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 |
Porcentaje |
|
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.
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] Ver detalles de lo
cedido en pp. 349-356 de este número.
[2] Texto de la nota
según el diario Borba del 11/12/1962. Citaciones in extenso,
pp. 351-56 del presente número.
[3] Los exilados
croatas en Alemania señalan que uno de los propósitos perseguidos en el ataque
a la delegación comercial yugoslava en Bad Godesberg fue destruir la
documentación relativa a la actividad de refugiados croatas, recogida
celosamente por los agentes de la policía política yugoslava. Ellos actúan en
Alemania Occidental disfrazados como representantes de las empresas comerciales
o como obreros en busca de trabajo, intrigando y provocando frecuentes choques
con los exilados croatas anticomunistas. En ese sentido informaron reiteradamente
los periódicos de los exilados croatas. (Hrvatska Drzava, Munich; Danica,
Chicago) así como los diarios alemanes ("Deutsche Zeitung",
30/XI/62).
[4] "Es difícil
establecer la cifra exacta de protestas enviadas en el curso de las últimas
cinco semanas de Belgrado con destino a Bonn (...). Las relaciones entre las
dos capitales son tensas, a punto que sería inevitable una ruptura si no
hubiera sido consumada ya en octubre de 1957, luego de haber reconocido
Yugoslavia al gobierno de Pankow". Le Monde, París, 11/I/1963.
[5] Cf. "La farsa
de la amnistía política en Yugoslavia", Studia Croatica N°
7/8, p. 238.
[6] Esos crímenes los
conoce muy bien el gobierno de Bonn, que recientemente publicó una extensa
documentación sobre el triste destino de los 500.000 integrantes de la minoría
étnica alemana en Yugoslavia (Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen
aus Ost - Mitteleuropa. Das Schicksal der Deutschen in Jugoslavien. Documentación sobre
la expulsión de los alemanes de Europa Oriental y Central. La suerte de los
alemanes en Yugoslavia).
[7] Cf. El editorial
"Crímenes impunes", Studia Croatica, No. 6.
[8] L'Aurore, París,
30/11/1962, ¡publicó la declaración de un testigo
ocular del hecho: "Vi bajar (del ómnibus que trajo a los obreros
manifestantes de la zona minera de Ruhr) a una treintena de hombres de 20 a 30
años. Formaron filas llevando pancartas, y creí que se trataba de una farsa
estudiantil." Le Monde, París, 1/12/1962 informó que el ataque fue
ejecutado por "una treintena de hombres jóvenes". Lo mismo informaron en sus despachos las agencias A.P., U.P. y AFP,
que fueron publicados también en la prensa latinoamericana. Se entiende que
esos datos fueron difundidos también por los diarios alemanes. (Frankfurter Allgemeine,
30/XI/62). En cambio, la prensa yugoslava controlada y
dirigida ni mencionó ese aspecto.
[9] Ver:
"Discriminación perjudicial..." pp.. 356-58
del presente volumen.
[10] Dobrisa Cosic, el
más prominente escritor comunista servio, afirmó en un artículo que dio pábulo
a airadas polémicas, "que la lucha contra los nacionalismos
enloquecidos" constituye el problema interno de mayor importancia en la
Yugoslavia comunista. "¿No ven a esos vampiros?... ¿No ven que muchos no
tienen bigotes ni barba? Son unos fantasmas jóvenes, mocosos. Los barbudos,
desde luego, reventarán un día, pero los que están creciendo..." (Nasa
Sodobnost, Ljubljana, diciembre 1961). En su discurso de Split, pronunciado
el 6/5/1962, y escasamente registrado por la prensa mundial, Tito condenó
enérgicamente la aparición "del chovinismo nacional" incluso en las
filas de los comunistas en Croacia, que amenaza "la fraternidad y la
unidad de nuestros pueblos". Igual que Cosic, Tito ve el mayor peligro en
el fortalecimiento de la conciencia nacional de la juventud: "Uno se
siente angustiado -dijo Tito- viendo cómo ese chovinismo está ganando a
nuestros jóvenes" (S. C., N° 7/8, p. 188).
[11] Robert E.
Sherwood: Roosevelt y Hopkins - Una historia íntima, Barcelona
1950, Vol. II, p. 242.
[12] Sus causales las
analiza el eminente sociólogo y profesor de la Universidad de Indiana D. A.
Tomasic, en su estudio: "Nueva clase y nacionalismo", Studia
Croatica, N° 1, pp. 61-77.
[13] Art. I, párr. 2 de la Carta.
[14] En el artículo
primero de dicha Constitución se expresa que "La República Federal Popular
de Yugoslavia es un Estado federal popular de forma republicana, una comunidad
de pueblos con derechos iguales, quienes en virtud del derecho de
autodeterminación, incluyendo el derecho de separación, expresaron su deseo de
vivir conjuntamente en el Estado Federal".
