STUDIA CROATICA

Year VII, Buenos Aires, 1966, No. 20

IVO BOGDAN: SERIOUS CONFLICTS IN YUGOSLAVIA

JURE PETRICEVIC: THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS IN YUGOSLAVIA

GOJKO BORIC: THE CASE OF THE WRITER MIHAILOV

FRANCISCO NEVISTIC: ARE WE WITNESSING THE COMMUNIST RETURN TO HUMANISM OR TO COMMUNIST HUMANISM?

Agricultural Production and Rising Food Prices in Yugoslavia

Brother Karl Balic, Scotist and Mariologist

Dante and the Croats

Šibenik and Its Cathedral

The Catholic Slavs Between East and West in Light of the Thought and Work of Bishop Strossmayer

The Polish Millennium and the Croats

The Restoration of Relations Between the Holy See and Yugoslavia

Documents

The Protest of the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference Against the Restriction of Religious Freedoms

The Government Asked the Bishops to Withdraw the Pastoral Letter Its Diplomatic Implications

NOTES AND COMMENTS

Croatian Catholics and Ecumenism

The Croatian National Council's Declaration on American Aid to Dictator Tito

Monument to Cardinal Stepinac in Melbourne

Political and Economic Resistance in Croatia as Seen by the "New York Times"

BOOK REVIEW

Dr. Dominic Mandic: Rasprave i prilozi iz stare hrvatske povijesti

Francis H. Eterovic and Christopher Spalatin (editors) Croatia: Land, People, Culture

George J. Prpic, French Rule in Croatia: 1806-1813

Ladislau Hory - Martin Broszats: Der Kroatische Ustacha - Staat 1941-1945 (The Croatian Ustaše State, 1941-1945)

Vinko Nikolic: Dúga nad porusenim mostovima (The rainbow over the destroyed bridges); Pred vratima domovine (On the threshold of the Homeland)

Fr. Bernardo Barcic O.F.M.: S. Pavlom VI u Kristovoj Domovini (In the homeland of Christ with Paul VI)

Journal of Croatian Studies, III-IV, 1962-1963

Zlatko Tomicic: Put k Mestrovicu (Road to Mestrovic)

Rastko Vidic: Situation of the Church in Yugoslavia

IVO BOGDAN: SERIOUS CONFLICTS IN YUGOSLAVIA

The political purge in Yugoslavia, whose main victim is Vice President Alexander Rankovic, former head of the political police, Yugoslavia's number two, the leading Serbian communist, and presumed successor to Tito, reflects both the crisis of the regime and the state. We have repeatedly pointed out the causes of this crisis, which erupted after the total failure of the communist regime to improve the living standards of the masses and to solve the national problem through the formula of federalism within the framework of "democratic centralism."

Economists knew beforehand that communism cannot bring about genuine improvement in the social and economic spheres. The masses reached the same conclusion empirically, comparing their situation with that prevailing in free Western countries. Hundreds of thousands of workers, forced to seek employment in Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, and the Netherlands, were able to witness firsthand the vitality of the free market economy and its enormous advantages over the communist economy.

Furthermore, the regime, short of foreign currency, had to open the country's doors to international tourism. Tito's subjects, those working abroad, and those observing the millions of tourists, almost all from free countries, were able to draw conclusive comparisons. To all this must be added the enormous American aid, squandered without rhyme or reason.

National relations in a multinational state—another fundamental problem—cannot be successfully resolved if the heterogeneous Yugoslav conglomerate is to be held together by coercive methods. We say coercive methods because the moment the peoples of Yugoslavia are able to exercise their right to self-determination, that state will disintegrate according to national criteria. Even if we were to take seriously the communist attempt to find a political compromise through federalism—incompatible with the centralist system of leadership in the ruling party—the people of Yugoslavia would not accept it. The Serbs, the very element the communists used to restore Yugoslavia, would rise up first against genuine national equality. The Serbs swelled the ranks of the communist guerrillas because they were promised the restoration of Yugoslavia, which had been disintegrated in 1941.

Since the time of King Alexander, the Serbs have seen Yugoslavia as an aggrandized Serbia, where they are first-class citizens, even in regions where they constitute an ethnic minority. Tito is said to have considered the restoration of Yugoslavia his masterpiece. If so, then he undertook a task beyond human capabilities.

Restoring the Yugoslav state by taking advantage of the international situation at the end of World War II was one thing; consolidating the cohesive state community of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and numerous national minorities (especially Albanian and Hungarian)—that is, a country with five recognized nationalities, three religions, two scripts, four national literatures, and two cultural spheres—was quite another. The evolution that took place in Central and Eastern Europe after the war showed that not even Russian communism could suppress the national sentiments of the subjugated peoples. This is particularly true in countries with long-standing and deeply rooted Western traditions between the Adriatic and the Baltic Seas, namely Poland, the Baltic States, Hungary, Croatia, and Slovenia.

There is an obvious interdependence between the two fundamental elements of the crisis of the regime and the state in communist Yugoslavia. It is important to emphasize this fact, since the official reason given for the "purge" is sabotage against the decentralizing economic reforms, and attempts are made to conceal the true causes. What is labeled Stalinism is in reality nothing more than the discontent of the Serbs, supporters of centralism. Rankovic, Stefanovic, and their followers are conscious Serbs for whom Yugoslavia, from the beginning, has been an expanded Serbia, and the Serbs are the guardians of its unity.

Josip Broz Tito, a Croat by birth but lacking national sentiment (in this he resembles Josip Dzhugashvili Stalin, a Georgian by birth), was accepted and tolerated by the Serbs merely as a disguise to maintain Serbian dominance and to suppress the opposition of non-Serbian peoples in multinational Yugoslavia to the communist system of "democratic centralism," which necessarily nullifies the effects of federalism.

