characterization of his Gorski vijenac, it was added that "it has been compared to the Argentine Martín Fierro," a comparison that can only create a misconception about the masterpiece of Serbian literature. A little further on, it is stated: "In the field of philosophy (!), Njegos is the greatest Slavic philosophical poet (!)".

3. The additions in the second half of the article. In the first half, there is—in addition to those cited so far—a paragraph about the first printed Serbian book; A mention of Karadzic's vocabulary; Glisic as a humorist (alongside Sremac and Nusic); the epithet "Serbian bard" applied to V. Ilic (in contrast, Santic's characterization was omitted). In the paragraph dedicated to the playwright Vojnovic and taken from Croatian literature—only the attribute "Croatian" was replaced with "Serbian"!—the following sentence was casually inserted: "King Nikola I Petrovic and D. Filipovic were excellent patriotic poets."

4. After B. Stankovic, the following paragraph was inserted: "Stjepan Mitrov, Ljubisa, and Petar Kocic, along with L. Lazarevic, represent the pinnacle of narrative art (!). In their exceptional (!) short novels, they depicted vigorous peasant types from their respective regions. Also noteworthy were S. Rankovic, who introduced naturalism to the novel, Lj. Nenadovic, with his travelogues, and J. Ignjatovic. Literary criticism reached its zenith with J. Skerlic, Lj. Nedic, A. Nikolic, P. Popovic, and B. Popovic. Historical literature is represented by two leading figures (!): S. Stanojevic and V. Coravic, in addition to S. Novakovic, N. Vulic, J. Radonic, V. Popovic, D. Stranjakovic, G. Ostrogorski, N. Radojcic, and M. Dinic."

Several minor writers—some of whom were already dead when B. Stankovic was born!—are thus transformed into figures of great importance, later accompanied by literary critics and even historians. Such things are occasionally recounted when dealing with literatures that are only in their infancy or that contain very little aesthetic value; for literature as it should be, however, this is an affront, as are the exaggerations the reader finds in the quotations in all points (1 to 6) of this Supplement.

5. This conglomerated paragraph is followed by the paragraph that in the original was placed after the paragraph dedicated to V. Ilic and A. Santic and characterized Ducic, Rakic, and Crnjanski. Now we read: "R. Domanovic is the first Serbian satirist. At the end of the last century and the beginning of this one, four glories of Serbian poetry emerged, who, together with Jaksic, Zmaj, and Ilic, form the constellation of the best South Slavic lyric poets (!!). J. Ducic, called "the prince of verse..." M. Rakic is the most reflective and profound Serbian lyric poet, with a strong social note (!). V. Petrovic Dis is the great mystic (!), whose verses reflect the sadness of a generation forged on the battlefield. D. Markovic, with his Monuments, revealed himself as the best modern Serbian lyric poet (!) for his ethics, beauty, and poetic richness..."

6° Finaliza la exposición de la literatura servia con extensos párrafos en que se enumeran los literatos "en exilio", entre ellos S. Jovanovic (notable jurista y político, aquí calificado simplemente de "impecable estilista"). Entre los emigrados más jóvenes (mezclados cronológica y geográficamente) destaca como "los dos grandes poetas contemporáneos" a M. Petrovic (Canadá) y D. Kostic ("reside en Belgrado").

We must thank the "reviewer" for those names gathered here—for where else could they be found in published sources?—whose literary quality justifies their inclusion in the Encyclopedia. The others, who are presented undeservedly, will disappear in future definitive editions. I hope they will not be the majority.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Elemér Homonnay

In our January-March 1962 issue, p. 81, we published the letter from Dr. Vladko Macek, president of the Croatian Peasant Party, currently residing in Washington as a political exile, in which he refutes the claims made by the English historian C. A. Macartney regarding his interview and conversation with the Hungarian diplomat Baron Gabriel Apor. These claims were cited by the Hungarian publicist and historian Elemér Homonnay in his work "Hungarian-Croatian Relations after 1918," published in Studia Croatica Nos. 2-3, 1961, pp. 132-141. Following Dr. V. Macek's statement, we received a letter from Mr. Homonnay in which he first confirms that it is an exact quotation from Professor Macartney's work, and continues verbatim:

"Dr. V. Macek is certainly mistaken in not recalling his meeting with Baron Gabriel Apor in Vienna, Austria, in 1930, when Dr. Macek spent a few days in the Austrian capital on his way to Karlsbad, Czechoslovakia. Dr. Macek should remember this meeting, given that it was planned and well-prepared. Likewise, Dr. Macek should remember Baron Apor well, since he was not an unknown agent of Hungarian secret diplomacy but one of the key figures responsible for the policy of the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs—at the time, Director of the Political Department. Baron Apor, therefore, did not go to Vienna on his own initiative to meet with Dr. Macek; rather, his superiors sent him for this interview with clear instructions." given. Consequently, Baron Apor met with Dr. Macek as the official representative of the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Their meetings were, of course, confidential. They met twice on two consecutive days. The first meeting took place at the Pucher confectionery shop. The second at the Piccolo confectionery shop, located on Maria Hilferstrasse.

Baron Apor, later appointed Hungarian ambassador to the Vatican, and who still lives in Rome, Italy, remembers this meeting and their conversations well. He confirms in its entirety Professor Macartney's account of the meeting. He even provided some new details about the meeting. Among other things, he had instructions to inform Dr. Macek that the Hungarian army, limited by the Treaty of Trianon, was not in a position to wage war against Yugoslavia alone. Therefore, he reminded Dr. Macek that without Italy's active participation, Croatia's independence could not be secured.

Perhaps Dr. Macek now recalls his own words when he compared the situation of Croatia in Yugoslavia and in Austria-Hungary: "Aber das war ja ein Idyll im Verhältniss zu dem was wir heute erdulden müssen" [164].

The Macek-Apor meeting was not, however, the only contact between the Croatian Peasant Party and the Hungarian authorities. Antal Ullein-Reviczky, the Hungarian consul general in Zagreb, was in constant contact with the party's leaders. Their understanding closely followed the Vienna Agreement.[165]

At the same time, the Hungarian Foreign Ministry and the Hungarian Revisionist League provided strong and valuable support to Engineer Augustin Kosutic and Dr. Juraj Krnjevic, representatives of the Croatian Peasant Party in exile. The Hungarian Foreign Ministry instructed the League's representatives in London and Geneva, Ivan Hordóssy and Andrey Tamás, to establish close contact with Engineer Kosutic and Dr. Krnjevic. Consequently, Mr. Hordóssy mobilized the pro-Hungarian parliamentary group of Sir Robert Gower and Lord Rothermere to promote the Croatian case in London.

The lecture given by Mr. A. Kosutic at the Royal Institute of International Affairs received warm support and extensive coverage in the Hungarian press.[166] In Geneva, Dr. Krnjevic met with Mr. A. Tamás several times. In 1934, Mr. Tamás played a role in arranging meetings between Dr. Krnjevic and Dr. Tibor Eckhardt, then head of the Hungarian Delegation to the League of Nations, who was simultaneously concluding an agreement with Dr. Ante Pavelić.[167]

I remain, Mr. Director, yours sincerely.

CHRONICLES AND COMMENTARIES

Exiles demand the right to self-determination for Croatia

Numerous incidents on the occasion of the national holiday of communist Yugoslavia

Every year, communist Yugoslavia celebrates November 29, "Republic Day," as a national holiday to commemorate the proclamation of the communist government in Yugoslavia in 1943 by the communist partisans of that time. This date is linked to the official theory that on that day the Croats renounced their right to have their own nation-state and joined the Yugoslav federation. With this supposed federal pact, according to the official interpretation, Croatia's right to self-determination was fulfilled, forever linked to Serbia in a common state, which in fact means for the Croats the stripping away of their national rights and, under the communist regime, of their political, individual, and religious freedoms.

For these reasons, November 29th is not a national holiday in the eyes of Croatians, but a day of sadness and pain, a reminder of the double oppression that weighs them down.

Under a regime of communist terror, Croatia cannot express these feelings. Only Croatian exiles in the free world can voice them. Hence the protests and demonstrations that have been taking place on this day in all the major centers of the free world, where large groups of Croatian immigrants reside, their numbers constantly increasing with the influx of new exiles. It turns out that Croatia provides the largest number of political exiles after East Germany. But unfortunately, these exiles sometimes do not receive the welcome they would like in Italy and Austria, and forced repatriations occur, resulting in numerous tragedies.

In many cases, Tito's agents organize these commemorative events in Western capitals, thus constituting a challenge to the Croatian exiles, the adversaries of the Yugoslav communist tyranny. This occurs especially in countries where numerous agents of the communist regime operate to control refugees, sowing discord among them and extorting them under the threat of reprisals against their relatives in the oppressed homeland.

Furthermore, attacks have been organized against certain Croatian exiles and their institutions. Suffice it to mention the attempted kidnapping of an official of the Croatian society in São Paulo, Brazil, and the criminal bombing of the Croatian Center in Buenos Aires during a youth dance, which tragically resulted in the death of a young girl and injuries to several other minors, provoking outrage among the Argentine public. All of this, unfortunately, fuels incidents that Belgrade's diplomatic missions seek to exploit against their victims.

This year, such incidents also occurred in several cities, including Toronto, Canada; Sydney, Australia; and Bad Godesberg, West Germany.

In Toronto, the former head of the communist secret police in the Croatian provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, currently the consul in Canada, extended invitations to celebrate "Republic Day" even to certain Croatian refugees whose families were victims of the policies of the very same consul. The Croatian exiles marched in groups outside the hall where the event was being held. They carried signs and distributed thousands of leaflets explaining the reason for their demonstration.

A similar incident occurred in Sydney. When Croatian émigrés marched in orderly columns carrying placards and distributing leaflets, clashes broke out among those attending the commemorative event organized by representatives of communist Yugoslavia. A major brawl erupted, and portraits of Tito were taken down. The event was interrupted, and the police, called by the organizers, arrested seven Croatian demonstrators, later releasing them. Public opinion followed the details of the incident with interest.

An incident in the capital of West Germany

While these and other incidents passed without serious consequences, in West Germany a group of young Croatian workers employed in the Ruhr mining region demolished the former Yugoslav embassy building, fatally wounding one of the building's caretakers. The violent nature of the demonstration in Mehlen, near Bad Godesberg, where most of the diplomatic missions accredited to the Bonn government are located, is due to the activity of numerous agents from communist Yugoslavia and its proximity to the subjugated homeland.

These agents reside in West Germany as representatives of various import-export companies or as ordinary workers seeking employment, many of them actually being police officers tasked with monitoring Croatian exiles and sowing discord among them. It should be added that the majority of the tens of thousands of Croatian political exiles who fled when the communists seized power went to overseas countries. Germany is home primarily to several thousand recent refugees, young people who fled their homeland in recent years.

They were welcomed in Germany and found employment. They have a large number of cultural and religious associations; They try, within their means, to express not only their democratic and anti-communist sentiments but also their Croatian patriotism, demanding that, by virtue of the national principle and the right to self-determination, Croatia be established as an independent and democratic state and forge close ties with the free countries of Western Europe.

Incidents had also been recorded in previous years, such as in 1961 in Stuttgart on "Republic Day." On that occasion, the Yugoslav communists brought the Croatian folk dance troupe "Lado" from Zagreb to glorify, through their performance, the events that almost all Croatians consider the beginning of their current national tragedy. It was clear that the agents of the Yugoslav communist government were attempting to counter the accusations against their consul in Munich of having committed war crimes against Croatian and German prisoners of war.

As a result of these charges, which had repercussions in the Bavarian parliament, Consul Grabovac had to leave Germany. There were also other similar incidents, which gave the Yugoslav and international communist press ammunition to reiterate their tired attacks against Croatian exiles. Croatian demonstrators in Stuttgart were attacked last year, and one was seriously injured. The assailant, allegedly an agent of the Yugoslav secret police, was sentenced by German courts.

All these circumstances contributed to the organization of about thirty young Croatians in Dortmund and Cologne, who on November 29th traveled in a chartered bus to Mehlem, near Bad Godesberg, to the former Yugoslav embassy. It should be noted that the Bonn government broke off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia in 1957 following Belgrade's recognition of the East German government. Since then, the Swedish embassy has represented Yugoslav interests in West Germany. The building that formerly housed the embassy was home to the Yugoslav trade office.

The demonstrators first broke the windows of the building and invited the trade office employees outside, as their intention was not to commit any violence against people, but rather to demolish the offices of the former Yugoslav embassy and destroy the archives containing information about Croatian exiles. (Rheinische Post, November 30, 1962; Deutsche Zeitung, November 30, 1962; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, December 1, 1962)

The attackers then broke down the door, entered the building, destroyed portraits of Tito, and burned the archives, apparently with plastic bombs. Half of the building caught fire, while the other half was saved by the fire department. Moma Popovic, the building manager, resisted the attackers and was seriously wounded in the ensuing shootout. Two employees also reportedly sustained minor injuries. Popovic succumbed to his wounds a few days later. One of the attackers, accused of shooting him, claimed he acted in self-defense, as he had been attacked first.