[15] De hecho, por lo
menos en Croacia, no hubo tal unanimidad. El gobierno comunista, para dar
cierta apariencia de elecciones libres, colocó junto a las urnas en que se
depositaban votos para los candidatos oficiales, las llamadas "urnas
negras" para que los electores, no sin peligro, depositasen su voto
negativo. En Croacia muchos se abstuvieron de votar, pese al voto obligatorio,
o votaron . "en negro", según los
resultados oficiales que, a no dudarlo, fueron corregidos o reajustados en
favor de la lista oficial. No hubo posibilidad alguna de control y verificación
de los datos oficiales.
[16] Los datos
oficiales del censo de 1948.
[17] Cf. Memorándum a
los participantes en la Conferencia de los países no comprometidos, S.
C. Nro. 5, p. 321 y Memorándum al Primer Ministro John Diefenbaker, S.
C., Nros. 7-8, p. 215.
[18] Se usó
precisamente ese término en un importante documento, la Resolución del V.
Congreso de la Internacional Comunista. Allí se expresa que las potencias
vencedoras en la primera guerra mundial en los tratados de paz de 1919
"habían creado nuevos pequeños Estados imperialistas anexando territorios
con población extranjera". Menciona también a Yugoslavia.
"Consecuentemente, los partidos comunistas de Europa Central y de los
Balcanes tienen el deber de apoyar, con todos los medios, movimientos
nacionales revolucionarios de los pueblos oprimidos. La aplicación "del
derecho de autodeterminación a todos los pueblos; inclusive el derecho a
separación" debe... exteriorizarse mediante la concreción "de la
separación estatal de los pueblos oprimidos de la formación estatal de Polonia,
Rumania, Checoslovaquia, Yugoslavia y Grecia". "El Congreso encarga a
los partidos comunistas de Polonia, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Checoslovaquia y
Grecia librar una lucha enérgica contra este colonialismo". (Thesen und Resolutionen des V. Weltkongresses der
Komunistischen Internationale, Hamburgo 1924, pp. 124-133).
[19] Ver nota 12 y el
estudio del mismo autor.
[20] Cap. VII del
"Protocolo de la Conferencia de Crimea" Edward R. Stettinius: Roosevelt
y los rusos - La Conferencia de Yalta, Barcelona, 1950, p. 225.
[21] Ibid. p. 216.
[22] Churchill: Second World War, V 470.
[23] Sacha Simon,
enviado especial permanente en Belgrado del diario parisino Le Figaro informó
a su redacción: "El representante de Relaciones Exteriores afirmó que Bonn
no toma las medidas enérgicas que proceden para contener la actividad
subversiva y criminal de los "Ustachi" refugiados en Alemania. Esta
sería una de las razones que impiden el restablecimiento de las relaciones
diplomáticas normales entre los dos países" (Le Figaro, París
17/12/1962).
[24] Despacho de Paul
Yankovich, "corresponsal particular" en Belgrado del diario de
París Le Monde, 11/1/1963. Parece que dicho corresponsal
adopta el punto de vista del gobierno yugoslavo en el sentido de que Bonn, que
pagó la indemnización a los franceses, holandeses, noruegos, etc. debería
satisfacer también las demandas de los comunistas yugoslavos. "El hecho de
que las relaciones diplomáticas con Bonn estén rotas -dice Yankovich- nada
cambia el asunto". Pues ese corresponsal no toma en cuenta la expulsión y
exterminación de medio millón de alemanes en Yugoslavia después de la guerra,
sus sufrimientos y confiscación de sus bienes, los tratos inhumanos a los
prisioneros de guerra alemanes, ni tampoco las relaciones íntimas y amistosas
de Alemania con los países de la Europa Occidental.
[25] En la aludida nota
de Belgrado del 10/12/1962 se reconoce expresamente que las autoridades
alemanas antes de la ruptura de las relaciones diplomáticas tomaban medidas contra
los exilados croatas atendiendo las repetidas demandas de Belgrado. Al respecto
citan la nota del gobierno de Bonn dirigida el 4/4/1955 al gobierno de
Belgrado, comunicando que las autoridades alemanas habían tomado las medidas
necesarias para impedir actividades de los emigrados croatas "contra la
integridad del Estado yugoslavo". Belgrado, en su nota del 10/12/1962,
reconoce que en "el lapso en que esas disposiciones se llevaban a cabo,
quedó suspendida toda actividad antiyugoslava, por lo menos pública, en la
República Federal Alemana". Recién tras la ruptura de relaciones -acota la
nota- "los elementos quislings croatas en Alemania reanudaron su actividad
antiyugoslava".
[26] Borba, Belgrado.
14/11/1961.
[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, Instituto
Federal para la Estadística, Belgrado, 11/1962, 44-47.