The divergences between the Serbian ruling group and Tito arose when the latter, pressured by the unstoppable economic crisis, realized that it was essential, to save the regime and the state, to abandon certain measures of rigid economic centralism. Neither the Croatian nor the Slovenes could tolerate the fact that all the profits from their industries—earned on the basis of very low wages—were consumed by Serbs, squandered in so-called unprofitable political factories, without any prospect of ending such exploitation or of the surplus being invested in modernizing existing productive industry and in well-deserved wage increases in Croatia and Slovenia.

Thus, national contrasts emerged in the form of conflicting interests and a struggle against colonial exploitation by Serbia. Although the communist officials of Croatia and Slovenia were first and foremost communists, and only secondarily Croatian and Slovene, respectively, they understood that if the same system continued, the economic and political crisis would inevitably worsen. They can no longer ignore the reactions and interests of their own national milieu. The workers of Croatia and Slovenia realize that the communists—who in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, etc., recognized, albeit formally, the principle of nation-states—deprived only the Croats and Slovenes of that right, subordinating them to Serbia politically and economically.

Elsewhere in this issue,[1] we discuss the decisions and debates at the Eighth Congress of the League of Yugoslav Communists on economic decentralization. At the Third Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee, held in early March, Tito and Rankovic himself condemned in alarming terms the sabotage being carried out against this reform.[2] Tito said at the time that among the highest-ranking party officials there were those "who verbally supported the reform but remained passive or worked against what had been decided."

Although constantly pressured by the Serbian milieu surrounding him, the communist dictator made sharp and clear allusions to what in Serbia is called "the Belgrade charsiya," meaning the Serbian political and economic oligarchy, the backbone of Greater Serbian chauvinism, which involved the ruthless exploitation of the "liberated regions" after the Balkan Wars and World War I, namely Macedonia, Kosmet, Croatia, and Slovenia. "Sometimes," Tito declared, "one no longer knows what the communists think and what the charsiya thinks...

In cafes, various combinations are discussed regarding who to assign this or that responsible function to; committee politics are conducted. Some communists, or rather, members of the Alliance (an allusion to infiltration), fall under the influence of bourgeois ideology." Tito's entire speech was a series of laments about the regime's inefficiency and "chauvinism," meaning national conflicts. "If we," Tito concluded, "had had the conditions before the war that the enemy has now, we would have finished many things before the war." He meant that the situation was so precarious for the communists that there was a danger of counter-revolution.

He had to admit that the standard of living was declining, and to remedy this, he demanded an implacable struggle against national conflicts, against Western influences, the disorder and inefficiency of the civil service, and above all, against those sabotaging economic reforms, obviously linking this opposition to the Great Serbian chauvinism that resisted timid measures in favor of decentralizing investments. To avoid any misunderstandings on this point, Rankovic himself spoke and pointed out the dangers that such a position posed by the Serbs to the communist regime and state unity:

"Serbia," said the now-purged Rankovic, "is The largest republic and the Serbian people the most numerous nation in the socialist community of peoples and nationalities of Yugoslavia. Hence, with good reason, the greatest degree of responsibility for the normal development of relations between our peoples is imposed. However, there are communists in Serbia who are unaware of this. There is no doubt that the greater efforts of the communists and all progressive people in Serbia to more effectively combat chauvinism would facilitate the struggle of communists in other republics against their own chauvinism...

The passivity, hesitation, and opposition that arose in the communist ranks in Serbia during the past year... may have aroused new suspicions, which harmed the Communist League of Serbia and the Communist League of Yugoslavia as a whole...".

A few days earlier, in his speech in the Croatian city of Dubrovnik, Rankovic expressly condemned the unity tendencies of the Serbian communists, who he claimed favored a "tough on crime" policy. This is precisely the charge leveled against Rankovic later, on July 1st of this year, at a meeting of the Central Committee. This constitutes the official motivation behind the assassination of Rankovic, his group, and the main heads of the political police, which he organized and controlled. Thus, it was revealed that Rankovic was the invisible head of the secret police, since lately, and in light of his potential succession to Tito, he had been presented as completely detached from this sinister and hated apparatus of repression.

According to official texts and the incomplete reports we were able to gather since Rankovic's dismissal, which occurred almost simultaneously with the closing of this issue, it can be concluded that the charge leveled against Rankovic—ensuring his complete control of the state and party apparatus through the political police—is intimately linked to the problem of Tito's succession, so widely debated in the world press in recent years, but completely silenced in Yugoslavia.

The Yugoslav communist dictator is 74 years old, not an excessive age for a Churchill or Adenauer, but in Tito's case, who led a turbulent life and indulged in pleasures, and who is also reportedly ill, it is reasonable to assume that from now on it will be difficult for him to control all the levers of power. It is an arduous task even for a man brimming with strength. In an autocratic system, all power is concentrated in a single man.

For this reason, the serious problem of Tito's succession is posed to the Yugoslav communist leaders. This problem is extremely important in any autocratic system, and especially in a communist one, where, lacking a natural successor, the future autocrat must secure his power by first eliminating his rivals. One need only recall the struggles surrounding Lenin's succession, which gave Stalin's regime its sinister character.

The succession problem, serious and dangerous in itself, is almost insurmountable in a multinational and heterogeneous state like Yugoslavia, where the Serbian people do not possess, by any means, the strength and influence of the Russian people in the Soviet Union. Serbia represents—this fact must always be kept in mind—only a quarter of Yugoslavia's total territory and population, and economically and culturally, it is a less developed country than the nations it seeks to dominate.

Due to a confluence of circumstances, Stalin's appointment, and a lack of national consciousness, Tito managed, within the Communist Party and its regime, to play the role of arbiter between the different tendencies and interests of its leaders, in accordance with the national differences in Yugoslavia. Although Croatian by birth, Tito was accepted by the Serbs primarily because he had fought in the last war, obeying Stalin's instructions, for the restoration of Yugoslavia to its former status as an enlarged Serbia. Because of this, he enjoyed massive Serbian support.