Georgijevic, the office manager, hid on the third floor and called the police, who quickly intervened and arrested several attackers still inside the building. The others waited nearby without fleeing, stating that "they don't hide like communist secret agents." AFP reported that one of the participants politely apologized to the owner of the neighboring bar for the commotion and disorder they had caused. "We didn't mean to harm anyone," he declared. "We only wanted to remind everyone that our homeland is still under a dictatorial regime" (Le Figaro, November 30, 1962; Stuttgarter Nachrichten, November 30, 1962; The Evening News, November 29, 1962).

An official German source stated that the government of the Federal Republic of Germany "disapproves" of the attack, that the perpetrators would be punished according to the law, and that the damage caused would be compensated. In that regard, he requested that the Swedish embassy inform the Yugoslav government. It was also stated that this constituted an abuse of the right to asylum and that the activities of Croatian exile groups would be subject to stricter controls.

The head of the Yugoslav trade delegation, who initially, along with his subordinates, told reporters that the attackers had invited them to leave the building, later recanted, claiming that he had warned the police beforehand about the planned attack. Dr. Valentin Porz, the Bonn police chief, called a press conference and declared that Georgijevic was not telling the truth. (It is obvious that Yugoslav officials are trying to imply that the Bonn government supports the attacks by Croatian exiles.)

Regarding the Yugoslav delegation head's assertion that the attackers were pro-fascist elements and war criminals who had escaped punishment, those involved replied that they had been children during the war and therefore could not participate in political struggles or acts of war, just as they could not later in communist Yugoslavia. They claim to be unaffiliated with any political organization and that they conceived and organized the attack themselves, aware of the punishment awaiting them, but wanting to draw public attention to their homeland, Croatia, deprived of the right to self-determination and subjected to communist tyranny.

The Belgrade government declared itself dissatisfied with the German government's excuse. The press unleashed a vicious campaign against the West German government, resorting to familiar communist accusations of allegedly maintaining Nazi elements. The East German press, which typically launches similar campaigns, seized upon the Yugoslav accusations as further evidence in support of its argument against West Germany and the German refugees who find protection and refuge there.

The German press, and indeed the free press worldwide, reported on the incident impartially, without concealing the fact that the Croatian exiles were driven by patriotic motives, a fact even acknowledged by those newspapers that criticized the attackers for abusing their asylum rights (Die Welt, Hamburg, December 1, 1962).

Aleksandar Rankovic, head of the fearsome secret police apparatus of communist Yugoslavia and Minister of the Interior, sent a telegram to the Social Democratic Party of Germany, protesting the state of affairs and the supposedly favorable conditions for the opponents of democracy. The Social Democratic Party issued a statement declaring that it considered the attack by the young Croatian patriots an abuse of the right of asylum. At the same time, the party's leader, Erich Ollenhauer, declared that he did not intend to reply to Rankovic's telegram and that his party "does not wish to maintain relations with communist organizations and, moreover, will not accept being lectured by these organizations on democracy." (Le Monde, Paris, 3-12-1963).

Note of Protest from the Yugoslav Government

On December 10, 1962, the Swedish chargé d'affaires delivered to the Federal Foreign Office of Germany a note of protest from the Yugoslav communist government. Belgrade rebuked the Bonn government for its treatment of Croatian exiles and demanded the cessation of all their activities, not only political, but also religious and charitable, given that all such activities were directed against "the state integrity of Yugoslavia."

To better appreciate the audacity of its authors, we will transcribe paragraphs from this note according to the text published by the organ of the Yugoslav Humanist Party, Borba, on December 11, 1962.

It is worth noting beforehand that the Yugoslav communists were addressing a government, the constant target of their harsh criticism, accusing it of being undemocratic. As mentioned, Bonn broke off diplomatic relations with Belgrade in 1957, in accordance with the Hallstein Doctrine. The Yugoslav communist government, which had recognized the West German satellite government, consistently supported Soviet policy on the Berlin question and declared itself opposed to German unification through free elections. Now, the Yugoslav communists demanded that the Bonn government prevent, within its jurisdiction, any criticism of its dictatorial regime and prohibit Croats from invoking the right to self-determination, because this affects "the integrity of the Yugoslav state." They requested that the anti-democratic measures in force in communist Yugoslavia be extended to all Croats residing in Germany.

In return, they continued to attack the Bonn government as revanchist and militaristic, accusing it of endorsing the Berlin Wall and plotting against German unification, as Tito did during his visit to the Soviet Union, which coincided with the delivery of the aforementioned note. The note also states that what happened in Bad Godesberg "provoked the deepest indignation among the Yugoslav public." In reality, it is the displeasure of the communists, since the subjugated people rejoice in the difficulties faced by their oppressors.

The government of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia further states that provocations against the sovereignty and integrity of the FPR of Yugoslavia, and against the security of its citizens and property in the Federal Republic of Germany, have become more frequent. The crime committed in Bad Godesberg, which constitutes the most brutal anti-Yugoslav provocation in the Federal Republic of Germany and a flagrant violation of international law, is not the first attack on the Department for the Protection of Yugoslav Interests at the Embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden in Bad Godesberg. The government of the Federal Republic of Germany is aware that on April 10, 1961 (the anniversary of the proclamation of the Independent State of Croatia), two incendiary mines were thrown at the Yugoslav delegation building, which, thanks only to a fortunate confluence of circumstances, did not have tragic consequences.

Since the participants were still children during the last world war, the Yugoslav government cannot declare them war criminals, but in its note it emphasizes "that it again draws the attention of the German government that behind the provocations are Ustaše who, in the Second World War, were part of the fascist military contingents and, as such, committed numerous crimes, for which the Yugoslav courts declared them war criminals." These elements established in the Federal Republic of Germany "a widespread and subversive activity against the sovereignty and integrity of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia."

It can also be deduced from the note that the Yugoslav government had previously intervened with the German authorities to prohibit all political activity by exiles from communist Yugoslavia and that in 1955, that is, before the break in diplomatic relations between Bonn and Belgrade, they received certain promises in this regard. The note states "that almost all anti-Yugoslav activity in Germany, at least publicly, had been suspended." However, "in recent years," meaning when communist Yugoslavia took a firm stance against West Germany, Croatian organizations resumed their struggle against the "integrity of Yugoslavia" and even prepared "diversionary actions."

"Thus," the note states, "among others, Catholic youth organizations were founded with branches in Cologne, Dortmund, Duisburg, and other locations." Then there was the 'Croatian Social Service' in Düsseldorf, the 'Croatian Brotherhood of Crusaders' in Cologne, and other organizations." The note then mentions that numerous Croatian newspapers with anti-Yugoslav slants were published in the Federal Republic of Germany, despite the Yugoslav government's request that the printing of such "newspapers and publications" be "prevented."

Not only that, but "the security organs of the Federal Republic of Germany maintain a passive attitude toward anti-Yugoslav provocations and, as a rule, intervene belatedly, even when warned in advance about the possibility of such provocations." From these transcribed remarks—whose purpose is to attribute to the government of the Federal Republic of Germany the responsibility for the despair and reaction of the exiles against the regime responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their comrades and which deprives the Croatian people of the rights of association, assembly, and the press—it can be deduced that Yugoslav secret agents in West Germany had A dense network of espionage and control of anti-communist refugees. To make matters worse, the Yugoslav communists expressed displeasure that the German police did not act as an extension of the Yugoslav communist police.

The cynicism of the Yugoslav tyranny knows no bounds when, in the note, those responsible for the murder or expulsion of more than 500,000 members of the ethnic German minority in Yugoslavia stated that the Yugoslav government "showed, for its part, a willingness and made great efforts to overcome, as soon as possible and completely, the grave past and to improve understanding between the peoples of Germany and Yugoslavia... and cooperation between the two countries notwithstanding the fact that they did not maintain diplomatic relations." The Yugoslav government—the note states—hoped that this would "contribute even to the improvement of broader international cooperation" and that the West German government "will, for its part, work to ensure that a number of outstanding problems are resolved in a positive manner and that..." fashion to overcome the remnants of a grave past."

Following these reproaches, supposedly made on behalf of the people of Yugoslavia, the communist government in Belgrade, determined to prevent the unification and electoral liberation of East Germany, oppressed by Tito's friends and allies, takes note of the German government's declaration that severe measures will be taken against the attackers of the Yugoslav trade delegation building in Bad Godesberg, only to then proceed with open provocation: "However, the government of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia notes that similar declarations were made regarding anti-Yugoslav incidents in recent years, but there was no decrease, but rather an intensification of anti-Yugoslav activities..."

The quoted passage exposes the true nature of communist Yugoslavia. In the frequent protests of their own subjects, forced to seek freedom outside communist Yugoslavia to denounce the crimes and abuses of communist tyranny before the free world and to the best of their ability, and to demand the right to self-determination for their homeland, Croatia, the rulers in Belgrade see no fault of their own but instead blame their victims, whose exasperation they hold responsible for the government of a free country simply because it does not act in accordance with the wishes of the Yugoslav communist police.

This incredible statement culminates in the demand that "effective guarantees are essential to ensure that anti-Yugoslav activities in the Federal Republic of Germany will be radically and permanently prevented." It is not enough to punish those who participated in the events in Bad Godesberg; it is "essential to prohibit and prevent the activities of all immigrant organizations and publications that organize or encourage criminal activity and acts against the sovereignty and integrity of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia." The familiar demand from the exiles, whom the communist tyrants, perpetrators of so many horrendous crimes, want to "prosecute," was also included.

In other words, they demand the prohibition of all Croatian organizations in Germany, including those of a religious and charitable nature. They demand the prohibition of all anti-communist activity by associations and even individuals, and the suppression of all Croatian newspapers, since there is no association or publication of the exiles that the communists do not consider guilty of anti-Yugoslav activities.

Finally, the note states that this "is an inescapable obligation of the Federal Republic of Germany" and proof that its government is prepared to proceed in such a way that, at the very least, the already irregular and unsatisfactory reciprocal relations do not worsen. It is unnecessary to emphasize once again that the Bonn government is not responsible for these "unsatisfactory relations," but rather the communist government in Belgrade, which behaves as if the crime against half a million Germans in Yugoslavia and a systematic campaign against West Germany, presented as a threat to peace, did not exist, while East Germany is described as a model of freedom and democracy and as a fait accompli, such that the unification of Germany can only be achieved under a communist government.

It is obvious that the Bonn government will respond with dignity to these provocations from communist adventurers who dare to ask a free country to assume the role of the communist police and persecute the exiles who, risking their lives, fled from Yugoslav communist tyranny. in order to testify before the free world in favor of their subjugated homeland, deprived of political freedoms and national rights. Tito's government, which works against the unity of Germany, forcing the Bonn government to break off diplomatic relations with it, demands that a free and democratic Germany defend the integrity of the multinational and heterogeneous Yugoslav state against the Croats who are simply asking for the application of the right to self-determination, recognized by the Charter of the United Nations, to their homeland. Communist Yugoslavia, a member of the UN, loudly supports the right to self-determination of all peoples of the world, with the exception of those peoples subjugated and held captive by communist Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.

Harmful Discrimination Against Refugees from Communist Yugoslavia

The New York Times of October 8, 1962, published the following news item:

"Two American refugee aid organizations yesterday accused the State Department of discriminating against 10,000 people who flee Yugoslavia each year. The National Catholic Welfare Conference Relief Service and the International Rescue Committee stated in a joint declaration that people are fleeing Yugoslavia for the same reasons as those fleeing Eastern Europe and should receive equal treatment. The declaration states that refugees from Yugoslavia are classified by the State Department as economic refugees and are therefore not entitled to aid under the program for political exiles.

As a consequence of this policy, the declaration states, almost all refugees from Yugoslavia who arrived in Austria or Italy were sent back, since they did not receive American assistance in those countries. The statement from these two prestigious American refugee aid organizations appealed to the State Department to change its policy so that exiles from Yugoslavia can receive aid like political refugees."

On this vital issue for the Croatian people, who provide the largest contingent of refugees from communist Yugoslavia, we find more extensive information in the NCWC News Service. It is a memorandum written for members of Congress in Washington by Bishop Edward E. Swanström, executive director of the Catholic Relief Service and Rescue Committee. This memorandum was sent to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and members of the Appropriations Committee of both houses of Congress.

"The West's ambiguous attitude toward communist Yugoslavia," the memorandum states, "resulted in a similar attitude toward exiles from Yugoslavia... When we deny exiles the reasons for their flight, we show ourselves incapable of understanding why these people are fleeing communist countries and we turn our backs on them. When we consent to the forced repatriation of refugees, we contribute to the feeling of despair and thereby weaken the cause of democracy within Yugoslavia and beyond."

The memorandum states: "The opposition of these exiles from communism is denied because they are poor." It then says: "Even the few refugees from Yugoslavia who are granted political asylum are often classified by the United States Escape Program in a lower category than refugees from other communist countries. Thus, refugees from Yugoslavia are not considered refugees, or the small number who receive asylum are treated as second-class refugees."

The memorandum states that the proscription of religious freedom and the disregard for other fundamental human rights "hardly differ in degree in Yugoslavia from how it is practiced in the Soviet Union."

"The insidious propaganda of the Yugoslav authorities," the memorandum continues, "to popularize the term 'economic exile' has been more than fruitful. The Yugoslav authorities introduced this term into the language of the United Nations, the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, and the terminology of certain officials in the U.S. government.