[30] Annuaire
Statistique des Nations Unies, 1961, pp. 53-57.
[31] Vjesnik, 19-XII-1962
(artículo de K. Dzeba).
[32] El Anuario
Estadístico de Yugoslavia, 1962, p. 65. Declaraciones del ministro de
finanzas Mincev en los debates parlamentarios acerca del plan para 1963. Vjesnik,
29-XII-1962.
[33] El Anuario
Estadístico de Yugoslavia, 1962, p. 65. Declaraciones del ministro de
finanzas Mincev en los debates parlamentarios acerca del plan para 1963. Vjesnik,
29-XII-1962.
[34] De los debates
parlamentarios, Vjesnik 30-XII-1962.
[35] Vjesnik, 19-XII-1962 (de
los debates parlamentarios).
[36] O.
Blagojevic: Inversiones en la agricultura, Belgrado 1959, p.
227; Inversiones 1947-58. El Banco Yugoslavo de Inversiones,
Belgrado 1959.
[37] El Anuario
Estadístico de Yugoslavia para 1958, 1960 y 1962.
[38] Según la
declaración del ministro de economía M. Todorovic; Vjesnik, 8-IV-1962.
[39] De la reunión del
Comité Ejecutivo de la Alianza Socialista del Pueblo Trabajador de Yugoslavia; Vjesnik,
11-XII-1962.
[40] Ekonomska Politika, semanario,
Belgrado 10-XI-1962.
[41] VII Congreso de la
Alianza Comunista Yugoeslava, Kultura, Belgrado, 1958, p. 54.
Discurso de Tito ante la Asamblea Nacional.
[42] S. Popovic: El
equipamiento técnico de trabajo. "Ekonomist", Belgrado, 1-2 1959
[43] Del discurso de
Tito en IV Plenario del Comité Central de la Alianza Comunista
Yugoeslava, Vjesnik 25/VII/1962.
[44] Vjesnik, 14/X/1962.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Vjesnik, 2/XII/1962.
[47] Vjesnik, 30/XII/1962.
[48] Vjesnik, 10/XII/1962.
[49] Vjesnik, 19/XII/1962.
[50] Vjesnik, 10/XI/1962.
[51] Vjesnik,
11/XII/1962. Cabe hacer notar que los salarios de la industria
en Yugoslavia oscilan entre 8.000 y 25.000 dinares (10,7 y 32 dólares,
respectivamente) para el 67,5% del total de los ocupados. (Indeks, 11/1962, p. 50).
[52] Vjesnik. 20/XII/1962
(artículo de K. Dzeba).
[53] Ante Kadic es profesor
asistente de idiomas y literaturas eslavos en la Universidad de Indiana, EE.UU.
El autor agradece a American Philosophical Society que hizo posible la
investigación necesaria para este trabajo.
[54] V. Jagic:
"Hrvatska glagolska knjizevnost", en Povijest hrvatske
knjizevnosti de Vodnik, Zagreb 1913,pp. 9-60.
[55] F. Sisic: Povijest
Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara, Zagreb 1925. Acerca del rey Zvonimir y
su muerte violenta, ver el reciente estudio de Stipe Gunjaca: "Kako i gdje
je svrsio hrvatsiki kralj Dimitrije Zvonimir", Rad, 288
(1952), pp. 205-324 (Rad se refiere a los anales de la Academia de
Ciencias y Artes de Zagreb).
[56] G. Novak:
Prosilost Dalmacije, I. Zagreb 1944, pp. 115-16; M. Kostrenicic: "Postanak
dalmatinskih sredovjecnih gradova", en Sisicev Zbornik (El Simposio de
Sisic), Zagreb 1929, pp. 113-19; ídem, "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, N° 2, 1948, pp. 241-65.
[58] El conocido
arquitecto T. G. Jackson afirma que ese portal es "una obra que por su
sencilla concepción, combinada con la riqueza de detalles, y por su maravillosa
y acabada ejecución, nunca fue superada en el arte románico o gótico", en
su obra Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, II, Oxford 1887, 111.
Las entalladuras de Radovan denotan rebosante alegría de la vida; cf.
Fiskovic, op. cit., p. 248.
[59] Cf. Numerosos
estudios de Petar Skok, especialmente su trabajo "O simbiozi i nestanku
starih Romana u Dalmaciji i na Primorju u svijetlu onomastike", Razprave,
IV, Ljubljana 1928, pp. 1-42, y su libro: 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, N° 78, diciembre 1953, p. 17.
[61] Según la crónica
de uno de los participantes en esa Cruzada, Geoffrey de Villehardouin, el mismo
dux llamó a Zadar "Jadres en Esclavonie"; cf. P. Skok; Tri
starofrancuske kronike o Zadru u godini 1202, Zagreb 1951, p. 84.