The Serbs also accepted Tito because he had the backing of Russia—in this case, communist Russia, but still Russia, which for the Serbs is and always has been the protector of their national interests, especially in conflicts with the Germans. Later, Tito married a Serbian communist.

The Yugoslav Communist Party has no other figure who can fulfill, even partially, Tito's requirements without provoking national sensitivities within the multinational Yugoslav conglomerate. It is true that certain Slovenian leaders were considered, since Slovenia shares a border only with the "socialist republic" of Croatia. The Slovenes have always enjoyed good relations with the Croats and belong to the same sphere of Western culture. Slovenia has 1,600,000 inhabitants, and no one should fear its hegemony. However, the Slovenian communist leaders, men of intellectual inclinations, do not possess sufficient power within the military and police apparatus to prevail against the powerful Rankovic, until recently considered Tito's predestined successor.

In contrast, Rankovic has been a strongman, founder and head of the secret police; a highly influential leader within the Serb-dominated party, and he enjoyed a degree of popularity among the Serbian people because he does not conceal his Great Serbian affiliation. However, these advantages are his downfall in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of Tito's subjects. He is considered one of the main culprits behind the terrible oppression and massacres not only of Croatian, Slovenian, and Serbian opponents, but also of the old communist guard during the anti-Stalinist purges of 1948.

After the Belgrade-Moscow rapprochement, it was believed that Rankovic would try to rely entirely on the Soviets to secure their support for the likely repression he would carry out against the non-Serbian peoples of Yugoslavia. Such a prospect inspires fear even in those who do not react to national conflicts; even some Serbian communist leaders fear a return to the old terrorist methods, softened in part by the need to obtain foreign currency and aid from the West. Rankovic is also feared by ecclesiastical circles of all denominations. That is why he recently allowed himself to be photographed with Catholic prelates.

It is unclear whether and to what extent Tito has participated in the preliminary struggles for his succession. From a psychological standpoint, it is understandable that he does not like to talk about it, but he must be concerned that his successor preserve what he considers his most important work. Thomas A. Crawford, United Press correspondent in Belgrade, notes that Tito, in his accusation against Rankovic, Stefanovic, and their group, emphasized that Serbs must take into account the other peoples of Yugoslavia: "Marshal Tito's words brought the multinational problem of Yugoslavia to the forefront in the most frank reference made to date in the capital. Tito is a Croat, a national group that numbers more than four million inhabitants with Catholic roots and Western European traditions, in contrast to the Orthodox Serbs of the South, who were under Turkish rule for five centuries." (La Prensa, Buenos Aires, July 3, 1966).

There is no doubt that Tito, as the communist leader, demonstrated political realism and probably knows that his successor must possess considerable strength and ability to keep the party and the state united. Rankovic, as we have said, fulfills certain requirements in this respect, but at the same time, he arouses so much opposition that, upon Tito's death, he could jeopardize the very existence of the Yugoslav state. The union, forged under the exceptional circumstances of war, could only be maintained through intensified repression, especially outside of Serbia.

Undoubtedly, Rankovic understood this and, preparing to succeed Tito, anticipated the difficulties he would encounter. The Eighth Congress of the Yugoslav Communist League, held under the shadow of the partial defeat of centralism, was interpreted as a setback for Rankovic. But it was clear that significant resistance was coalescing within the party, especially in Belgrade. The London Times reported that at the beginning of the year, more than 2,000 Serbian communist leaders resigned in protest against the incipient decentralization measures.

Then, at the Third Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee, held last March, Rankovic had to tell the Serbs certain truths that Tito had not dared to utter. Before the "purge," it could be assumed that Tito and Rankovic had divided up the roles. Rankovic would try to present himself to non-Serbian peoples as an adversary of Serbian chauvinism. He accompanied Tito on his trip to Russia and also traveled to Italy, where he negotiated with the Christian Democratic rulers.

However, well-informed observers (e.g., Dr. Juraj Krnjevic, president of the Croatian Agrarian Party in exile) wondered whether the communists were plotting to oust Tito.[3] Other foreign observers, such as Victor Meier,[4] warned last year that Rankovic, to secure Tito's succession, was assigning the most important positions in the police and the party organization to his Serbian friends. When the prestigious Swiss political commentator was writing his analysis, he could not have foreseen that this might backfire on Tito himself.

It was only at the beginning of July that we received the official interpretation of Rankovic's efforts and his monitoring of the telephone conversations and movements of top communist leaders—a long-standing practice in all totalitarian regimes. It is highly probable that Rankovic, in the struggle for Tito's succession, sought support from Great Serbian circles, and while playing the new role of a communist humanist and opponent of Great Serbian policy, swept along by his followers, he became dangerous to Tito himself. Therefore, he had to be dismissed.

At the beginning of July, Tito convened all the members of the Central Committee on the island of Brioni, where he was the absolute ruler, and secured the unanimous condemnation of Rankovic and his deputy, Stefanovic, the Minister of the Interior in charge of the political police, as well as his group. This was a Machiavellian-style move, and its success was assured from the outset. It would be interesting to know how the plans of Rankovic and his group were discovered and how they failed to recognize the danger when they moved to Brioni.

What repressive forces did Tito have at his disposal against the powerful Rankovic? Of course, the image of a paternalistic Tito is false, and it is clear that the old dictator had his own personal police force and controlled the military, which Rankovic was never able to fully control. Tito's lieutenant in the army was a former communist, a former metalworker, just like Tito. This was Ivan Gosnjak, born in Sisak, Croatia, and Minister of the Armed Forces. A comparison of Beria's elimination by the military leaders is therefore necessary.