They influenced the policies of countries that until recently granted asylum to these refugees, to such an extent that most exiles, instead of being accepted as such, are repatriated. They created a situation where, while in Italy most exiles manage to stay, Austria, under the pretext of the United States' ambiguous policy, orders the forced repatriation of most of the exiles from Yugoslavia.

The document contains the accusation that, as a consequence of the Yugoslav authorities' campaign, "there was a drastic reduction in U.S. aid to exiles from Yugoslavia."

"The result of all this This is the source of discontent among the honest, democratic masses of Yugoslavia, who see the U.S. aiding the strengthening of a communist state while simultaneously denying support to anti-communist elements fleeing the tyranny. All of this has caused confusion among the American people. Those who direct American policy fail to grasp that the basic philosophy of every communist country is the same, whether it be the Soviet Union, China, or Yugoslavia. Current US policy is causing confusion among exiles because of the criteria used to select the type of communism and tyranny from which one must flee in order to be eligible for US aid.

The memorandum concludes with the following question: "At a time when we are granting asylum to exiles from Castro's communism, supported by Soviet communism and threatening the Western Hemisphere, shouldn't the US take the correct position and grant full recognition to refugees from Yugoslavia, currently linked to the Soviet Union in a joint conspiracy to establish communism in the world?"

It should be added that the Austrian press reported that 4,000 refugees arrived from Yugoslavia last year, of whom only 500 were granted asylum. Also, in the early winter of 1962-63, several tragic accidents occurred on the Yugoslav-Austrian border due to refugees freezing to death in the Alps.

If, despite the forced repatriations and severe penalties awaiting those repatriated, and despite the dangers of crossing the border—those who evade the police risk perishing in the rugged mountains—some 4,000 people flee Croatia and Slovenia annually, it is difficult to accept the argument that they are "economic exiles." This is especially true given that in recent years it has become possible to travel legally abroad in search of work. For example, thousands of workers who left with regular Yugoslavian passports are employed in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and other free European countries. The number of exiles who illegally cross the Italian border or risk the Adriatic crossing in small boats exceeds the number of those seeking refuge in Austria.It is not easy to understand the actions of the Austrian authorities toward the exiles from Croatia and Slovenia, especially considering the close ties that existed between Austria and these two countries for centuries, and the fact that the fathers of many of them served in the Austro-Hungarian army. For many centuries, Slovenia was an integral part of Austria, while Croatia was linked to the Habsburg Empire as an associated kingdom from 1527 to 1918.

For four centuries, the Croats shared both the good and the bad with the Austrians. From now on, Austria's access to the sea will also pass through the territory of Slovenia and Croatia. Does it make any sense to sacrifice Christian and democratic principles, and long-standing friendships, to appease the communist adventurers in Belgrade, who in Croatia and Slovenia are violating not only individual and political rights, but also national rights in favor of Russian and Serbian expansionism; adventurers who contribute to subversive activities in all free countries?

Yugoslav "Neutrality" and the Atomic Bases in Cuba

The position of the Yugoslav communist government following the installation of bases for Soviet atomic missiles in Cuba confirmed the validity of the distinction between neutrality and neutralism. If neutral signifies a centrist position with a political inclination toward the West, neutralist implies a centrist position with a political inclination toward the East.

The communist government in Belgrade demonstrated, through its stance and by means of comments in the controlled press and radio and television, not only its inclination toward the Soviet Union but also its adoption of Moscow's views, especially at the UN, while Soviet delegates denied the veracity of American assertions regarding the atomic platforms in Cuba.

The main spokesman for the Yugoslav Communist Party, Borba (Belgrade, November 24, 1962), questioned the American evidence. Regarding President Kennedy's speech, he wrote: "Knowingly taking risky paths in the labyrinth of current international relations is not a sign of courage, much less of wisdom. It is a path with dangerous implications that, more likely than not, leads to the loss of all control and responsibility and has no other exit but the catastrophic abyss of humanity." In the same issue, Borba expresses his discontent with the unanimous support of the members of the Organization of American States for the U.S. position.

"To the astonishment of many observers here," says Borba's correspondent in New York, "Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Ecuador, countries that had previously tried to distance themselves from U.S. foreign policy regarding Cuba, also voted in favor of the OAS resolution." The communist journalist interprets this unanimity as insulting to the Latin American republics. Borba considers Stevenson's performance in the Security Council negative. "When history records his speech, it will surely not be remembered as an example of great diplomatic skill."

Radio commentators, as usual, were far more radical in their pronouncements. Every commentary regarding the blockade of Cuba began with the ritual phrase: "The war hysteria in the United States is not diminishing and is being fueled more and more" (Radio Zagreb, October 25, 1962, 10:00 AM broadcast).

That same day, the Zagreb newspaper Vjesnik wrote: "If Cuba were, as Washington tries to prove, someone's military base, the United States would have no justification for the action undertaken, except for the argument of truth. It would lack arguments of strategic and moral justification. Intercontinental ballistic missiles deprive the American action of its strategic justification, and its military bases installed throughout the world invalidate its moral justification."

When Khrushchev backed down, the Yugoslav press did not attribute the resolution of the tension to Washington's energetic yet moderate action, which enjoyed the solidarity of all the countries of the Western Hemisphere. Instead, it presented the defeat of Castro and Khrushchev as a "great statesman's achievement," a "noble and humane sacrifice made for the sake of peace," and "a gesture that saved the peace, which, through unilateral action—precisely with the aggression against Cuba—had been brought to the brink of collapse." Tanjug, the official Yugoslav news agency, reported on the matter on October 26, 1962: "Two moments proved decisive in turning the situation around. The first was the Soviet initiative to resolve the dispute peacefully, and the second was the firm and decisive stance of the Soviet Union to respond to the application of force with the full might of its weapons."

On the same day, radio commentators in Zagreb and Belgrade were saying: "The danger has now subsided thanks to Premier Khrushchev's composure and prudence, who responded to the brutal American provocation with an invitation to negotiate. For this reason, he didn't lose face. Someone will one day look back on his actions with disgust. Was it fear? some are asking. Even if it was, it would be a noble and prudent fear. But this isn't about fear. Or what is aggression? Is it a virtue?"

However, the usual incense, so dear to Tito's megalomania, could not be omitted. The same commentator, echoing what had been written by the controlled Yugoslav press, persuaded his listeners that, along with Khrushchev, the main credit for preserving peace during the Cuban crisis should be given to Tito, who, "on behalf of the majority of humanity," called for the dispute to be resolved within the UN and expressed "his deep concern for world peace."

Tito made an unprecedented effort "at the head of the non-committal countries." "With Soviet realism and prudence, and above all with their conciliatory approach, everything that could be expected was achieved: peace and Cuba's independence were saved..." After the Soviets, and perhaps even before them, the credit goes "to the 45 non-committal and neutral countries, including our country (Yugoslavia) with the extraordinary activity of President Tito... Perhaps these countries deserve our primary gratitude for the fact that the world, in a dramatic spasm, realized that a solution must be found and that it could only be found outside the framework of blocs."

Consequently, Khrushchev and Tito saved world peace from the "aggression" and "brutal provocation" of Washington, which had the unanimous support of Latin American republics, reacting, to the astonishment of the Yugoslav communist leaders, against the installation of nuclear bases in a country of the Western Hemisphere.

Walter Lippmann, Cuba, and Yugoslavia

The Yugoslav press, controlled and manipulated by the government, frequently mentioned and partially quoted Walter Lippmann's commentary on American aid to Yugoslavia and Poland, published in the New York Herald Tribune on October 2, 1962. The prominent American international relations expert advocated for the policy of aid to the communist governments of Belgrade and Warsaw in the following terms: "Congress, which failed to understand, has very effectively sabotaged national policy. If aid were suspended, it would be a slap in the face to the peoples of Eastern Europe," which would be "tremendous," especially with regard to Yugoslavia. "Ideologically, the Yugoslav leaders are communists, but they are Yugoslav communists, not Muscovites. So, in matters that do not concern Yugoslav national interests, they usually follow the Soviet line. But when their national interests are at stake, they act independently."

“Yugoslavia,” Lippmann continued, “is not a member of the Warsaw Pact. Moreover, because we have shown intelligence in equipping the Yugoslav air force, the Union, not the Soviet Union, is the supplier of spare parts and replacement components. It would be foolish to call that aid to communism. In reality, we have achieved the same penetration into the communist orbit that Moscow achieved in our world through Cuba.”

Lippmann’s comment predates the Cuban Missile Crisis of October, in which—albeit in passing—Yugoslavia supported the Soviet position. Subsequent events once again refuted the deductions of the influential American commentator on international affairs regarding relations in Eastern Europe. It became clear that his comparison between American influence in Yugoslavia and Soviet influence in Cuba is entirely inappropriate. Even before the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was untenable, but now, in light of recent events, it seems tragicomic and clumsy.

Even before the Soviet nuclear missile bases were established there, Cuba was a communist country, allied with Moscow and in the process of adapting the Soviet model to both its domestic and foreign policy. Yugoslavia, as Lippmann emphasizes, is also a communist country, regardless of whether it is "Yugoslav" or "Russian" communism. As for the political system, there is no difference whatsoever, since the Yugoslav communist regime was conceived and structured according to the Russian model.

It is not the supposed Western form of communism, but a faithful copy of Bolshevism, which is originally nothing more than the Russian version of Marxism, grafted onto Russia's Byzantine-Mongolian heritage and its totalitarian, autocratic, and Caesaropapist tradition. Yugoslav communism is of the same type, since the Byzantine heritage of Serbia, the Russian exponent in the Balkans, prevails there.

Therefore, the argument that there is American penetration into the communist sphere through Yugoslavia, identical or similar to that achieved by the Soviets in Cuba, cannot be seriously sustained. Neither is the influence of the same nature, nor does the Yugoslav form of communism bear any resemblance to American political institutions.

Regarding Lippmann's assertion that suspending aid to the communist governments of Yugoslavia and Poland would be tantamount to "slamming the door in the face" of their respective peoples, and that such an action would be "tremendous," it would be more accurate to say that this aid does not benefit the oppressed peoples but rather their communist oppressors. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that these peoples would feel relieved if Western democracies were to suspend aid to their oppressors. This aid, even if reduced, if not accompanied by political concessions, in fact benefits communism more than the people.

Consider the case of substantial shipments of food to Tito's regime. It was said that this was a lesser evil compared to previous financial aid and that it sought to alleviate the misery of the masses. However, if the food shortages in Yugoslavia, which previously even exported them, are attributed to communist experiments in agricultural policy, then the aid provided facilitates the continued exertion of pressure on the peasants, who constitute the majority of the population. This subsidy helps the Yugoslav communist regime counteract peasant resistance to its tyranny. It should be noted that such resistance to collectivization represents the most evident and vigorous form of opposition to communism. With the suspension of American food shipments, Belgrade would have to yield to the free peasants.

Thus, instead of helping the people, the United States is in fact contributing to communist collectivization and weakening peasant opposition. While plans to create and strengthen small agricultural holdings in Latin America are being discussed within the framework of the Alliance for Progress, the elimination of free peasants in Yugoslavia is being indirectly supported. Therefore, providing unconditional and unchecked food aid to Yugoslavia for the benefit of the peasantry contributes to the annihilation of the main opponent of communism.

While Lippmann speaks in abstract terms about "national interests" in Yugoslavia, which, according to him, in certain cases conflict with Soviet interests, he forgets or ignores that these "national interests" of Yugoslavia—that is, of the communist ruling group—contradict the interests of the Western world. This is the case with Great Serbian expansionism, which favors the communists and, even when it lacks Russian support, is directed against Yugoslavia's western neighbors: Austria and Italy, as well as against Greece and Albania, against Western countries in general, and, only in temporary situations, against Soviet Russia. Ultimately, both Russian and Serbian expansionism are identical in their anti-Western tendencies.

In any case, Lippmann would have to prove that Serbia has enduring "national interests" that conflict with the interests of Russia or the Soviet Union, and that Serbia is not an active or potential agent of Russian expansionism.

Regarding the alleged advantages Washington gained by equipping the air force of a communist country free of charge, or at a bargain price, if we are not mistaken, such advantages might have existed during Stalin's regime, when the possibility, however remote, of his armed intervention against the schismatic and "revisionist" Yugoslav communists could not be ruled out.

However, with Stalin dead, those American aircraft would be more likely to be used against a Western country than against a communist one. In this case, the objection raised by US Congressman Michael A. Feighan is valid, who argues that, according to the logic of those who advocate providing aid to Yugoslavia on the pretext that otherwise it would receive aid from the Soviets, Washington should give Tito atomic weapons, since there is a theoretical danger that he could receive them from Moscow.

It doesn't matter where the weapons of communist Yugoslavia come from, but against whom they will be used. It is more than certain that Yugoslavia will never be, nor can it ever be, a Western ally like Cuba is to the Soviets.

If the State Department doesn't believe this, let it try to obtain Tito's permission to install American military bases in Yugoslavia under the control of American military experts, just as the Soviet Union did in Cuba.

US Senator Barry Goldwater wrote about this: "In light of Tito's speech in Moscow, there can be no doubt which side Yugoslavia would be on in the event of a military conflict between East and West.