[62] Casi para cada una
de las ciudades dálmatas se puede reconstruir el cuadro de la penetración
croata en base a los registros de los nombres y apellidos, Cf. Grga Novak:
Proslost Dalmacije I, Zagreb 1944, 175-80 (cap. VIII: Croatización de las
ciudades romanizadas en Dalmacia).
[63] Benedetto
Ramberti, Secretario del Senado de Venecia, pasando por Dubrovnik en 1534 en su
viaje a Turquía, observó que todas las mujeres en Dubrovnik hablaban en croata
y sus maridos en croata e italiano; cf. V. Novak: "The Slavonic Latin
Symbiosis in Dalmatia..., "p. 19; sobre Ramberti ver Jorjo Tadic: Promet
putnika u starom Dubrovniku, Dubrovnik 1939, pp. 212-13, y P. Matkovics en
Rad, 56 (1881), 203-32. El veneciano Giovanni B. Giustiniano informó a su
gobierno en 1553, que en Split, Trogir, Sibenik, Zadar y Dubrovnik, toda la
gente común hablaba en croata; ver Commissiones et relationes Venetae, II,
S. Ljubic, Zagreb 1877, 190271.
Acerca de Split dijo que todas sus costumbres eran eslavas y que el idioma del
pueblo "es tan dulce y suave que es el primero entre todos los dialectos
dálmatas, como el idioma toscano es la final flor del habla italiana" (p.
215).
[64] En un llamado,
mandado al Papa desde Dalmacia en 1604, probablemente por P. Katic, se declara
que únicamente un pequeño número de croatas sabe el italiano, en su mayoría
mercaderes y nobles, "pero la gente común, las jóvenes monjas, las mujeres
nobles y los monjes no saben decir ni una palabra en italiano", en Ljubo
Karaman: Dalmacija kroz vjekove u historiji umjetnosti, Split 1934,
p. 132, N° 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] Un poeta popular
expresó la realidad diaria en esos términos: "Sangre con nuestro almuerzo,
sangre con nuestra cena. Toda la comida está empapada de sangre. Lavamos nuestras
manos y caras con sangre". C. Fiskovic; op. cit., p. 259.
[67] Dubrovnik pagaba
tributo primero a Venecia (1205-1358), luego a los reyes húngaro-croatas (hasta
1526), y por último a los sultanes turcos.
[68] "Hrvatskih
ter kruna gradov se svih zove", escribió Ivan Vidali de Korcula en
1564; Stari pisci hrvatski, V, 352. Lodovico Beccadelli (1501-72),
que era arzobispo de Dubrovnik durante un decenio, la llamó "specchio d'
Illiria e suo pregio maggiore"; ver Josip Torbarina: Italian
Influence on the Poets of the Ragusan Republic, Londres 1931, p. 51.
[69] No es mi propósito
entrar aquí en discusión acerca del significado del Renacimiento italiano en la
historia de Europa Occidental. Prefiero referirme a los dos últimos capítulos
de la obra de W. K. Ferguson: The Renaissance in Historical Thought,
Boston 1948, pp. 290-385. Los poetas dálmatas en latín, al menos desde el punto
de vista religioso, deben ser considerados como continuadores de la Edad Media.
[70] Cf. Un exhaustivo,
interesante y muy discutible artículo de Giovanni Maver: "La letteratura
croata in rapporto alla letteratura italiana",Italia e
Croazia, Roma 1942, XX, pp. 455-522. También 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., parte I: "Relations
between Dubrovnik and Italy", pp. 19-87; Jorjo Tadic, op. cit., p. 207.
[72] A. Cronia: Storia
della Letteratura serbo-croata, Milán, 1956, dice correctamente:
"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, en el capítulo "La Poesía Latina"
afirma que: "La lingua latina fu, tra l'altro, per secoli, un modo di
scambio nella republica letterario-scientifica, e anche nel mondo della
politica", 3° ed., Bari 1952, p. 439.
[74] "Nessuno
infatti di questi autori negò la propia nazionalità croata..." Franjo
Trograncic: Storia della letteratura croata, Roma 1953, pp. 119-20.
[75] Cf. J.
Torbarina: Italian influence..., passim, especialmente
p. 50, donde cita al arzobispo 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, su
editor moderno, Zagreb 1951, ofrece un cuadro fidedigno de Dalmacia y de Hvar
durante la primera mitad del siglo XVI. El estudio de Novak incluye el texto
latino de Pribojevic y su traducción vertida en croata por Veliko Gortan.
[78] De origine successibusque Slavorum, Zagreb 1951, p. 58.
[79] De origine successibusque Slavorum, Zagreb 1951, p. 58.
[80] Este poema tuvo su
tercera edición en Basilea en 1538. Cf. Dj. Korbler: "Jakov Bunic
Dubrovcanin: Latinski pjesnik", Rad, 180, 1910, pp. 58-134.