Yugoslav newspapers published certain facts and speeches by Tito concerning the proceedings and conclusions of the Fourth Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist League of Yugoslavia, held on Brioni Island, which corroborate some of these observations.

The 125 members of the Central Committee only learned the true purpose of the meeting on Brioni. Rankovic and his followers fell into the ambush, well guarded on the island by Tito's personal guard. The famous communist unanimity in adopting resolutions was guaranteed in advance. This "unanimity" even included the victims of the "chistka" (a term referring to a specific type of political maneuvering), so that in the end Tito could praise "Comrade Marcos" (Rankovic) for his spontaneous resignation, emphasizing with evident cynicism that this proved the communists' love of freedom and humanism.

Tito spoke at the beginning and end of the meeting. His remarks were quite brief compared to his interminable speeches at other party meetings.

The Yugoslav communist dictator stated that at the meeting of the Executive Committee (Politburo) on June 16, a six-member "party-state commission" had been formed to investigate "the distortions" within the all-powerful political police, headed by Svetislav Stefanovic, whose real boss was "Comrade Marko," meaning Alexander Rankovic. He admitted that a "technical commission," likely Tito's special police force, had previously conducted an investigation.

An investigation was necessary, Tito said, to determine why the resolutions of the Eighth Party Congress regarding economic management were not being implemented. Tito emphasized that this inefficiency had also been noted at the Third Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee the previous March, but that the investigation had stalled, failing to establish the true causes, which was a grave mistake. (We will later see that its cause was fear of Rankovic and his Serbian communist group.) "All of this has been dragging on for several years, almost a decade," Tito pointed out. It began with the failure to control Rankovic's political police and prevent "its distortions." Tito reiterated that he did not blame the political police as a whole and emphatically highlighted Rankovic's merits in the fight against the class enemy, that is, the relentless terrorism and mass killings during and after the war, when hundreds of thousands of people died, including a group of old communists, labeled as communist sympathizers. For Tito, Rankovic and Stefanovic are solely responsible for the "distortions" of recent years.

What did these "distortions" consist of?

Tito declared that Rankovic's group tried to control the party and state apparatus. There was "factional and group infighting, a struggle for power," which jeopardized "the unity of our people" and the "unity of the Communist League (party)." Mutual distrust arose from top to bottom. Doesn't that sound similar to what happened during Stalin's time? "I think it's quite similar." (Don't forget that Tito once said that Stalin had surpassed even Genghis Khan in cruelty.)

To an observer unfamiliar with the esoteric way communists express themselves, the gravity of these charges might escape. "Factionalism," "the struggle for power," "the threat to party and state unity," and "Stalinism" are the most serious and terrible accusations that can be leveled among Yugoslav communists. Therefore, when Tito reproaches Rankovic for the struggle for power, he is, in effect, accusing him of wanting to stage one of the classic Serbian coups to secure power through Stalinist methods for as long as Tito lives. Given that Rankovic necessarily had to seek support from Serbian communists, which implies challenging the non-Serbian majority in Yugoslavia, this, in reality, constitutes the beginning of Yugoslav disintegration should the coup succeed.

So it is not surprising that the The members of the Central Committee approved without reservation the report of the "party-state commission," presented by its chairman, the Macedonian Krsto Crvenkovski. Crvenkovski accused the heads of the State Security Service (UDBA) of everything Tito alleged, as well as their "closed-mindedness and insincerity" during the investigation.

The Central Committee accepted Rankovic's "resignation" from party duties, while Svetislav Stefanovic, the nominal head of the UDBA, was expelled from the Central Committee and the Communist Party. A commission was elected to continue the "shistka" (referring to the investigation). Mihailo Todorovic was appointed to replace Rankovic as secretary of the Central Committee, and Dobrivoje Radosavljevic was appointed to the same committee in Stefanovic's place. Great care was taken to ensure that both were Serbs, who, moreover, constitute the majority on the Central Committee.

Tito spoke again at the close of the meeting, this time with a degree of relief. Rankovic and his group had capitulated without resistance, and therefore Tito now wanted to appease public opinion, particularly that of the Serbs and the political police. He emphasized the potential repercussions abroad, as all of this could damage the supposedly high prestige of his government. He launched new slogans to calm public opinion. However, he admitted that he had seriously feared for the unity of the party.

The word "fear" appeared several times in his speech. It is clear from his words that he was especially afraid of Serbian nationalism. He called for a fight against nationalist deviations, undoubtedly Serbian ones. He asked that Rankovic's dismissal not be interpreted as a defeat for the Serbian communists. He acknowledged that he should have eliminated "factionism" earlier, but he was terrified to address this "dramatic problem," as it was uncertain how it would affect "domestic life and development" and the country abroad. He appealed to Rankovic to prevent this crisis from escalating nationally and urged the political police to continue their vigorous fight against the class enemy, although he stressed the need for a thorough purge of their ranks and the party apparatus in general.

The Yugoslav press, despite directives to emphasize the triumph of unity and the demonstrated effectiveness of the Central Committee, failed to conceal its disorientation. Following the official line, it rather clumsily highlighted the dangers of the power struggle and the personality cult surrounding Rankovic. On this matter, the investigating commission's report expressly stated:

"In recent years, many state security officials, using special criteria, came to occupy highly responsible political and state positions. Such a procedure created and reinforced loyalty to individuals rather than to the work of socialism and the objectives of the Central Committee." Citing this paragraph, fervent commentators were forced to go to another extreme, paying homage to Tito's personality.