For example, if the Cuban Missile Crisis had escalated into a full-blown war, on which side would the jet bombers we sent to Yugoslavia have been deployed? On which side would the Yugoslav pilots, trained in Texas, have flown if the Cuban Missile Crisis had ended in war?" "I think it's safe to assume that every dollar and every piece of equipment we sent to Yugoslavia under the foreign aid program is now part of the Soviet bloc's arsenal" (Macedonian Tribune, Indianapolis, January 24, 1963).

First Congress of Croatian University Students in Exile

We can classify the Croatian exiles from communist Yugoslavia, residing on five continents, broadly into two groups. The first group comprises the survivors of the several hundred thousand Croatians who left their country in May 1945 with the arrival of the Serbian communists who imposed a communist regime in Croatia. As is well known, more than 200,000 Croatians were forcibly repatriated from the British occupation zone of Austria, most of them perishing in the massacres organized and perpetrated by the communists.

The second group comprises recent exiles, mostly young people who in recent years crossed the border at great risk, unfortunately exposing themselves to forced repatriation under the pretext of being "economic refugees." Some of them moved to Canada, Australia, and North America, while most found work in Germany and France, where, we must emphasize with satisfaction and gratitude, they receive friendly and generous treatment.

Among these exiles are a considerable number of intellectuals, many of whom are completing their studies or validating their degrees without the assistance of democratic governments, which, on the contrary, grant numerous scholarships and conduct cultural exchanges with students and professors who arrive recommended by the Yugoslav communist authorities. Nearly one hundred Croatian intellectuals are professors at universities in free countries, primarily in the United States. In Latin America, especially in Argentina, the opportunities for exiled European intellectuals to continue their professional activities are quite limited.

Recently, there have been serious attempts to organize Croatian students in the free world, an important development given that the new exiles maintain contact with their colleagues in the oppressed homeland. Students everywhere constitute a significant force of resistance due to their youthful idealism and combative spirit. This tradition is deeply rooted in Croatia, where all national movements have found their most idealistic, dynamic, and enthusiastic followers among students.

An important step in the unification of exiled Croatian intellectuals was the First Congress of Croatian Students in the Free World, held in Paris on November 3 and 4, 1962. The reports presented and the discussions centered on the main slogan: "Through culture to national progress; through revolutionary struggle to freedom and the restoration of the Croatian state."

The Congress took place in the Parisian suburb of Asnières, where the mayor and current French Minister of Industry, Mr. Bokanowski, made a room in the town hall available to the delegates. Numerous students and guests from France participated in the Congress, along with delegates from Great Britain, Spain, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany. Prestigious Croatian intellectuals from various European countries also attended, and numerous messages of support and greetings were received from overseas countries.

The Congress was chaired by Engineer Zeljko Kovacic (France), Carmen Glamuzina (Italy), and Nedo Gladic (West Germany).

During the first session, Krunoslav Masina (Paris) spoke on the role and duties of Croatian students in the national struggle. Ante Zoric (Vienna) addressed the cultural work of students. Jaksa Kusan (director of the London-based newspaper Nova Hrvatska) spoke about the role of intellectuals in the lives and activities of exiles. Carmen Glamuzina (Italy) emphasized the need for reciprocal contacts and cooperation among refugee students. Toni Kuaic and Grgo Topalovic addressed the situation of students in Croatia.

On the second day of deliberations, the main speaker was our contributor, Engineer Jure Petricevic, who addressed the topic "The Current Situation of the Croatian People, the Aims and Means of Their Struggle for Freedom." Reports from absent Croatian intellectuals were read: "Political Strategy in the Croatian National Struggle," by Dr. Ante Ciliga (Rome); "The Croatian Language and Croatian Nationality," by Dr. Ivo Perc (Vienna); "The Yugoslav Myth in Croatian Politics," by Dr. Ivo Korsky (Buenos Aires), and "For or Against Integration," by Mirko Mehes (Sudbury, Canada), were among the topics discussed. Other subjects were also addressed, with the participation of the students present and the Croatian intellectuals invited to the Congress.

An ad hoc committee drafted the papers and the Declaration. It was concluded that it was necessary to form the Federation of Croatian Students in the Free World and to make preparations for publishing a newsletter in French on the situation in Croatia, in order to provide accurate information to the French public, which was misinformed about the state of affairs in Yugoslavia. The need for tolerance and cooperation among the various political groups of Croatian exiles was emphasized.

The Congress welcomed the establishment of the Croatian National Committee in New York (see Studia Croatica, vol. 7-8, p. 227). It expressed its appreciation for the selfless struggle and great sacrifices of Croatian students in their captive homeland against communist tyranny and Gran Serbian expansion. It paid tribute to the students who gave their lives for the freedom of Croatia and to those imprisoned in communist dungeons. In honor of fallen Croatian students, the Congress resolved to declare the date of the death of Ivo Masina, a hero of the Croatian resistance who was treacherously murdered in a communist prison, as "Croatian University Students' Day." The Congress expressed its particular concern for the suffering of Croatian Muslims under communist and Great Serbian tyranny. Dervis Sehovic read the circular letter from Muslim religious dignitaries, which was received with expressions of sympathy, respect, and solidarity (see the text of the circular letter on pp. 334-37 of this issue).

BOOK REVIEW

Anton Zollitsch: Josef George Strossmayer

Ángel Belic, Buenos Aires

(Contributions to the Confessional Situation of Austria-Hungary in the 19th Century and to the Movement for Church Union among the Slavs in the Present - Donauschwabische Verlagsgesellschaft, Salzburg 1962, Austria, pp. 56-).

On the occasion of the Second Vatican Council, at the annual meeting of the "Federation of Catholic University Students of Danubian Germans" (Verband Katolischer Donauschwabischer Aliademiker) residing in Austria and Germany, which took place in Salzburg in 1961, several reports were read concerning the religious situation in the last decades of the existence of Austria-Hungary and on the movement for ecclesiastical union among the South Slavs. Since the central figure of this movement was the distinguished Croatian statesman, cultural promoter, patron of the arts, and celebrated orator at the First Vatican Council, Bishop of Djakovo, Josef Strossmayer, these reports were published in German under the title Josef Georg Strossmayer, in the collection "Donauschwabische Beiträge," volume 47. The interest of the Danubian Germans in these issues stems from the fact that they are refugees from what is now Yugoslavia, mostly from Vojvodina, and partly from Croatia, and Strossmayer's father was descended from Germans who settled in the Danube basin.

After a brief introduction by Dr. Ivan Schrekeis, Egen Lendl, in a concise report, outlines the religious landscape of Austria-Hungary, composed of a mosaic of nations and religions. The account of the relations between Catholics, Orthodox, and Uniates in the area now part of Yugoslavia is particularly interesting. Most of the former Uniates, that is, Eastern Rite Catholics, embraced the Orthodox faith under the influence of the Serbian Patriarch in Karlovci, who, fleeing the Ottomans, had settled in the territory of the Austrian Empire in 1690. A similar situation occurred with the Romanian Uniates, also under Serbian influence.

In the following work, the Croatian historian Ivan Vitezic explains the position of the Catholic Slavs between East and West in light of the ideas and work of Bishop Strossmayer. This bishop—a great Croat and Slav—could envision the future of his homeland, Croatia, as inextricably linked to the fate of the other Slavs, both within and outside the Habsburg monarchy. In the Union of Churches, he saw not only the noblest goal in the religious sense, but also the surest path and firmest guarantee that the Slavic peoples would occupy the place in the international arena that belonged to them by virtue of their population size, location, and capabilities.

He analyzes the secret memorandum sent by Strossmayer on September 8, 1876, to the Russian government, in which he advocates for the signing of a convention between Russia and the Holy See. Such a convention would dispel the doubts of Catholics regarding Russia. Strossmayer alludes to the fears that a complete and active integration of the Orthodox Slavs into Europe would entail the danger of a particular tyranny. Vitezic is very familiar with the situation in Croatia at the end of the last century.

Josef Müller, author of the third work, "Remembering a Great Figure," refutes the opinion of those Germans for whom Strossmayer was a renegade for considering himself Croatian. Strossmayer, who studied in Vienna, where he served as a professor of theology and chaplain to the imperial court, had a profound knowledge of German culture and was able to appreciate it properly. He knew that his father was of German origin, and therefore his Croatian nationalism was of a spiritual and cultural nature. He was bishop of a Croatian diocese and actively participated in the Croatian national and revolutionary movements of the last century. Consequently, he could not feel anything but Croatian.

In the fourth work, Anton Zollitsch, editor of the collection, discusses the efforts of Catholic Slavs to achieve unity. He sheds light on the figures of the SS. Cyril and Methodius, who some 150 years before the Eastern Schism, switched from the Byzantine to the Roman Patriarchate, introducing the Slavic language into the liturgy of the Roman Rite and thus creating a new Christian world, something of a Roman-Byzantine synthesis.

An identical synthesis was formalized in the Union of Brest in 1593, that is, 500 years after the schism, stipulating that the Christians of Ukraine and Belarus would retain the Byzantine Rite and the Slavic language in their church, while recognizing papal primacy. Since St. Methodius's episcopal see was Velehrad in Moravia, the so-called Velehrad Congresses were held from 1907 onwards, in which specialists in the problems of the Slavic Christian East studied the possibilities of ecclesiastical union. It is very interesting that the second congress with European repercussions already aroused suspicion from Russia and Austria-Hungary. Russia feared Austro-Slavism, and Austria-Hungary feared Pan-Slavism.

In his final paper, Ivan Tomas, a well-known Croatian writer, discusses the dissenting Eastern Christians on the eve of the Second Vatican Council and their reactions to it. Some believe that the Orthodox Church wishes to break free from the narrow confines of a national church. He recounts the interesting stance of the Orthodox clergy in Macedonia. The Yugoslav communist authorities had proposed that they adopt a resolution against the Holy See and the Council, which they refused. Tomas observes that the contact between the Catholic Church and the Reformed churches is closer than that between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, even though the theological differences between the latter are much smaller.

Ante Smith Pavelic: Kairska Afera

Pedro Vukota, Buenos Aires

(The Cairo Scandal, in Croatian, Ed. Savremenikove sveske, No. 2, Paris, 1961, pp. 120).

As the author points out in the introduction, this is a chapter from a longer work on Yugoslav exiles during the Second World War. The study of this subject is of particular importance, given that the typically Balkan intrigues and conspiracies of Serbian politicians, both before and during the war, were among the key factors that led the Western Allies to abandon the government of King Peter in London and that of General Draza Mihailović, his Minister of War, by recognizing the counter-government of the communist guerrillas.

The end result was communist domination in Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Montenegro. In his work "Great Britain and Draza Mihailović" (Studia Croatica, Year 1, No. 1, pp. 43-57), Dr. Smith Pavelic noted that among the many conflicts, clashes, quarrels, and intrigues occurring within the ranks of exiled Yugoslav officials, the 1942 affair held a special place. Serbian exiles in London called it the "Cairo Affair," while those in Cairo referred to it as the "Cairo Affair." The "London Affair."

Sir George Rendell, British ambassador to the Yugoslav government-in-exile, noted in his book *The Sword and the Olive* (London, 1957) that, as a result of these conflicts and scandals, the Yugoslav government had become so discredited that the British were able to "abandon it after two years almost without a pang of conscience and accept Tito's anti-monarchist revolution."

Relatively little has been written to date about the Cairo Affair, and what little there has been consists mainly of personal polemics among its protagonists. This work, for the first time with critical analysis, unravels one of the darkest intrigues of the Serbian exiles, the driving force behind the Yugoslav government-in-exile and, consequently, primarily responsible for the unfortunate outcome of events.

The author does not address the issue of the culpability of the protagonists in this scandalous affair, limiting himself to recounting the facts. documented, already published, or extracted from the diplomatic archives to which he had access as a Yugoslav diplomatic official. Based on his marginal observations about the cynicism of Slobodan Jovanovic, then president of the government-in-exile, and about the intrigues of the Knezevic brothers,

it can be concluded that he considers them primarily responsible. One of the Knezevic brothers was a minister at the royal court, and the other, head of Professor Jovanovic's military cabinet, effectively acting as minister of war (Draza Mihailovic, the nominal holder of the war portfolio, was not in direct contact with his government and often even he didn't know where he was).

The Cairo scandal may have arisen within the context of traditional conflicts between Serbian military cliques, which held considerable sway in the army of monarchical Yugoslavia, even though Serbs constituted a minority of the population compared to Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and numerous other ethnic minorities. Conflicts emerged from the outset, even among the conspiring officers who orchestrated the coup of March 27, 1941, the immediate cause of the Axis invasion and the swift disintegration of Yugoslavia. These conflicts only intensified in exile within the ranks of the "Yugoslav army," composed of a small group of Serbian officers and a few members of the Slovenian minority in Italy, who had been taken prisoner in Africa.

The headquarters of this "army" was in Cairo, where the "affair" erupted in early 1942, when the group led by the Knezevic brothers overthrew the government of General Simovic, who had signed Yugoslavia's surrender and fled to London. The appointment of S. Jovanovic's government marked the beginning of an effort to completely eliminate the influence of the older Serbian officers who had cooperated with Simovic. These officers refused to comply with the decree appointing new commanders, and as a result of this open insubordination, the British military authorities had to intervene, appointing an English general as commissar "to the Supreme Yugoslav Command in Cairo."