[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 no era
una excepción entre los humanistas. El lenguaje poético croata era todavía
rudimentario ("nostra tempestate scythica lingua utimur", Crijevic),
comparado con el italiano de Dante y Petrarca; no obstante ello, Francesco F.
Sabino llamó en 1536 la lengua italiana "linguam non vulgarem, sed
immudam, non barbaram, sed ipsam barbariem" cf. Kombol, op. cit.,
p. 67 ) . Muchos humanistas compartían esa
opinión; cf. W. K. Ferguson: The Renaissance in Historical Thought,
p. 21.
[83] La obra de
Sisgoric: De situ Illyriae et civitate Sibenici a 1487 fue
publicada por Srepel en Gradja za povijest knjizevnosti hrv., II, 1899, 1-12.
En su último capítulo sumamente interesante, 17 ("De moribus quibusdam
Sibenici") leemos esta frase relativa a la poesía popular amatoria:
"Petulans deinde iuventus, cupidinibusque capta, voce valens amatorium
carmen tale noctu decantant quale vix cultus Tibullus aut blandus Propertius
aut lascivus Licoridis Gallus aut Lesbia Sappho decantaret" (en Gradja,
II, 11).
[84] En el mismo
capítulo sobre las costumbres populares, Sisgoric declara: "Siquidem
proverbiis Illyricis utuntur, quae nos dicteria diximus, et ex lingua vernacula
in latinum vertimus". Es una lástima que se haya extraviado esta única
traducción.
[85] Branko
Vodnik: Povijest hrvatske knjizevnosti, Zagreb 1913, p. 77.
[86] Una selección
incompleta de elegías y epigramas de Pannonius fue publicada en Zagreb, 1951,
por la Academia de Ciencias y Artes, en la serie titulada Hrvatski
Latinisti (Los latinistas croatas). Junto con el texto latino se
publicó la traducción croata hecha por el poeta Nikola Sop. En excelente
prefacio, el latinista Mihovil Kombol describe los servicios políticas de Pannonius a la corte del rey Matías
Corvino, y valoriza el lugar que ocupa entre los poetas neo-latinos. Para
Kombol, los máximos logros poéticos de Pannonius son sus III, X y XIV elegías
(Pjesme i epigrami, p. XVI)
[87] Caracterizan a
Cesmicki sus versos densos y muy pintorescos acerca del paisaje de Bosnia:
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 y 322.
[88] Ante Kadic: "Croatian Renaissance", Studies in
the Renaissence, VI (1959, 34-35).
[89] Ver Zbornik
Marka Marulica 1450-1950, Zagreb, 1950; la, introducción de M. Kombol
a Judita, ed. V. Stefanic, Zagreb, 1950, pp. 9-22; Cvito Fiskovic:
"Prilog zivotopisu Marka Marulica Pecenica", en Republika,
VI (1950), 186-204. El nombre de Marko Marulic figura en muy pocas
enciclopedias europeas y americanas, de modo que es digno de elogio el artículo
de Mirko Usmiani en Harvard Slavic Studies, III (1957), 1-48,
dedicado enteramente a la bibliografía de Marulic.
[90] Mirko Deanovic
observa acertadamente que ninguno de esos humanistas italianos dejó rastro
significante en las obras de Marulic (en Revue de lit. comparée,
1934, p. 40).
[91] Petar Kolendic: Maruliceva oporuka, Split, 1934. Se desprende
obviamente de su testamento que el interés de Marulic por la literatura
italiana era sumamente limitado; tradujo al latín el poema de Petrarca
"Vergine bella".
[92] Las palabras de
Marulic en su célebre poema "In somnium diurnum"; cf. Zbornik,
p. 8.
[93] Ksenija Atanasijevic: Penseurs
Yougoslaves, Belgrado, 1937, pp. 19-43.
[94] Animadversio in
eos qui beatum Hieronymum Italum esse contendunt; ver I. Lucic: De
regno Dalmatiae (Amstedolami, 1666), que incluye también la traducción
latina de Marulic de Regnum Dalmatiae et Croatiae gesta.
[95] Algunos otros
libros de Marulic, por orden de importancia, serían: Evangelistarium (Venecia,
1516); Quinquaginta parabolae (Venecia, 1510); De
humilitate et gloria Cristi (Venecia, 1519). Esos libros en latín le
valieron la gloria como "fidei propugnator acerrimus, princeps suae
aetatis philosophus, sacrarum literarum scientia nemini secundus" o
"post divum Hieronymum Dalmatiae secunda gloria"; cf. Jezic, Hrvatska
knjizevnost, p. 71. M. Srepel publicó varios poemas en latín de Marulic
en 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] Transcribimos uno
de sus cortos poemas en latín (Zbornik, p. 10):
Quaeris
cur conjunx te dilexerat olim
Nunc
fugit et duris litibus exagitat.