"It is therefore inappropriate, when discussing political and other responsibilities, to consider that there are meritorious (Rankovic) and indispensable historical figures." There is only one meritorious personality - Tito" [5]. The foreign press interpreted the scope of the purge quite accurately, that is, as Tito's counterattack against the palace revolution being prepared by Rankovic's group and, moreover, as proof of a deep and dangerous crisis of the regime and the state. Less accurate were the comments that Rankovic's dismissal would signify a victory for the liberal current among Yugoslav communists, leading to a multi-party system. Tito himself responded a week later in Belgrade to former communist combatants. The communist dictator flatly rejected such conjectures, speaking expressly against Western newspapers, saying "that this is a tremendous mistake," since there is no liberal procedure for dealing with nationalist deviations and "the negative influences of Western ideology." In Yugoslavia, freedom reigns only for communists and "other honest people," not those opposed to the Communist League or socialism. "This is my answer to the “The West,” Tito concluded.[6]

In the same speech, Tito revealed a previously unknown fact: back in March 1962, the Executive Committee of the Central Committee (Political Bureau) had discussed for three days the manifestations of nationalism that were “appearing” everywhere, “especially in Belgrade.” On that occasion, Tito had said that relations at the top of the party were unsatisfactory, that there were national tensions and “political maneuvering” involving non-communists as well. The discussion was very heated, and in the end, tempers seemed to have cooled. In reality, “some leaders withdrew into themselves.”

In other words, Tito acknowledged that nothing had been resolved, and the situation escalated into a silent, underground struggle and preparations for a coup d'état by Rankovic’s group. The conflicts, Tito continued, resurfaced during the economic reforms. He also alluded to the former anti-communist nationalist movements to stir up passionate emotions among the communists. “It persists, "Of course," he said, "the rest of the Chetniks in Serbia, the Ustaše in Croatia, and the White Guard in Slovenia."

Tito devoted a good part of his speech to "the problem of the moment"—as the Le Monde correspondent described it—that is, to his fear that Rankovic's dismissal might incite Serbian nationalism. He tried to calm his supporters, emphasizing that the reaction among Serbian communists had been rather favorable.

The Federal Assembly in Belgrade, in its session of July 14, unanimously accepted Rankovic's resignation as Vice President of the Republic. His place is now held by Koca Popovic, a Serbian national and former foreign minister. Thus, this Serbian intellectual, the son of a wealthy bourgeois family, was chosen to appease the Serbian communists.

Popovic is held in low esteem in Croatia and Slovenia, as he is considered responsible for the massacres carried out at the end of the war against Croatian and Slovenian soldiers handed over to the communists by the British authorities in May 1945. For the Serbs, this fact is not a flaw, but a great merit of Popovic.[7] Koca Popovic is elected, unanimously, for a four-year term, but, according to the Constitution, he does not automatically succeed the president-for-life Tito; the new president would have to be elected by the Federal Assembly in Belgrade.

The conflict surrounding Tito's succession opens a deep crisis among the communist leaders. It suffices to note that with the dismissal of Rankovic, of the "old guard" of the Yugoslav Communist Party of 1945, only Tito, Popovic, and Kardelj remain. Before the Fifth Party Congress (1948), Andrija Hebrang and Zujovic-Crni were purged; then Neskovic and Milovan Djilas were dismissed. Moshe Pijade and Kidric died of natural causes. Now it was Rankovic's turn. The vacancies were filled by new men, but without the influence of the old guard, so that pusillanimity reigns among the communist ranks.

Sticking to the facts, we will not engage in conjecture and will try to define the scope and political significance of the recent Yugoslav "purge."

The Yugoslav communist dictator, with his action against the Yugoslav Beria, Rankovic, vice president and communist No. 2, much more powerful than Milovan Djilas, the former No. 2, demonstrated that he still dominates the party and the state. His position is momentarily strengthened. But the cause of the crisis was not eliminated, but rather exacerbated. Rankovic's "Stalinist" group is distinctly Serbian.

Consequently, Rankovic's elimination constitutes, to some extent, a challenge to Serbian national sentiment. To maintain the balance, Tito will have to proceed, under whatever pretext, against prominent communists of other nationalities. It is likely that the first victim was General Wenceslas Holjevac, a Croatian communist, demoted for supporting the "destructive" criticism formulated by Croatian communist philosophers in the journal Praxis.

Holjevac and the group of restless intellectuals in Croatia and Slovenia are not the only ones affected. Using the restricted freedom of expression, they began, based on orthodox Marxist doctrine, to formulate criticisms of the regime, which is resistant to any possible criticism. Every communist dictator in power, in principle, possesses political truth, while "scientific socialism" provides the key to understanding the historical process. That is why communists in power are always tempted to resort to the dialectic of "purges," concentration camps, and executions.

On the one hand, there is relief at the dismissal of the odious police chiefs, and on the other, fear of the repressions that might follow to maintain the cohesion of the fractured communist ranks. Tito, exactly a decade ago, astonished his Western sympathizers when, during the Hungarian Revolution, he repudiated Imre Nagy's actions and declared that Nikita Khrushchev's tanks were a blessing, because preserving the communist regime in Hungary was a political necessity.

It will not be easy to contain the ongoing process of removing the main agents of communist terror and repression. The question of Tito's responsibility will increasingly arise, not only among the chronically fearful Croatian communists, but also among the aggressive Serbian leaders.

Tito will face the difficult problem of his succession. He will understand that the legacy he will soon have to leave is fraught with insurmountable problems. The regime, the state he managed to restore, survives only thanks to the favorable external situation. To better understand this truth, painful from the perspective of the oppressed peoples of Yugoslavia, it suffices to point out that the numerous political exiles from Yugoslavia have no support whatsoever in either the West or the East.

On the contrary, Tito receives assistance from both Moscow and Washington, not so much because of the actual strength of the Yugoslav army, which, in the event of war, would disintegrate in a few days just like the monarchist army in 1941, according to Phillis Audi, a professor at the University of London.[8]

More than the strength of the Yugoslav army, Moscow and Washington are counting on the important strategic position of Croatia and Slovenia. No rival wants to cede this crucial position in advance. Any change to this precarious balance could endanger the regime and the state of Yugoslavia.