These conflicts led to the complete disintegration of the already insignificant Yugoslav army. Many of the officers joined the British army, demonstrating the British disapproval of S. Jovanovic's government. That government was losing prestige despite its appeals to Draža Mihailović to continue the fight. The aforementioned study by Dr. Smith Pavelić reveals that Mihailović was collaborating with the Italian and German occupation forces at that time.

The chauvinistic attitude of the Serbian ministers and officers, who aspired to reestablish their hegemony, and their political methods in the restored Yugoslavia—incomprehensible and abject not only to the Croats and Slovenes directly affected, but also to the Western Allies—inevitably led to the liquidation of monarchical Yugoslavia, paving the way for communist tyranny. This is the conclusion reached after reading Dr. Smith Pavelić's well-documented and impartial study.

Croatian Magazine, Volume Dedicated to Ivan Mestrovic

J. G. Fratija (Ivo Bogdan), Buenos Aires

("The Croatian Review, Buenos Aires 1962, Year XII, Vol. 4(48) pp. 297-520).

This year's final volume of Croatian Magazine, published quarterly in Buenos Aires for the past 12 years, is entirely dedicated to Ivan Mestrovic, who died on January 16th in South Bend, USA. Given its extensive nature and valuable contributions from experts on the personality and work of the late visual artist, it deserves special mention. The opening pages feature masterful notes in Spanish by the eminent Argentine art critics Julio E. Payró and Romualdo Brughetti. The work of José León Pagano on Mestrovic was published in Croatian translation. The painter Joza [name missing] refers to Mestrovic's artistic work. Kljakovic, who presents a concise overview of Mestrovic's entire oeuvre; then Zdatko Tomicic, in a chapter of his extensive study on Mestrovic, compares him to Michelangelo; Stanko M. Vujica, in a brief article on the secret of Mestrovic's art, highlights the grand ideas and conceptions of this profound thinker and religious spirit; Dominik Mandic, O.F.M., relates the relevant information about Mestrovic's relief of the Stigmata of Saint Francis, located in the church of Santa Maria Mediatrice next to the new curia of the Franciscan order in Rome; Raimundo Kupareo, O.P., analyzes the idea of Christianity in Mestrovic's art.

Regarding the personality of the celebrated sculptor, his son Mate Mestrovic publishes salient details of his father's life during the last year. Bogdan Radica traces the human and artistic profile of Mestrovic, recounting his frequent interviews with the sculptor. Ferid Sahovic and Charles Kamber Their notes highlight Mestrovic's special interest in the Croatian Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The poet and novelist Antun Nizeteo discusses Mestrovic's literary work, with particular reference to his literary style. Two of Mestrovic's literary works are also included: "The Prayer on the Occasion of the Consecration of the Votive Church of Our Lady in Biskupija near Knin, Erected in Memory of the Croatian King Zvonimir (1075-1089)" and "Notes from a Journey through the East." In this issue of the Croatian Review, we find testimonies, opinions, and judgments from the distinguished Argentine sculptors Troiano Troiani, Alfredo Bigatti, Humberto Eduardo Cerantonio, and Líbero Badii on the value of Mestrovic's art and its influence on the Río de la Plata art scene. Several literary compositions and poems inspired by Mestrovic's sculptures are also included. The volume under review is rich in news and information related to the master's death and his voluminous memoirs. about men and political events.

Finally, we mention the interesting collaborative work by Ante Smith Pavelic and Bogdan Radica on "Mestrovic's Last Visit to Croatia." This trip took place in 1959 and at the time generated considerable discussion among political exiles from Yugoslavia. Mestrovic had visited Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac during his confinement in Krasic and also, at the invitation of the Yugoslav dictator Tito, at his residence in Brioni.

This work is a supplement to Mestrovic's memoirs, containing accounts of his encounters with prominent contemporary political figures. The courageous conduct of the prisoner Stepinac and his insistence on forgiving his persecutors and praying for them deeply impressed Mestrovic. Since Stepinac had rejected Mestrovic's previous suggestions to soften his opposition to the regime, which would improve his personal situation, the cardinal asked him at this meeting if he approved of his inflexible stance toward the communist regime, and Mestrovic replied that he did.

Stepinac repeatedly stated that no physical suffering could make him waver in his decisions and that he would oppose all provocations and threats from his persecutors. He showed Mestrovic a fresh wound on his hand and told him that a militiaman, shortly before, while delivering a court summons, had deliberately burned him with a cigarette as an insult and provocation.

Mestrovic had several meetings with Tito. Tito spoke to him about Stalin, Djilas, and Stepinac. Regarding Stalin, he emphasized how he had brutally rejected the Yugoslav request to support his position in the Triestine interdict. For this reason, he had invited Tito to Moscow, which Tito declined. Tito remembered the conversation he had had shortly before at the Belgrade train station with Georgi Dimitrov, the Bulgarian communist leader and former secretary of the Communist International.

Dimitrov was en route to Moscow, invited by Stalin, to discuss the creation of the Yugoslav-Bulgarian federation. Before the train departed, Georgi Dimitrov embraced Tito and told him he knew he would not return. Dimitrov's prediction came true. He fell ill in Moscow and died unexpectedly. Upon receiving Stalin's invitation, Tito remembered Dimitrov's words and decided not to go. He knew the methods of Soviet diplomacy all too well. Shortly afterward, Yugoslavia was excluded from the Cominform.

Tito condemned Djilas's article on the Hungarian Revolution, in which he predicted the collapse of communism, as a "cardinal sin." Regarding Cardinal Stepinac, Tito told him that he respected his character and courage. Mestrovic got the impression that Tito had to take action against Stepinac "under pressure from the Serbs, who, after the condemnation of Draza Mihailovic, were demanding the head of a prominent Croat." Mestrovic was particularly concerned about the plight of the Croats in communist Yugoslavia and complained to Tito that Croatia's name and interests were constantly being sidelined and that in official Yugoslav publications,

Istria and Dalmatia were listed separately as if they were not parts of Croatia. He told him that he was aware of the efforts to Serbize Bosnia, but that the Croats would never agree to Bosnia becoming an integral part of Serbia. "These and similar attempts," Mestrovic continued, "demonstrate that there are great chauvinists among the Serbian communists." Tito initially responded with the French phrase, "A qui le dites Vous," and then continued in Croatian: "I know that many Serbian communists are, at heart, Chetniks" (Serbian nationalist militiamen).

During the conversation, Tito remarked that the Chetniks were no better than the Croatian Ustaše, to which Meštrović replied that the Ustaše defended Croatian territory, while the Chetniks fought in Croatian regions as well. Tito agreed with this argument and complained that Croats were not adequately represented in the civil service due to their negative and reserved attitude toward the regime. He lamented that Croats did not want positions in the civil service, especially in the communist militia, the political police, and the army, and even avoided joining the diplomatic service and the communist party. This attitude was also reflected in their flight from the country. "Most of the exiles are Croats..." To Tito's arguments it should be added that such a Croatian attitude is consistent with their struggle for political and national freedoms, curtailed in both communist and monarchical Yugoslavia.

It is interesting to note that Tito reiterated his invitation to Mestrovic to return to Yugoslavia, where he would enjoy all the privileges. Mestrovic always rejected such calls, declaring that he could not enjoy privileges in a country where Croatian patriots were unjustly persecuted. As is well known, Mestrovic was one of the Croats who, during the First World War, worked for the creation of Yugoslavia, believing that Croats, in a common state with Serbia, would have their individual and national rights and freedoms guaranteed. It is important to emphasize, however, that he not only refused to return to Yugoslavia but also renounced his Yugoslav nationality and became an American citizen. Indeed, with this act, he unequivocally condemned the very idea of a Yugoslav state that had inspired him in his youth.

The Yugoslav communists could not forgive him for this, yet despite everything, Tito tried to persuade him to return to Yugoslavia, arguing that his American citizenship would not be an obstacle and that he could retain it should he return.

Upon his return from Yugoslavia, Mestrovic told his friends that even those Croats who had fought alongside Tito's partisans in the war had told him that the communists were persecuting them for being Croats, and that was why they had joined the opposition. He also came to the conviction, through his contact with the leaders of the communist regime, that Belgrade would be very careful before submitting to Moscow, "because if they were to depend on Moscow again, many leaders would lose their positions and perhaps even their lives."

The volume of Hrvatska Revija mentioned above publishes abundant graphic and illustrative material related to Mestrovic's life and work, also reproducing his later sculptures.

Charles Zalar: Yugoslav Communism - A Critical Study

Ivo Bogdan, Buenos Aires

(Prepared for the Administration of the Internal Security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 1961, pp. XII-387).

This is a comprehensive and meticulously documented study of Yugoslav communism from its origins to the date of the book's publication. Its author, Charles Zalar, a Slovenian national, is a former Yugoslav diplomat in exile who began his career as a supporter of the pro-Yugoslav Slovenian Liberal Party, later becoming involved with the Slovenian Catholic movement, which tends to assert Slovenia's national identity.

The book, in addition to a brief foreword by Thomas J. Dodd, Vice Chairman of the Senate Committee on Internal Security, contains a preface by the same author, headed by the motto "No bene pro toto Libertas venditur auro" (Freedom is not sold for gold). The book is divided into three parts. The first summarizes the history of the communist revolution in Yugoslavia from the founding of the Communist Party to its seizure of power in 1945.

In several chapters, the author reviews the political process in Yugoslavia from 1918 to 1941, highlighting the abnormal relations between the peoples of the multinational Yugoslav state, which the communists exploited to rise to power. In the third chapter, Zalar recounts the guerrilla warfare and the struggles between the peoples of Yugoslavia, while in the fourth chapter he addresses the agreements that preceded the communist takeover and the restoration of Yugoslavia.

The second part covers the internal and external policies of communist Yugoslavia between 1945 and 1953. This period is divided into two chapters. The first deals with the close collaboration with the Soviet Union, and the second with Yugoslavia's political and economic isolation between 1948 and 1953, when Yugoslavia enjoyed the political and economic support of Western countries.

The third part comprises the period from 1953 to 1961, the year in which the writing of the book in the epigraph was completed. This division, seemingly incomprehensible at first glance, stems from the fact that in 1953 the Yugoslav communists amended the 1946 Constitution, a faithful copy of the Soviet Constitution. This amendment was criticized by the Soviet government and other communist leaders as revisionism and later, in the era of de-Stalinization, described as the specific Yugoslav path to socialism. A separate chapter is dedicated to Titoism in world politics.

After a brief summary and final conclusions, Zalar ends his extensive study by adding a very useful bibliography that includes, in addition to books and monographs, reports and articles published in newspapers both in Yugoslavia and abroad. He also provides essential information about prominent figures in Yugoslav politics, whether or not they adhered to communist ideology.

As we have noted, the book under review is a critical study of Yugoslav communism in its socioeconomic, legal, and political aspects. It was written with great effort and diligence, providing valuable and abundant data. The author's democratic convictions and Slovenian patriotism are reflected in his viewpoints. This means that Zalar adopts a critical stance not only toward the current communist regime but also toward the regimes that preceded it, holding them responsible for the situation that led to the communist seizure of power.

Such an objective, impartial, and reliable account, in its basic outlines, provoked bitter reactions in the newspapers of Serbian exiles, insulting the author in unprintable terms, which proves that they still cling to their Great Serbian and anti-democratic position. Certain assertions and interpretations of specific events could not be fully shared by the Croats.

It seemed that the author, who is Slovenian and before the war had collaborated with the regimes of monarchical Yugoslavia, which the Croats opposed, hardly understands the peculiar situation of Croatia exposed to the assaults of Great Serbian expansionism. Slovenia, separated from Serbia by Croatia due to its geographical location, feels Serbian pressure much less than the Croats. Hence, not entirely objective assessments of the Croatian opposition. As this is an intricate cultural, political, and national issue, it would take too long to point out all the errors of that nature.

It goes without saying that this unofficial publication from the US Senate is highly relevant, given the controversies and debates surrounding the appropriateness of Washington's aid to communist Yugoslavia. Charles Zalar's merit lies in having provided several compelling arguments against unconditional support for Tito.

Anton Knezevic: Die Turzismen in der Schprache der Kroaten und Serben

(Verlag Anton Hain, KG, Meisenheim/Glan, 1962, pp. 520)

The five-century domination of the Ottoman Turks in the Balkans, and their shorter rule in Central Europe, left multiple traces, even in the languages of the respective peoples. In the book mentioned above—Turkisms in the Languages of Croats and Serbs—we find the result of an in-depth study of the influences of the Turkish language and, through it, of Persian and Arabic. It is natural that we find more traces and influences in the speech of Muslims, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where a large group—almost a million Muslims in diaspora—of Croatian origin and language resides. However, Turkisms are also present in other, predominantly Christian regions; they are even found in the languages of Slavic peoples who were never part of the Ottoman Empire.