Verius
haud quicquam possum tibi dicere, Marce:
Dilexit
iuvenem, nunc 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 disce loco.
[98] M. Srepel,
en Gradja, 4 (1904), 189-215.
[99] Usmiani afirma que
"Marulic fue el primer humanista que compuso un poema de tal extensión y
alcance y el único quien escogió a su héroe del Antiguo Testamento", Harvard
Slavic Studies, III, 1.
[100] J. Badalic,
en Davidias, pp. 9, 278.
[101] Franjo
Fancev: Gradja za pjesnicki leksikon hrv. jezika,
en Gradja, 15 (1940) 182-200.
[102] Cf. Kombol: Povjest
hrv. knjizevnosti, pp. 82-87, y especialmente
Petar Skok: "O stilu Maruliceve Judite", en Zbornik, pp.
165-241, donde afirma que la originalidad de Marulic estriba principalmente en
su estilo.
[103] Marulic, Judita,
ed. Marcel Kusan con introducción de P. Kasandric (Zagreb, 1901); ídem, Judita,
ed. V. Stefanic con Introd. de M. Kombol (Zagreb
1951).
[104] Milan Resetar,
ed. Pjesme Siska Mencetica, Dzore Drzica i ostale pjesme Ranjinina
Zbornika (Zagreb 1937), con una magnífica introducción.
[105] J.
Torbarina: Italian influence on the poets of the Ragusan Republic,
pp. 91-137; cabe destacar, empero, que una vieja teoría de Jagic
("Trubaduri i najstariji hrvatski lirici", Rad, 9 1869,
203-33) la retomó M. Murko: "Nekoliko rijeci o prvim dubrovackim
pjesnicima", en Resetarov Zbornik (Dubrovnik, 1931), pp.
233-43, pretendiendo que los primeros poetas de Dubrovnik estaban bajo la
influencia de los trovadores por intermedio de Nápoles.
[106] Cf. Dragoljub
Pavlovic: Dubrovacka poezija (2º ed.; Belgrado, 1956), pp. 60-62, 193-98.
[107] Grga Novak, Hvar (Belgrado,
1924), passim; B. Vodnik: Povijest hrvatske knjizevnosti,
p. 113-16.
[108] Giovanni Maver:
Letteratura serbo-croata (Milán, 1960) p. 117.
[109] Ribanje, que fue
publicado en 1874 por S. Ljubic en la colección Stari pisci hrvatski,
apareció nuevamente (Zagreb, 1953) en las series de autores croatas, en
reproducción fotostática de la edición anterior al cuidado de la Academia de
Zagreb. Cf. también Ribanje i ribarsko prigovaranje, ed. Ramiro
Bujas, Zagreb, 1951.
[110] Los pescadores no
eran reales, sino "totalmente desfigurados" conforme a Marin
Franicevic, por cuanto son obedientes y leales a su amo. ¿Qué pasa con la lucha
de clase? Cf. Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, s. v. Hektorovic, III (1958), 667.
[111] Cf. Dragutin Subotic, Jugoslav Popular Ballads (Cambridge,
1932), p. 147; H. Munro y 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, Belgrado, 1950,
pp. 29-94; Cronia: Storia della letteratura serbo-croata,
pp. 46.
[113] Trograncic: Letteratura croata, pp. 74-77.
[114] Cf.
Resetar, Djela Marina Drzica.
[115] Con anterioridad
al Concilio de Trento, la situación general entre el bajo clero católico en
Dubrovnik era asaz dudosa desde el punto de vista moral. Ver A. Theiner: Vetera
monumenta Slavorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia, II, Zagreb, 1875,
pp. 330-36. Visitator 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 postridentina in Dalmazia (Roma,
1957), pp. 29-34.
[116] En Djela Marina
Drzica, Stari pisci hrvatski, VII, ed. Milan Resetar, Zagreb, 1930, p. CXXVII; Marin Drzic, ed.
Miroslav Pantic, Belgrado, 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, en Djela
Marina Drzica.
[119] Ibid.
[120] "Messe Marino
Raguseo rectore di Sapiantia che intervenne alla comedia si citi e si riprenda
in collegio", el Archivo Nacional de Siena, Balia, 123 (antes
99), carta 39b-40b. P. Skok fue el primero en escribir (Razprave, 1930,
pp. 39-41) sobre la presencia de Drzic en la representación de la comedia
prohibida por el censor. Sabemos que el 9/II/1542 Drzic no era un simple
espectador sino que desempeñó el papel del amante ("Magnificus Rector
Sapientiae qui amasium in ea comedia egit ) Fondo
del Capitano di Giustizia (Capitaneus iusticie Senarum), registro 58,
p. 69.