The dismissal of Rankovic, with all its implications, indicates that such a change need not necessarily come from outside. The problem of Tito's succession could mark the beginning of a series of explosive situations, which will demand clear positions from Tito's backers in Moscow and Washington. The conditions could arise for national revolutionary movements against the regime and the Yugoslav state, with support from one side or the other in the conflict.

Such movements would be consistent with the UN's principle of the right to self-determination. This right can be interpreted in two ways: as the right of each country to decide on its government and as the right of each national social group to establish its own state. Both interpretations must be considered should changes occur in Yugoslavia. Its citizens have the right to overthrow the communist regime. Likewise, the peoples comprising the multinational Yugoslav conglomerate have the right to national self-determination, including the right to secession.

In theory, the Communist Party also recognizes this right, since Yugoslavia, according to its constitution, is a multinational state composed of five peoples: Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Slovenes, and Montenegrins. All these peoples, so states the constitution, just as in the Soviet Union, have the right to secede.

It is true that in practice this right is distorted, since the communist government maintains the theory that the peoples of Yugoslavia had already exercised this right during the war by declaring their commitment to a common life within the multinational Yugoslav federation, where all the republics, except Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to official spokespeople, are constituted according to national criteria. It is understood that this theory remains valid as long as it is supported by the communist dictatorship, which ruthlessly persecutes those who dare to claim the right to national self-determination.[9]

However, based on natural law, as expressed in the Charter of the United Nations, the theory of the supposed right of the peoples of Yugoslavia to national self-determination, once and for all, cannot be accepted. From the perspective of Western democracies, even the establishment of the communist regime in Yugoslavia was carried out in contravention of the precise agreements reached between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. From the outset, it was considered that Yugoslavia could not fall under the exclusive influence of the Soviet Union.

Churchill noted in his memoirs that he had agreed with Stalin on a 50:50 division of influence in Yugoslavia. [10] At Yalta, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill resolved that the government in Yugoslavia would be formed by the communists and representatives of the government-in-exile and that, after the war, the peoples of Yugoslavia should decide in free elections on the regime they preferred. It was agreed that neither Anglo-American nor Soviet troops would occupy the territory of Yugoslavia. London and Washington respected the agreement, but the Soviets had occupied the strategically important area north of the Drava and Danube rivers. They had previously conquered Belgrade and northern Serbia and installed Tito as their leader. They justified all of this as a military necessity to advance toward Austria and Germany.

The communists, of course, did not keep their promises regarding free elections, and their power was imposed on the people of Yugoslavia. The democratic right to self-determination was violated. Even less could the Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and numerous national minorities—Albanian, German, and Hungarian—declare whether or not they wished to live in the multinational Yugoslav state, which, despite the official rhetoric of "unity and fraternity," functions as an enlarged Serbia.

The conflicts that could arise surrounding the struggle for power and Tito's succession offer only remote possibilities for redressing the injustices inflicted upon democratic principles and national rights. By advocating for a just and equitable solution, the free world would contribute to eliminating a dangerous source of potential clashes in a nerve center where the first shot of the First World War was fired. With the establishment of the free states of Croatia and Slovenia, the balance of power in the Adriatic-Danubian region would fundamentally change. Italy and Austria would be relieved of Soviet pressure. And Western Europe would gain two new constructive members of the European community who traditionally aspire to and gravitate toward European cooperation.

Buenos Aires.

JURE PETRICEVIC: THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS IN YUGOSLAVIA

From the Eighth Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in December 1964 to the meeting of the Central Committee in March 1966.

From December 7 to 13, 1964, the Eighth Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia met at the Trade Union House in Belgrade. As expected, the Congress deliberated on the most important and pressing issues. The national question and economic difficulties took precedence over other topics. And since economic problems are intimately linked to national problems, national contrasts, in effect, gave the Congress its distinctive character. Another important topic concerned youth and their disinterest in communism, raising the issue of the "cadres" and the new generations within the Communist League, and their influence on the evolution of society. Scientific and cultural issues were also discussed at length.

Emphasis was placed on the importance and significance of self-management, which, given the aspirations of the republics, communes, and enterprises to become independent from Belgrade's centralism and hegemony, constitutes a distinctly political problem. International issues were also given considerable attention, although their weight relative to internal difficulties diminished at this congress. At the three previous congresses (the fifth in 1948, the sixth in 1952, and the seventh in 1958), the international situation, particularly relations within the communist bloc, played a much larger role than at the congress in question.

In his opening address, Tito addressed all the important issues on both the domestic and international fronts. His presentation was entitled: "The Role of the Communist League in the Further Construction of Socialist Relations and in the Struggle for Peace and Socialism in the World." Kardelj addressed economic issues (The Socio-Economic Tasks of Economic Development in the Coming Period), and Rankovic dealt with the political and organizational problems of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Vlahovic's presentation (Ideological Currents at the Present Level of Our Development and the Future Tasks of the League of Communists in Yugoslavia) merely repeated theses and positions contained in the three previous reports, attempting to give them a veneer of scientific rigor. His report amounted to pseudoscientific verbiage, typical of a party functionary. Kolisevski referred to "Amendments and Supplements to the Statutes of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia," and his report was purely partisan and administrative in nature.

The presentations by Tito, Kardelj, and Rankovic set the tone and direction for all the work of the Congress, and their theses and papers were largely incorporated into the final resolution. Everything was thoroughly prepared, so the congress, including the debates, unfolded according to a pre-established plan. It's obvious that all the issues were discussed beforehand and the decisions made at the party summit.