Professor A. Knezevic's work consists of three parts. In the first, he deals with Turkisms in their true sense, that is, those that are a direct inheritance from the Ottoman Turkish conquerors. The author highlights the characteristics of the Turkish language in its development in the Balkans. The second part deals with geographical designations and place names, particularly in Bosnia and Kosovo. The third part contains a long list of Turkic loanwords, and the final pages list the sources consulted.

Adhering to his stated purpose, the author has provided ample material for a comprehensive study of the influence of Turkish, Persian, and Arabic in Croatia and Serbia, identifying distinct trends in linguistic evolution and emphasizing the need for concerted efforts by Slavicists and Orientalists. His work will greatly facilitate the study of Croatian and Serbian by foreign Slavicists, clarifying the origin and meaning of Turkic loanwords, which are foreign to other Slavic languages.

This considerable effort by the Croatian scholar, who currently lives and teaches in Germany, is also a valuable contribution to the Croatian national cause, as it gives due recognition to the Islamic component of the Croatian nation.

---

[1] See details of the handover on pp. 349-356 of this issue.

[2] Text of the note according to the Borba newspaper of December 11, 1962. Full quotations, pp. 351-56 of this issue.

[3] Croatian exiles in Germany point out that one of the aims of the attack on the Yugoslav trade delegation in Bad Godesberg was to destroy documentation relating to the activities of Croatian refugees, zealously collected by agents of the Yugoslav political police. These agents operate in West Germany disguised as representatives of commercial enterprises or as workers seeking employment, intriguing and provoking frequent clashes with anti-communist Croatian exiles. This was repeatedly reported in the newspapers of the Croatian exiles (Hrvatska Drzava, Munich; Danica, Chicago) as well as in the German newspapers ("Deutsche Zeitung", November 30, 1962).

[4] "It is difficult to establish the exact number of protests sent from Belgrade to Bonn during the last five weeks (...). Relations between the two capitals are tense, to the point that a break would have been inevitable had it not already occurred in October 1957, after Yugoslavia recognized the Pankow government." Le Monde, Paris, January 11, 1963.

[5] Cf. "The Farce of Political Amnesty in Yugoslavia," Studia Croatica No. 7/8, p. 238.

[6] The Bonn government is well aware of these crimes, having recently published extensive documentation on the tragic fate of the 500,000 members of the ethnic German minority in Yugoslavia (Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen aus Ost - Mitteleuropa. Das Schicksal der Deutschen in Jugoslavien. Documentation on the expulsion of Germans from Eastern and Central Europe. The fate of Germans in Yugoslavia).

[7] Cf. The editorial "Unpunished Crimes," Studia Croatica, No. 6.

[8] L'Aurore, Paris, November 30, 1962, published the statement of an eyewitness to the event: "I saw about thirty men, between 20 and 30 years old, get off (the bus that brought the demonstrator workers from the Ruhr mining region). They formed lines carrying banners, and I thought it was some kind of student farce." Le Monde, Paris, December 1, 1962, reported that the attack was carried out by "about thirty young men." The same information was reported in dispatches by the AP, UP, and AFP news agencies, and was also published in the Latin American press. It is understood that this information was also disseminated by German newspapers (Frankfurter Allgemeine, November 30, 1962). In contrast, the controlled and directed Yugoslav press did not mention this aspect at all.

[9] See: "Harmful Discrimination..." pp. 356-58 of this volume.

[10] Dobrisa Cosic, the most prominent Serbian communist writer, stated in an article that sparked heated debates that "the struggle against frenzied nationalisms" constitutes the most important internal problem in communist Yugoslavia. “Don’t you see those vampires?... Don’t you see that many of them don’t have mustaches or beards? They’re just young ghosts, snotty kids. The bearded ones, of course, will die one day, but those who are growing up…” (Nasa Sodobnost, Ljubljana, December 1961). In his Split speech, delivered on May 6, 1962, and scarcely reported by the world press, Tito strongly condemned the emergence of “national chauvinism” even within the ranks of the communists in Croatia, which threatens “the brotherhood and unity of our peoples.” Like Cosic, Tito sees the greatest danger in the strengthening of national consciousness among young people: “One feels distressed,” Tito said, “seeing how this chauvinism is winning over our youth” (S. C., No. 7/8, p. 188).

[11] Robert E. Sherwood: Roosevelt and Hopkins - An Intimate History, Barcelona 1950, Vol. II, p. 242.

[12] Its causes are analyzed by the eminent sociologist and professor at Indiana University, D. A. Tomasic, in his study: "New Class and Nationalism," Studia Croatica, No. 1, pp. 61-77.

[13] Art. I, para. 2 of the Charter.

[14] Article I of said Constitution states that "The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia is a federal people's state in republican form, a community of peoples with equal rights, who, by virtue of the right of self-determination, including the right of secession, expressed their desire to live together in the Federal State."

[15] In fact, at least in Croatia, there was no such unanimity. The communist government, to give a certain appearance of free elections, placed so-called "black ballot boxes" next to the ballot boxes for the official candidates so that voters, not without risk, could cast their negative votes. In Croatia, many abstained from voting, despite mandatory voting, or cast blank ballots, according to the official results, which were undoubtedly corrected or adjusted in favor of the official list. There was no possibility of controlling or verifying the official data.

[16] Official data from the 1948 census.

[17] Cf. Memorandum to the Participants in the Conference of Non-Committed Countries, S.C. No. 5, p. 321 and Memorandum to Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, S.C., Nos. 7-8, p. 215.

[18] This term was used in an important document, the Resolution of the Fifth Congress of the Communist International. It states that the victorious powers of the First World War, in the 1919 peace treaties, "had created new small imperialist states by annexing territories with foreign populations." It also mentions Yugoslavia. "Consequently, the communist parties of Central Europe and the Balkans have a duty to support, by all means, revolutionary national movements of oppressed peoples. The application of the right to self-determination to all peoples; including the right to secession” must… be made manifest through the realization “of the state separation of the oppressed peoples from the state formation of Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Greece.” “The Congress charges the communist parties of Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Greece with waging a vigorous struggle against this colonialism.” (Thessen und Resolutionen des V. Weltkongresses der Komunistischen Internationale, Hamburg 1924, pp. 124-133).

[19] See note 12 and the study by the same author.

[20] Chapter VII of the “Protocol of the Crimean Conference,” Edward R. Stettinius: Roosevelt and the Russians - The Yalta Conference, Barcelona, 1950, p. 225.

[21] Ibid., p. 216.

[22] Churchill: Second World War, V 470.

[23] Sacha Simon, permanent special correspondent in Belgrade for the newspaper The Parisian newspaper Le Figaro informed its editorial staff: "The Foreign Ministry representative stated that Bonn is not taking the necessary strong measures to contain the subversive and criminal activity of the 'Ustachi' refugees in Germany. This would be one of the reasons preventing the re-establishment of normal diplomatic relations between the two countries" (Le Figaro, Paris 12/17/1962).

[24] Dispatch from Paul Yankovich, "private correspondent" in Belgrade for the Parisian newspaper Le Monde, January 11, 1963. It appears that this correspondent adopts the Yugoslav government's viewpoint that Bonn, which paid reparations to the French, Dutch, Norwegians, etc., should also satisfy the demands of the Yugoslav communists. "The fact that diplomatic relations with Bonn are broken," says Yankovich, "changes nothing." This correspondent fails to consider the expulsion and extermination of half a million Germans in Yugoslavia after the war, their suffering and the confiscation of their property, the inhumane treatment of German prisoners of war, or Germany's close and friendly relations with the countries of Western Europe.

[25] The aforementioned Belgrade note of December 10, 1962, expressly acknowledges that the German authorities, prior to the rupture of diplomatic relations, were taking measures against Croatian exiles in response to repeated demands from Belgrade. In this regard, they cite the note from the Bonn government addressed to the Belgrade government on April 4, 1955, communicating that the German authorities had taken the necessary measures to prevent activities by Croatian émigrés "against the integrity of the Yugoslav state." Belgrade, in its note of December 10, 1962, acknowledges that "during the period in which these measures were being implemented, all anti-Yugoslav activity, at least publicly, was suspended in the Federal Republic of Germany." Only after the rupture of relations, the note notes, "did the Croatian quisling elements in Germany resume their anti-Yugoslav activity."

[26] Borba, Belgrade. 11/14/1961.

[27] Jovan Djordjevic: La Yougoslavie, démocratie socialiste, Presses Universitaires de France, Bibbliothèque de la Science Politique, Paris, 1959, p. 72.

[28] Ibid., p. 77.

[29] Indeks, Federal Institute for Statistics, Belgrade, 11/1962, 44-47.

[30] Annuaire Statistique des Nations Unies, 1961, pp. 53-57.

[31] Vjesnik, 19-XII-1962 (article by K. Dzeba).

[32] The Statistical Yearbook of Yugoslavia, 1962, p. 65. Statements by Finance Minister Mincev in the parliamentary debates on the 1963 plan. Vjesnik, December 29, 1962.

[33] The Statistical Yearbook of Yugoslavia, 1962, p. 65. Statements by Finance Minister Mincev in the parliamentary debates on the 1963 plan. Vjesnik, December 29, 1962.

[34] From the parliamentary debates, Vjesnik, December 30, 1962.

[35] Vjesnik, December 19, 1962 (from the parliamentary debates).

[36] O. Blagojevic: Investments in Agriculture, Belgrade 1959, p. 227; Investments 1947–58. The Yugoslav Investment Bank, Belgrade 1959.

[37] The Statistical Yearbook of Yugoslavia for 1958, 1960, and 1962.

[38] According to the statement by the Minister of Economy, M. Todorovic; Vjesnik, April 8, 1962.

[39] From the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Alliance of the Working People of Yugoslavia; Vjesnik, December 11, 1962.

[40] Ekonomska Politika, weekly, Belgrade 11-10-1962.

[41] VII Congress of the Yugoslav Communist Alliance, Kultura, Belgrade, 1958, p. 54. Tito's speech before the National Assembly.

[42] S. Popovic: Technical work equipment. "Ekonomist", Belgrade, 1-2 1959

[43] From Tito's speech at the IV Plenary of the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist Alliance, Vjesnik 25/VII/1962.

[44] Vjesnik, 14/X/1962.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Vjesnik, 2/XII/1962.

[47] Vjesnik, 30/XII/1962.

[48] Vjesnik, December 10, 1962.

[49] Vjesnik, December 19, 1962.

[50] Vjesnik, November 10, 1962.

[51] Vjesnik, December 11, 1962. It should be noted that industrial wages in Yugoslavia ranged from 8,000 to 25,000 dinars (US$10.70 to US$32.00, respectively) for 67.5% of the total workforce. (Indeks, November 1962, p. 50).

[52] Vjesnik, December 20, 1962 (article by K. Dzeba).

[53] Ante Kadic is an assistant professor of Slavic languages and literatures at Indiana University, USA. The author thanks the American Philosophical Society for making the research necessary for this work possible.

[54] V. Jagic: "Hrvatska glagolska knjizevnost", in Vodnik's Povijest hrvatske knjizevnosti, Zagreb 1913, pp. 9-60.

[55] F. Sisic: Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara, Zagreb 1925. About King Zvonimir and his violent death, see the recent study by Stipe Gunjaca: "Kako i gdje je svrsio hrvatsiki kralj Dimitrije Zvonimir", Rad, 288 (1952), pp. 205-324 (Rad refers to the annals of the Zagreb Academy of Sciences and Arts).

[56] G. Novak: Prosilost Dalmacije, I. Zagreb 1944, pp. 115-16; M. Kostrenicic: "Postanak dalmatinskih sredovjecnih gradova", in Sisicev Zbornik (The Sisic Symposium), Zagreb 1929, pp. 113-19; idem, "Slobode dalmatinskih gradova po tipu trogirskom", Rad, 239 (1930), 56-150.

[57] Lj. Karaman: Eseji i Clanci, Zagreb 1944, pp. 40-49. Cvito Fiskovic: "Nasi primorski umjetnici od 9 do 10 stoljeca", Hrvatsko Kolo, No. 2, 1948, pp. 241-65.

[58] The renowned architect T. G. Jackson states that this portal is "a work which, by its simple conception, combined with its richness of detail, and by its marvelous and finished execution, was never surpassed in Romanesque or Gothic art," in his work Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, II, Oxford 1887, 111. Radovan's carvings denote an overflowing joy of life; cf. Fiskovic, op. cit., p. 248.

[59] Cf. Numerous studies by Petar Skok, especially his work "O simbiozi i nestanku starih Romana u Dalmaciji i na Primorju u svijetlu onomastike," Razprave, IV, Ljubljana 1928, pp. 1-42, and his book: Slavenstvo i romanstvo na Jadranskim otocima: Toponomastika Ispitivanja, Zagreb 1950, Vol. I-II.

[60] Cf. Viktor Novak: "The Slavonic-Latin Symbiosis in Dalmatia During the Middle Age", Slavonic and East European Review, XXXII, No. 78, December 1953, p. 17.

[61] According to the chronicle of one of the participants in that Crusade, Geoffrey de Villehardouin, the Doge himself called Zadar "Jadres en Esclavonie"; cf. P. Skok; Tri starofrancuske kronike o Zadru u godini 1202, Zagreb 1951, p. 84.

[62] For almost every Dalmatian city, the picture of Croatian penetration can be reconstructed based on records of names and surnames. Cf. Grga Novak: Proslost Dalmacije I, Zagreb 1944, 175-80 (chapter VIII: Croatization of the Romanized Cities in Dalmatia).