[121] Los protocolos
notariales para los años 1541-45, relativos a la Universidad de Siena,
actualmente guardados en los archivos de la Curia arcivescovile, fueron
examinados por el Dr. Ubaldo Morandi (archivista en Siena), sin que se
encontrara indicación alguna de que Drzic obtuvo laurea.
[122] Torbarina, op.
cit., pp. 138-39; Arturo Cronia: "II petrarchismo nel Cinquecento
serbo-croato", Studi Petrarcheschi, I (1948), 242-45
("Ben poco resta, comunque, di auo, di sentito e di spontaneo nel Darsa")
[123] Jorjo Tadic:
Dubrovacki portreti, Belgrado, 1948, pip. 101-11; Resetar, op. cit.
[124] Estas cartas
fueron descubiertas por el profesor Jean Dayre (Marin Drzic conspirant à
Florence", Revue des études slaves, X, 76-80; Dubrovacke
studije, pp. 19-23), y publicadas por Resetar en Djela Marina
Drzica. La primera carta, (fechada 2 de julio de 1566) está catalogada
ahora en Miscellanea Medicea, filza 54 (antes 77), fasc. 65
("Lettera di Marino Darsa Raguseo del 1566 lunga, e molto singolare e
originale al Granduca Cosimo primo nella quale gli propone la maniera di
impadronirsi della Repubblica di Ragusa, e nella quale spiega le cose del
governo presente); la segunda (3 de julio), la tercera (23 de julio) y la
cuarta (agosto 28) se conservan en Mediceo, filza 522 (antes 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; también en Hrvatsko Kolo,
Nros. 2-3, 1949, pp, 312-43.
[129] Dragoljub
Pavlovic: "Novi podaci za biografiju Marina Drzica", en Iz
knjizevne á kulturne istorije Dubrovnika (Sarajevo, 1955), ahora
reimpreso en Marin Drzic, ed Pantic; pp. 20 ("Padre Marinó Darsa,
capellano del Revmo. patriarca di questa città di
Venezia").
[130] Ante Kadic: "Marin Drzic, Croatian Renaissance
Playwright", Comparative Literature, Fall,
1959, p. 349-50.
[131] Ese criterio es
tan común en Italia que incluso un profesor erudito como Arturo Cronia, en su
reseña de la literatura servio-croata, escribe sobre Drzic: "Scarsa la
originalità, ché quasi tutto, dalla tipologia alla fraselogia, è desunto dall'
italiano", Letteratura serbo-croata, Milán 1956, pp. 57-58;
cf. también su artículo: "Per una retta interpretazione di Marino
Darsa", Rivista di letterature moderne, IV (1956), 203.
[132] Djela Marina
Drzica, ed. Resetar, p. 105.
[133] Como Creizenach
hizo algunas afirmaciones ambiguas acerca del Plakir de Drzic
(en Geschichte des neuen Drama, II, 499-90), muchos croatas
presumían que existía una similitud real entre Plakir de Drzic
y El sueño de una noche de verano de Shakespeare. Algunos
críticos sostienen que Shakespeare, al escribir su comedia, recurrió a una
desconocida fuente italiana. ¿Se sirvió Drzic de la misma fuente? Tal vez se
halle el original italiano.
[134] Dragoljub
Pavlovic: "Komedija u nasoj renesansnoj knjizevnosti", en Marin
Drzic, ed. Pantic, p. 211.
[135] Pavle Popovic
estima que Omakala es un "personaje cómico"; no obstante ello,
observó que su criticismo de las señoras de Dubrovnik es serio, aunque
susceptible de provocar risa ("Jedna pastorala Marina Drzica", Godisnjica
Nikole Cupica, XLIV, 219-33, reimpreso en 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 locales de Raguse et c'est ainsi qu'il crée ses pièces
originales, 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] Resetar: Djela
Marina Drzica, p. 47. La relajación de la juventud ragusina es considerada
por ciertos críticos como una censura social implícita; cf. Kombol: Novela
od Stanca, Zagreb, 1949, pp. 42-43, y F. Svelec: "Neke misli o
Drzicevoj Noveli od Stanca", Republika, 1954, p. 638.
[138] Ver 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, Nros. 7-8, 1949, pp. 112-17; Vise
manje od zivota, Belgrado, 1955, pp. 21-30; Zivko Jelicic: "Ljudi
nazbilj i ljudi nahvao u Drzicevoj komediji", reproducido de la
revista Mogucnosti, Split, 1957, Nros. 8-9.
[140] Djela Marina
Drzica, ed. Resetar, pp. 256-58; Dundo Maroje,
Belgrado, 1951, pp. 20-22.
[141] Dragoljub Pavlovic: op. cit., p. 18. Y. Marchiori:
"Riflessi del teatro italiano nel Dundo Maroje", p. 25;
Kombol: Poviest hrv. kjnizevnosti, p. 104.