The declaration by Bakaric, a prominent communist figure in Croatia, was published a week before the congress meeting, and its basic outlines aligned with the congress resolutions, proving that the leading circles had previously reached an agreement on all the important issues. The apparent unanimity of view was preserved through external forums, although opposing opinions and viewpoints were also heard during the congress.

All the reports are very long, written in the monotonous and cumbersome party style, full of repetitions and often obscure. Reading them requires considerable effort and patience. This technique of extremely long reports and interminable discussions is characteristic of the communist world, and its aim is to impress, absorb, and exhaust its readers or listeners.

In our review, we will refer only to the issues of paramount importance, as they were addressed and summarized in the Congress Resolution. These are very important issues for the future of Croatia and have broader significance.

But before delving into the analysis of each topic, it is necessary to see who the delegates were and what professions and guilds they represented at the Eighth Congress. According to the newspaper Vjesnik, dated December 9, 1964, 1,452 delegates were elected, and 1,442 attended the congress. The elected delegates represented the following guilds and professions:

	Nro. de delegados	Porcentaje
Obreros de la producción	350	24.1
Trabajadores socio-políticos	345	23.8
Secretarios de comités	238	16.4
Funcionarios	133	9.2
Ingenieros y técnicos	127	8.7
Oficiales de las Fuerzas Armadas	110	7.6
Trabajadores culturales	50	3.4
Agricultores	34	2.3
Estudiantes secundarios y universitarios	23	1.6
Trabajadores sanitarios	16	1.1
Demás profesiones	26	1.8
Total	1.452	100

Of the delegates at the Eighth Congress, workers represented barely 24%, that is, less than a quarter of the total. This number is very small, given that the Communist League declares itself the primary political representative of the working class. The participation of farmers was also very small and insignificant, at 2.3%, even though around 50% of the total active population is employed in agriculture. Therefore, their role is of no importance to the communists.

Workers and farmers together constitute 26% of the total delegates. Communist society should be based on these two groups, and yet they are in the minority within the party of the working people. In contrast, "socio-political workers were represented at 24%, almost the same proportion as production workers. Closely related is the category of 'committee secretaries,' who make up 16% of the delegates. These two groups together comprise 40% of the total delegates. These are professional politicians, party officials, and communist bureaucrats who run the party and fill key positions, directly or indirectly, in the state administration and the economy.

This ruling class, according to Bakaric's statement, consists mainly of wartime officials, is resistant to reform, and clings to power. It is the 'new' ruling class, dominated by Great Serbian elements. Officers of the Yugoslav armed forces, represented at the Eighth Congress three times more than farmers, are also closely related to these 'professional politicians'; together with the 'political professionals,' they make up 48%, almost half of the delegates at the Congress. Eighth Congress of the Communist Alliance, instrument of a tiny ruling and bureaucratic clique.

For every 800 members of the Communist League, one delegate was elected to the Eighth Congress. Multiplying this number by the total number of delegates, the number of members of the Communist League would amount to 1,161,600, that is, 10.1% of the total population over 19 years of age in 1961. According to other earlier data, this figure would be 1,030,000. Therefore, the Communist Party comprises one-tenth of the adult population and is an insignificant minority. Within this minority, the thin layer of party functionaries, that is, "professional politicians," dominates, and they govern the country through the Communist League. It is good to keep these numerical relationships in mind when reading the statements of communist leaders about the "democratization of socialist society," "the workers' movement," and similar presumptions.

The data concerning the delegates by republic; but not by their nationality, which would be very interesting given the multinational character of the Yugoslav conglomerate.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION

In his address, Tito dealt extensively with the international situation, outlining his position, particularly concerning the so-called socialist countries.

In recent years, Yugoslavia's foreign policy has followed a set pattern, and Tito, in fact, said nothing new. It consisted of familiar slogans: the policy of peaceful coexistence, support for disarmament efforts and the Moscow Agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States on limiting nuclear testing, cooperation with non-committal countries, aid to developing countries, and condemnation of the alleged neocolonialism of the United States and its allies. All of this has also formed the basis of Soviet foreign policy in recent years.

Referring to the prevailing relations within the international workers' movement, Tito condemned Beijing's policy, arguing that: The leaders of the Chinese Communist Party want to impose a policy of force on the world; They deny the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the leading role in the international workers' movement, usurping it for themselves.

They are "irresponsibly" prepared to create "the third force" together with some capitalist countries and provoke border conflicts with territorial claims of "great proportions"; they discredit the policy of peaceful and active coexistence by demanding that the Soviet government and party immediately change their domestic and foreign policy, returning to the Stalinist line; the Chinese communist leaders, with this policy and with their attacks against the current leaders of the Soviet Communist Party, are splitting the international workers' movement.

Tito, therefore, defends the line of Khrushchev and his successors. He adopts a wait-and-see attitude toward the new Soviet team regarding the development of Soviet-Chinese relations. His radical stance toward the Chinese gives the impression that he fears an eventual, albeit temporary, rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing, which would weaken the position of the Yugoslav communists in the international communist arena. Perhaps identical motives determined Tito's defense of Khrushchev and his policies.

The attacks on China also stem from other causes. The Sino-Soviet dispute improved the situation of the communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe by weakening Soviet influence. Consequently, these countries are increasingly striving to free themselves from Moscow's influence and to become independent in their domestic and foreign policies. The Soviet Union is so deeply involved in the Chinese front that it can no longer exert force in its satellite states.

Hence, the danger to a free Western Europe has ceased, as the Soviet Union is no longer interested in complications and conflicts in that part of the world. All of this favors the disintegration of the Eastern European bloc, hitherto ruled with an iron fist by Moscow. This trend is most evident in Romania, where the communists are now pursuing a "nationalist" policy, establishing close economic and political ties with Western democracies, and distancing themselves from the Soviet Union without falling under the influence of Stalinist-style Chinese communism. Ultimately, Stalinist Albania chose this path. The desire to emancipate itself from the Soviets and the hostile attitude toward Tito, stemming from the plight of a million Albanians under Serbian rule in Kosovo-Metohija, led the Albanian communists to seek the distant protection of China.