[63] Benedetto Ramberti, Secretary of the Venetian Senate, passing through Dubrovnik in 1534 on his journey to Turkey, observed that all the women in Dubrovnik spoke Croatian and their husbands spoke Croatian and Italian; cf. V. Novak: "The Slavonic Latin Symbiosis in Dalmatia...", p. 19; on Ramberti, see Jorjo Tadic: Promet putnika u starom Dubrovniku, Dubrovnik 1939, pp. 212-13, and P. Matkovics in Rad, 56 (1881), 203-32. The Venetian Giovanni B. Giustiniano reported to his government in 1553 that in Split, Trogir, Sibenik, Zadar, and Dubrovnik, all the common people spoke Croatian; see Commissiones et relationes Venetae, II, S. Ljubic, Zagreb 1877, 1902 -. Regarding Split, he said that all its customs were Slavic and that the language of the people "is so sweet and gentle that it is the first among all the Dalmatian dialects, just as the Tuscan language is the final flower of the Italian language" (p. 215).

[64] In an appeal sent to the Pope from Dalmatia in 1604, probably by Father Katic, it is stated that only a small number of Croats know Italian, mostly merchants and nobles, "but the common people, the young nuns, the noblewomen, and the monks do not know a word of Italian," in Ljubo Karaman: Dalmacija kroz vjekove u historiji umjetnosti, Split 1934, p. 132, No. 2; M. Vanino: "Dalmacija zahtijeva biskupe vjeste hrv. jeziku," Croatia sacra, III, Zagreb 1933, p. 94.

[65] M. Perojevic: Petar Kruzic, kapetan i knez grada Klisa, Zagreb 1931, pp. 180-209.

[66] A popular poet expressed the daily reality in these terms: "Blood with our lunch, blood with our dinner. All the food is soaked in blood. We wash our hands and faces with blood." C. Fiskovic; op. cit., p. 259.

[67] Dubrovnik paid tribute first to Venice (1205-1358), then to the Hungarian-Croatian kings (until 1526), and finally to the Turkish sultans.

[68] “Hrvatskih ter kruna gradov se svih zove,” wrote Ivan Vidali of Korcula in 1564; Stari pisci hrvatski, V, 352. Lodovico Beccadelli (1501–72), who was Archbishop of Dubrovnik for a decade, called it “a mirror of Illyria and its greater prestige”; see Josip Torbarina: Italian Influence on the Poets of the Ragusan Republic, London 1931, p. 51.

[69] It is not my purpose here to enter into a discussion about the significance of the Italian Renaissance in the history of Western Europe. I prefer to refer to the last two chapters of W. K. Ferguson’s The Renaissance in Historical Thought, Boston 1948, pp. 290–385. The Dalmatian poets in Latin, at least from the religious point of view, must be considered as continuators of the Middle Ages.

[70] Cf. An exhaustive, interesting and very debatable article by Giovanni Maver: "The Croatian letteratura in rapporto alla Italian letteratura", Italia e Croazia, Rome 1942, XX, pp. 455-522. Also M. Deanovic: "Les influences italiennes sur l' ancienne littérature Yougoslave du littoral adriatique", Revue de littérature comparée, XIV, 1934, 30-52.

[71] Josip Torbarina, id., part I: "Relations between Dubrovnik and Italy", pp. 19-87; Jorjo Tadic, op. cit., p. 207.

[72] A. Cronia: Storia della Letteratura serbo-croata, Milan, 1956, correctly says: "Sopra tutto a Padova, dove intere generazioni di Dalmati si temprarono e si immortalarono pasgando dal Banco dello scolaro alla catedra del maestro" (p. 34).

[73] B. Croce: Poesia popolare e poesia d' arte, in the chapter "Latin Poetry" states that: "La lingua latina fu, tra l'altro, per secoli, un modo di scambio nella republica letterario-scientifica, e anche nel mondo della politica", 3rd ed., Bari 1952, p. 439.

[74] "Nessuno infatti di questi autori negò la proper Croatian nazionalità..." Franjo Trograncic: Storia della letteratura croata, Rome 1953, pp. 119-20.

[75] Cf. J. Torbarina: Italian influence..., passim, especially p. 50, where he quotes Archbishop Beccadelli: "Questo è un paese da Schiavoni cioè da robusti, e non da par nostri deboli."

[76] Cf. M. Kombol: Poviest hrv. knjizevnosti, Zagreb 1945, pp. 58-74 ("Humanizam i njegovi odjeci"), Ante Kadic: "Croatian Renaissance", Studies in the Renaissance VI, 1959, 29-33.

[77] Grga Novak, its modern editor, Zagreb 1951, offers a reliable picture of Dalmatia and Hvar during the first half of the 16th century. Novak's study includes Pribojevic's Latin text and its Croatian translation by Veliko Gortan.

[78] De origine successibusque Slavorum, Zagreb 1951, p. 58.

[79] De origine successibusque Slavorum, Zagreb 1951, p. 58.

[80] This poem had its third edition in Basel in 1538. Cf. Dj. Korbler: "Jakov Bunic Dubrovcanin: Latinski pjesnik", Rad, 180, 1910, pp. 58-134.

[79] De origine successibusque Slavorum, Zagreb 1951, p. 58. [81] F. Racki: "Iz djela E. L Crijevica dubrovcanina", Starine, IV, 1872, pp. 155-200; G. N. Sola: "Aelii Lampridii Cervini Operum latinorum pars prior", Archivio storico per la Dalmazia, XVI-XIX, 1934.

[82] Crijevic was no exception among humanists. The Croatian poetic language was still rudimentary ("nostra tempestate scythica lingua utimur", Crijevic), compared to the Italian of Dante and Petrarch; Despite this, Francesco F. Sabino called the Italian language in 1536 "linguam non vulgarem, sed immudam, non barbaram, sed ipsam barbariem" cf. Kombol, op. cit., p. 67). Many humanists shared that opinion; cf. W. K. Ferguson: The Renaissance in Historical Thought, p. 21.

[83] Sisgoric's work: De situ Illyriae et civitate Sibenici a 1487 was published by Srepel in Gradja za povijest knjizevnosti hrv., II, 1899, 1-12. In its last extremely interesting chapter, 17 ("De moribus quibusdam Sibenici") we read this phrase relating to popular amatory poetry: "Petulans deinde iuventus, cupidinibusque capture, voce valens amatorium carmen tale noctu decantant quale vix cultus Tibullus aut blandus Propertius aut lascivus Licoridis Gallus aut Lesbia Sappho decantaret" (in Gradja, II, 11).

[84] In the same chapter on popular customs, Sisgoric states: "Siquidem proverbiis Illyricis utuntur, quae nos dicteria diximus, et ex lingua vernacula in latinum vertimus." It is a pity that this only translation has been lost.

[85] Branko Vodnik: Povijest hrvatske knjizevnosti, Zagreb 1913, p. 77.

[86] An incomplete selection of Pannonius's elegies and epigrams was published in Zagreb in 1951 by the Academy of Sciences and Arts in the series entitled Hrvatski Latinisti (Croatian Latinists). Alongside the Latin text was published the Croatian translation by the poet Nikola Sop. In an excellent preface, the Latinist Mihovil Kombol describes Pannonius's political service to the court of King Matthias Corvinus and emphasizes his place among the Neo-Latin poets. For Kombol, Pannonius's greatest poetic achievements are his III, X, and XIV elegies (Pjesme i epigrami, p. XVI).

[87] Cesmicki is characterized by his dense and highly picturesque verses about the Bosnian landscape:

Pars fuit Illyrici, quam nunc vocat incola Bosnam,

Dura, sed argenti munere dives humus.

Non illic viries spacioso margine campi,

Nec sata qui multo foenere reddat ager.

Sad regidi montes, sed saxa minantia coelo,

Castella et summis imposita alta jugis...

Cf. Pjesme i epigrami, pp. 36 and 322.

[88] Ante Kadic: "Croatian Renaissance", Studies in the Renaissance, VI (1959, 34-35).

[89] See Zbornik Marka Marulica 1450-1950, Zagreb, 1950; the, M. Kombol's introduction to Judita, ed. V. Stefanic, Zagreb, 1950, pp. 9-22; Cvito Fiskovic: "Prilog zivotopisu Marka Marulica Pecenica," in Republika, VI (1950), 186-204. Marko Marulic's name appears in very few European and American encyclopedias, so Mirko Usmiani's article in Harvard Slavic Studies, III (1957), 1-48, devoted entirely to Marulic's bibliography, is commendable.

[90] Mirko Deanovic aptly observes that none of those Italian humanists left a significant trace in Marulic's works (in Revue de lit. comparée, 1934, p. 40).

[91] Petar Kolendic: Maruliceva oporuka, Split, 1934. It is obvious from his will that Marulic's interest in Italian literature was extremely limited; He translated Petrarch's poem "Vergine bella" into Latin.

[92] Marulic's words in his famous poem "In somnium diurnum"; cf. Zbornik, p. 8.

[93] Ksenija Atanasijevic: Penseurs Yougoslaves, Belgrade, 1937, pp. 19-43.

[94] Animadversio in eos qui beatum Hieronyrum Italum esse contendunt; see I. Lucic: De regno Dalmatiae (Amstedolami, 1666), which also includes Marulic's Latin translation of Regnum Dalmatiae et Croatiae gesta.

[95] Some other books by Marulic, in order of importance, would be: Evangelistarium (Venice, 1516); Quinquaginta parabolae (Venice, 1510); De humilitate et gloria Cristi (Venice, 1519). Those Latin books earned him glory as "fidei propugnator acerrimus, princeps suae aetatis philosophus, sacrarum literarum scientia nemini secundus" or "post divum Hieronyrum Dalmatiae secunda gloria"; cf. Jezic, Hrvatska knjizevnost, p. 71. M. Srepel published several Latin poems by Marulic in Gradja, 2 (1899), 13-92.

[96] Ante Kadic: "St. Francis Xavier and Marko Marulic", Slavic and East European Journal, Spring 1961, pp. 12-15; Franjo Galinec: "Marulic kao teoloski ugled i knjizevni izvor", Vrela i Prinosi, V (Zagreb, 1935), 79-92.

[97] We transcribe one of his short poems in Latin (Zbornik, p. 10):

Quaeris cur conjunx te dilexerat olim

Nunc fugit et duris litibus exagitat.

Verius haud quicquam possum tibi dicere, Marce:

Dilexit iuvenem, never fugit illa senem.

Omnibus hoc vitium est miseros odere maritos,

Aetas longa quibus languida membra facit.

Vis tu pace frui, cum sit tibi candida barba,

I procul, atque alio Vivere says crazy.

[98] M. Srepel, in Gradja, 4 (1904), 189-215.

[99] Usmiani states that "Marulic was the first humanist to compose a poem of such length and scope and the only one who chose his hero from the Old Testament," Harvard Slavic Studies, III, 1.

[100] J. Badalic, in Davidias, pp. 9, 278.

[101] Franjo Fancev: Gradja za pjesnicki leksikon hrv. jezika, in Gradja, 15 (1940) 182-200.

[102] Cf. Kombol: Povjest hrv. knjizevnosti, pp. 82-87, and especially Petar Skok: "O stilu Maruliceve Judite," in Zbornik, pp. 165-241, where he states that Marulic's originality lies primarily in his style.

[103] Marulic, Judita, ed. Marcel Kusan with introduction by P. Kasandric (Zagreb, 1901); idem, Judita, ed. V. Stefanic with Introd. by M. Kombol (Zagreb 1951).

[104] Milan Resetar, ed. Pjesme Siska Mencetica, Dzore Drzica i ostale pjesme Ranjinina Zbornika (Zagreb 1937), with a magnificent introduction.

[105] J. Torbarina: Italian influence on the poets of the Ragusan Republic, pp. 91-137; It should be noted, however, that an old theory of Jagic ("Trubaduri i najstariji hrvatski lirici", Rad, 9 1869, 203-33) was taken up by M. Murko: "Nekoliko rijeci o prvim dubrovackim pjesnicima", in Resetarov Zbornik (Dubrovnik, 1931), pp. 233-43, suggesting that the first poets of Dubrovnik were under the influence of the troubadours via Naples.

[106] Cf. Dragoljub Pavlovic: Dubrovacka poezija (2nd ed.; Belgrade, 1956), pp. 60-62, 193-98.

[107] Grga Novak, Hvar (Belgrade, 1924), passim; B. Vodnik: Povijest hrvatske knjizevnosti, pp. 113–116.

[108] Giovanni Maver: Letteratura serbo-croata (Milan, 1960), p. 117.

[109] Ribanje, which was published in 1874 by S. Ljubic in the collection Stari pisci hrvatski, reappeared (Zagreb, 1953) in the series on Croatian authors, in a photostatic reproduction of the earlier edition published by the Academy of Zagreb. Cf. also Ribanje i ribarsko prigovaranje, ed. Ramiro Bujas, Zagreb, 1951.

[110] The fishermen were not real, but "totally distorted," according to Marin Franicevic, insofar as they are obedient and loyal to their master. What about the class struggle? Cf. Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, s. v. Hektorovic, III (1958), 667.