[142] En Rivista
di letterature moderne, 1953, p. 203. "Cambiate la vernice a tale
scena cambiate il nome a tale personaggio raguseo, cambiate la forma a tale
allusione alla società ragusea, e avrete il corrispondente italiano".
[143] "Riflessi del
teatro italiano nel Dundo Maroje di Marino Darsa", Rivista
Dalmatica, Nros. 2-3, 1958.
[144] Cf. Franjo Svelec
en su reciente y minucioso estudio: "Dundo Maroje u raspravi
Jolande Marchiori", Zadarska revija, Nros. 3-4, 1960.
[145] Además de Calandria (impresa
en Siena en 1521), Drzic pudo haber visto Gl'ingannati, la mejor
comedia sienesa; un interesante estudio comparativo podría escribirse sobre las
similitudes externas entre la obra de Drzic y los Gl'ingannati. Cf.
Ireneo Sanesi, Comedie del Cinquecento, I, Bari 1912, 409; Mario
Apollonio: Storia del teatro italiano, II, Florencia, 1951,
1958-63. Luigi Russo escribe acerca de Calandria: "La
Leggerezza gioiosa che percorre la Calandria è testimonianza
di ispirazione genuina, ma non di ispirazione profonda", Commedie
Fiorentine del `500 (Florencia, 1939), p. 193.
[146] "Sva je
ukradena iz njekoga libra starijeg neg je staros -iz Plauta", Djela
Marina Drzica, ed. Resetar, 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; traducido al croata por 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 ("El autor concluye que Skup de Drzic,
basado en el tema de Plauto, es una pieza construida independientemente,
vinculada con los dramaturgos italianos mediante el uso de la misma técnica -en
aquel tiempo generalmente usada en el drama europeo- y por la fuente común para
el argumento básico tomado de Plauto", p. 29).
[150] Milan Resetar:
"Jezik Marina Drzica", Rad, 248 (1933), 99-100; Vera
Javarek acota acertadamente: "Cada uno de sus muchos y diversos personajes
menores posee su estilo apropiado de habla", Slavonic and East
European Review, N° 88, 1958, pp. 155-56.
[151] Planine fue
reproducida fotostáticamente por la Academia de Zagreb, 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", en 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, Belgrado, 1948, pp.
316-48; Torbarina: "Tassovi soneti i madrigali u cast Cvijete
Zuzoric", en Hrvatsko Kolo, XXI, 1940, 69-96; Ante Kadic: "Cvijeta
Zuzoric, legenda i stvarnost", en Hrvatska Revija, V, N° 3,
1955, 285-90.
[158] M. Kombol:
"Talijanski utjecaji u Zlataricevoj lirici", Rad, 247,
1933, 212-51; cf. también André Vaillant: La langue de Dominko Zlataric,
París, 1928.
[159] Torbarina, Italian
Influence..., pp. 202-25.
[160] En 1942, en la
notoria colección de artículos Italia e Croazia, que celebró la
anexión de Dalmacia a Italia, Giovanni Maver escribió: "La letteratura
dalmato-ragusea in lingua croata non ha, di fronte all'italiana, che una sola
differenza essenziale -la lingua" (p. 485; cf. también p. 481). En su
libro reciente: Letteratura serbo-croata (Milán, 1960), es más sutil, circunspecto
y menos parcial (cf. pp. 115-16).
[161] A. Cronia: La
fortuna del Petrarca fra gli Slavi meridionali, en Annali della
Cattedra Petrarchesca, Vol. IV, 1932, y también en libro separado (Arezzo,
1933).
[162] Ver del mismo
autor: "Política agraria en Yugoslavia", Studia Croatica,
Año II, Nros. 2-3, pp. 117-29.
[163] Todos los datos
correspondientes a los años 1959 1960 y 1961 son extraídos del boletín
económico y estadístico mensual de la FAO: Bulletin mensuel économique
et statistique agricole, N° 3, marzo 1962, Roma,
[164] "Pues era un
verdadero idilio en relación con lo que hoy día tenemos que soportar".
Cartas del barón Gabriel Apor a Elemér Homonnay, fechadas 30 de octubre 1962 y
29 de noviembre 1952.
[165] C. A.
Macartney; October Fifteenth, Edimburgo, University Press, 1957,
Vol. I, p. 86; Antal Ullein-Reviczky: Guerre
Allemande - Paix Russe, Neuchatel, Suiza, 1947, p. 99.
[166] Pesti Hirlap:
"Kossutics eloadása az angol külügyi társaságban" (La conferencia de
Kosutic en el Instituto Inglés de Asuntos Internacionales) 11-I-1933; Dr.
József Bajza: Jugoszlávia belpolitikája 1932 április 4 után" (La política
interior de Yugoslavia después del 4 de abril de 1932); Magyar Szemble, 1934.
[167] Carta de Andrés
Tamás a Elemér Homonnay, fechada el 26-XI-1962.