[111] Cf. Dragutin Subotic, Jugoslav Popular Ballads (Cambridge, 1932), p. 147; H. Munro and N. Kershaw Chadwiek: The Growth of Literature (Cambridge, 1936), II, 300; Matija Murko: Tragom srpsko-hrvatske narodne epike, Zagreb, 1951, I-II, passim.

[112] M.A., Petkovic: Dubrovacke maskerate, Belgrade, 1950, pp. 29-94; Cronia: Storia della serbo-croata letteratura, pp. 46.

[113] Trograncic: Croatian Letteratura, pp. 74-77.

[114] Cf. Resetar, Djela Marina Drzica.

[115] Prior to the Council of Trent, the general situation among the lower Catholic clergy in Dubrovnik was rather dubious from a moral point of view. See A. Theiner: Vetera monumenta Slavorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia, II, Zagreb, 1875, pp. 330-36. Visitor apostolicus exponit statum republicae ragusinae rationemque reformationis: "Il clero ha molti preti di mala vita, per il più ignoranti, concubinari o al men con donne suspetosissime in casa, poverissimi per il più servono alli nobili nelle cose profane e vile", Tomo Matic: "Vjera i crkva", Rad, 231 (1925), 250-83; Ivan Vitezic: La prima visita apostolica posttridentina in Dalmazia (Rome, 1957), pp. 29-34.

[116] In Djela Marina Drzica, Stari pisci hrvatski, VII, ed. Milan Resetar, Zagreb, 1930, p. CXXVII; Marin Drzic, ed. Miroslav Pantic, Belgrade, 1958, p. 60.

[117] C. Jirecek: "Beiträge zur ragusanischen Literaturgeschichte", Archiv für slavische Philologie, XXI (1899), 483-93; Jorjo Tadic: Promet putnika u starom Dubrovniku, p. 292.

[118] Resetar, in Djela Marina Drzica.

[119] Ibid.

[120] "Messe Marino Raguseo rectore di Sapiantia che intervenne alla comedia si citi e si riprenda in collegio", the National Archive of Siena, Balia, 123 (previously 99), letter 39b-40b. P. Skok was the first to write (Razprave, 1930, pp. 39-41) about Drzic's presence in the performance of the comedy banned by the censor. We know that on February 9, 1542, Drzic was not a mere spectator but played the role of the lover ("Magnificus Rector Sapientiae qui amasium in ea comedia egit") Fondo del Capitano di Giustizia (Capitaneus iusticie Senarum), register 58, p. 69.

[121] The notarial records for the years 1541–45, relating to the University of Siena, currently kept in the archives of the Curia archivescovile, were examined by Dr. Ubaldo Morandi (archivist in Siena), without finding any indication that Drzic obtained a degree.

[122] Torbarina, op. cit., pp. 138–39; Arturo Cronia: "II petrarchismo nel Cinquecento serbo-croato", Studi Petrarcheschi, I (1948), 242–45 ("Ben little remains, communicate, say year, say sentito and di spontaneo in Darsa")

[123] Jorjo Tadic: Dubrovacki portreti, Belgrade, 1948, pip. 101-11; Reset, op. cit.

[124] These letters were discovered by Professor Jean Dayre (Marin Drzic conspirant à Florence", Revue des études slaves, filza 54 (previously 77), fasc. 65 ("Lettera di Marino Darsa Raguseo del 1566 long, e molto singolare e originale al Granduca Cosimo primo nella quale gli propose la maniera di impadronirsi della Repubblica di Ragusa, e nella quale spiega le cose del governo presente); the second (July 3), the third (July 23) and the fourth (August 28) are preserved in Mediceo, filza 522 (previously Carteggio universale, filza 192).

[125] Jorjo Tadic: Dubrovacki portreti, pp. 124-25.

[126] Stari prisci hrvatski, VII.

[127] Revue des études slaves, X, 30; Dubrovacke studije, pp. 22-23.

[128] Marin Drzic pjesnik dubrovacke sirotinje, Zagreb, 1950; also in Hrvatsko Kolo, Nos. 2-3, 1949, pp, 312-43.

[129] Dragoljub Pavlovic: "Novi podaci za biografiju Marina Drzica", in Iz knjizevne á kulturne istorije Dubrovnika (Sarajevo, 1955), now reprinted in Marin Drzic, ed Pantic; pp. 20 ("Father Marió Darsa, chaplain of the Reverend Patriarch of this city of Venice").

[130] Ante Kadic: "Marin Drzic, Croatian Renaissance Playwright", Comparative Literature, Fall, 1959, p. 349-50.

[131] This criterion is so common in Italy that even a scholarly professor like Arturo Cronia, in his review of Serbian-Croatian literature, writes about Drzic: "Scarsa la originalità, ché quasi tutto, dalla typologia alla phraselogia, è desunto dall' Italian", Letteratura serbo-croata, Milan 1956, pp. 57-58; cf. also his article: "Per una retta interpretazione di Marino Darsa", Rivista di letterature moderne, IV (1956), 203.

[132] Djela Marina Drzica, ed. Reset, p. 105.

[133] Since Creizenach made some ambiguous statements about Drzic's Plakir (in Geschichte des neuen Drama, II, 499-90), many Croatians presumed that there was a real similarity between Drzic's Plakir and Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. Some critics maintain that Shakespeare, in writing his comedy, drew on an unknown Italian source. Did Drzic use the same source? Perhaps the Italian original can be found.

[134] Dragoljub Pavlovic: "Komedija u nasoj renesansnoj knjizevnosti," in Marin Drzic, ed. Pantic, p. 211.

[135] Pavle Popovic considers Omakala to be a "comic character"; Nevertheless, he observed that his criticism of the Dubrovnik ladies is serious, although likely to provoke laughter ("Jedna pastorala Marina Drzica", Godisnjica Nikole Cupica, XLIV, 219-33, reprinted in Marin Drzic, ed. Pantic, pp. 169-71).

[136] "Il ne copie pas ses modèles, il les adapte, au contraire, afin que ce cadre puisse répondre aux exigences locals de Raguse et c'est ainsi qu'il crée ses pièces originals, des tableaux riches et vivants, chroniques dramatisées de sa ville." Mirko Deanovic, "Les influences italiennes sur I'ancienne littérature Yugoslave du littoral adriatique", Revue de Littérature Comparée, XIV, 1934, 46.

[137] Reset: Djela Marina Drzica, p. 47. The relaxation of Ragusa's youth is considered by certain critics as an implicit social censure; cf. Kombol: Novela od Stanca, Zagreb, 1949, pp. 42-43, and F. Svelec: "Neke misli o Drzicevoj Noveli od Stanca", Republika, 1954, p. 638.

[138] See Petar Kolendic: "Premijera Drziceva Dunda Maroja", Glas, 1951, p. 53.

[139] Milan Bogdanovic: Stari i novi, IV, 188; Eli Finci: "Marin Drzic; Dundo Maroje", Knjizevnost, Nos. 7-8, 1949, pp. 112-17; Vise manje od zivota, Belgrade, 1955, pp. 21-30; Zivko Jelicic: "Ljudi nazbilj i ljudi nahvao u Drzicevoj komediji", reproduced from the magazine Mogucnosti, Split, 1957, Nos. 8-9.

[140] Djela Marina Drzica, ed. Reset, pp. 256-58; Dundo Maroje, Belgrade, 1951, pp. 20-22.

[141] Dragoljub Pavlovic: op. cit., p. 18. Y. Marchiori: "Riflessi del Teatro Italiana nel Dundo Maroje", p. 25; Kombol: Poviest hrv. kjnizevnosti, p. 104.

[142] In Rivista di letterature moderne, 1953, p. 203. "Change the vernice to such a scene, change the name to such personaggio raguseo, change the form to such allusione alla società ragusea, e avrete il correspondente Italiano."

[143] "Riflessi del Teatro Italiana nel Dundo Maroje di Marino Darsa", Rivista Dalmatica, Nos. 2-3, 1958.

[144] Cf. Franjo Svelec in his recent and meticulous study: "Dundo Maroje u raspravi Jolande Marchiori", Zadarska revija, Nos. 3-4, 1960.

[145] Besides Calandria (printed in Siena in 1521), Drzic may have seen Gl'ingannati, the finest Sienese comedy; an interesting comparative study could be written on the external similarities between Drzic's play and Gl'ingannati. Cf. Ireneo Sanesi, Comedie del Cinquecento, I, Bari 1912, 409; Mario Apollonio: Storia del teatro italiano, II, Florence, 1951, 1958-63. Luigi Russo writes about Calandria: "La Leggerezza gioiosa che percorre la Calandria è testimonianza di ispirazione genuine, ma non di ispirazione profonda", Commedie Fiorentine del `500 (Florence, 1939), p. 193.

[146] "Sva je ukradena iz njekoga libra starijeg neg je staros -iz Plauta", Djela Marina Drzica, ed. Reset, p. 200.

[147] "Skup Marina Drzica prema Plautovoj Aululariji", Rad, 99 (1890), 185-237.

[148] "Die Aulularia des Plautus in einer südslavischen Umarbeitung aus der Mittel des XVI. Jahrhunderts", in Festschrift Johannes Vahlen (Berlin, 1900), p. 637; translated into Croatian by M. Kombol: Izabrani kraci spisi Vatroskcva Jagica, Zagreb 1948, p. 352.

[149] "Problem odnosa Drziceva teatra rema talijanskoj dsnjizevnosti," Zadarska revija, No. 1, 1958, pp. 10–28 ("The author concludes that Drzic's Skup, based on a theme by Plautus, is an independently constructed play, linked to the Italian playwrights by the use of the same technique—generally used in European drama at that time—and by the common source for the basic plot taken from Plautus," p. 29).

[150] Milan Resetar: "Jezik Marina Drzica," Rad, 248 (1933), 99–100; Vera Javarek aptly notes: "Each of its many and diverse minor characters possesses its own appropriate style of speech," Slavonic and East European Review, No. 88, 1958, pp. 155-56.

[151] Planine was photostatically reproduced by the Zagreb Academy, 1952.

[152] V. Stefanic, Planine Zagreb, 1942, pp. 10-19; Gojko Ruzicic: "Jezik Petra Zoranica", Juznoslovenski filolog, X-XI.

[153] Cf. Stephen Fischer-Galati: Ottoman Imperialism and German Protestantism (Cambridge 1959).

[154] Cf. Josip Horvat: Kultura Hrvata kroz 1000 godina, I, Zagreb 1939, p. 33.8

[155] M. Kombol: "Dinko Ranjina i talijanski petrarkisti", in Gradja, 11, 1932, 64-94; Torbarina: Italian Influence..., pp. 142-97.

[156] Jean Dayre: Dubrovacke studije, Zagreb, 1938, pp. 73-88.

[157] Jorjo Tadic: Dubrovacki portreti, Belgrade, 1948, pp. 316-48; Torbarina: "Tassovi soneti i madrigali u cast Cvijete Zuzoric", in Hrvatsko Kolo, XXI, 1940, 69-96; Ante Kadic: "Cvijeta Zuzoric, legenda i stvarnost", in Hrvatska Revija, V, No. 3, 1955, 285-90.

[158] M. Kombol: "Talijanski utjecaji u Zlataricevoj lirici", Rad, 247, 1933, 212-51; cf. also André Vaillant: La langue de Dominko Zlataric, Paris, 1928.

[159] Torbarina, Italian Influence..., pp. 202-25.

[160] In 1942, in the notorious collection of articles Italia e Croazia, which celebrated the annexation of Dalmatia to Italy, Giovanni Maver wrote: "Dalmatian-Romagan literature in Croatian has, compared to Italian literature, only one essential difference—the language" (p. 485; cf. also p. 481). In his recent book, Letteratura serbo-croata (Milan, 1960), he is more subtle, circumspect, and less biased (cf. pp. 115-16).

[161] A. Cronia: La fortuna del Petrarca fra gli Slavi meridionali, in Annali della Cattedra Petrarchesca, Vol. IV, 1932, and also in a separate book (Arezzo, 1933).

[162] See by the same author: "Agricultural Policy in Yugoslavia," Studia Croatica, Year II, Nos. 2-3, pp. 117-29.

[163] All data for the years 1959, 1960, and 1961 are taken from the FAO's monthly economic and statistical bulletin: Bulletin mensuel économique et statistique agricole, No. 3, March 1962, Rome.

[164] "For it was a true idyll compared to what we have to endure today." Letters from Baron Gabriel Apor to Elemér Homonnay, dated October 30, 1962, and November 29, 1952.

[165] C. A. Macartney; October Fifteenth, Edinburgh, University Press, 1957, Vol. I, p. 86; Antal Ullein-Reviczky: Guerre Allemande - Paix Russe, Neuchatel, Switzerland, 1947, p. 99.

[166] Pesti Hirlap: "Kossutics eloadása az angol külügyi társaságban" (Kossutic's lecture at the English Institute of International Affairs) 11-I-1933; Dr. József Bajza: Jugoszlávia belpolitikája 1932 április 4 után" (The internal politics of Yugoslavia after April 4, 1932); Magyar Szemble, 1934.

[167] Letter from Andrés Tamás to Elemér Homonnay, dated 11-26-1962.