This shift benefits neither Tito nor Yugoslavia. Two communist countries lie on the northern and southern borders, offering no guarantees in the event of significant internal upheavals, and neighboring Albania could even become an open aggressor.

Tito's theses and views concerning the international political situation and relations with other communist parties were adopted by the Congress and incorporated into its final resolution.

NATIONAL CONTRASTS AND THE UNFINISHED NATIONAL PROBLEM

In recent years, the national question has gained increasing importance in the public debates of Yugoslav communists. In the early postwar years, it received little discussion, as the communists believed the national question had been "definitively resolved." "Unity and fraternity" were emphasized as the greatest achievement of the war and the revolution. However, old difficulties resurfaced in the relations between Croats and other peoples and Serbian hegemony, and these could no longer be concealed. Tito himself increasingly addressed this pressing issue.

His speech in Split in 1962 addressed it at length. Since then, economic problems have been inextricably linked to the national question. The conflict between the Serbian ruling class and non-Serbian peoples has intensified, even within communist circles. This is evidenced by Bakaric's statements in 1964. During the Eighth Congress of the Communist League of Yugoslavia, there was extensive debate on "nationalism" and "chauvinism" in connection with economic, cultural, educational, and party organizational issues. The same problem was addressed as a separate political topic in the congress resolution.

Tito was the first to speak about the national question, followed by Kardelj and Vlahovic, who discussed it with intensity. Rankovic touched on it only briefly, referring to party organization, "democratic centralism," and the Communist League of Yugoslavia as the guiding and cohesive force of society.

Tito formulated the party directives on this issue, which were subsequently repeated in all the speeches, although some divergent viewpoints did emerge. In the chapter "International Relations in Our Federation" of his address, he defined the new position of the communist leadership regarding the national question in Yugoslavia. According to Tito, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had already taken a position on the national question even before the war, a position which it definitively resolved "in the most democratic way," in accordance with the peoples concerned. The question now was the future development of "international" relations within the framework of the party's solution. On the eve of the war, the party had given the national question its authentic Marxist content. "This stance of our party on the national question inspired the confidence of all our peoples in the Communist Party," Tito said. "And the content of relations between peoples must be such that it consolidates the unity and fraternity of our peoples."

Such was the principled stance of Tito and the Communist League on the national question. This position remained unchanged from the pre-war period onward. Reality is distorted, and it is claimed that the peoples of the Yugoslav multinational conglomerate resolved the national question "by mutual agreement" during the war. In fact, the peoples of Yugoslavia were prevented, before, during, and after the war, from having a say in the solution to the national question.

The "solution" to this problem was arbitrarily adopted by the Communist Party based on the Greater Serbian conception. The Croats and other non-Serbian peoples were forced into a Yugoslav unity they did not want, their right to self-determination brutally trampled. Today, this situation constitutes, for Tito, "a democratic solution," and everything else is merely a detail. But the fact that this problem is being discussed more and more among the communist hierarchy, and that the country's political and economic process is consequently encountering increasing difficulties, proves otherwise.

In the subsequent analysis of these problems, both Tito and the other speakers at the Eighth Party Congress departed from their usual condemnations of the "nationalism" and "chauvinism" of certain republics, and their judgments became more flexible. Previously, such attacks on the republics had focused primarily on the Croats and Slovenes, with constant emphasis on the necessity of Yugoslav integration. Tito, in opening the Zagreb International Exposition on September 5, 1964, spoke explicitly of "our national integration," whereas now, at the Party Congress held in Belgrade, he considerably altered his terminology. He now challenges the communists who believe that "in our socialist process, nationalities are obsolete and must be extinguished." Addressing these communists, Tito declared:

"They confuse the unity of the Nation with the liquidation of nationalities and with the creation of something larger, newer, and artificial—namely, a uniform Yugoslav nationality—which resembles assimilation, unitarism, and hegemonism. Yugoslav socialist integration is a new kind of social community in which all nationalities find their common interests."

Tito's condemnation of the unitarian and hegemonist Great Serbian circles is merely a tactical gesture, a verbal concession to the non-Serbian peoples, given his inaugural declaration on the supposedly resolved national question. In their new terminology, "Yugoslav socialist integration," "Yugoslav socialist patriotism," and "the process of further international integration of our community" effectively mean the denial of the right to national freedom of the peoples comprising Yugoslavia and imply their forced integration. In other words, it is the confirmation of the status quo ante.

The communist leaders would not concern themselves with these problems if the current situation in the relations between non-Serbian peoples and Serbia, and between Serbia and Great Serbian centralism, were not so tense and critical. The gravity of this situation is reflected in Tito's words regarding the contradictions in relations between peoples. Tito defines it thus:

"Certain contradictions, both in the federation and in the republics, are rooted in what appears to be the essential aspects of our country's economic development, in the administrative and bureaucratic distribution, and in other irregularities, in the varying degrees of development of the republics and regions, etc. This leads to sporadic manifestations by chauvinistic elements, inherited from pre-war Yugoslavia; they eagerly exploit such weaknesses, and sometimes even some communists are deceived."

"The phenomena of chauvinism must be discovered and thoroughly studied; their sources and causes must be investigated, and efforts must be made to eliminate them from our social life. These phenomena sometimes manifest themselves in all aspects of social life: in the economy and economic development, in culture, in the arts and sciences, and particularly in historiography. The gradual elimination of these phenomena depends, first and foremost, on economic relations and the measures we take in this area—that is, on how we are resolving these problems."

"Nationalist distortions also arise from statist and bureaucratic tendencies that restrain the processes of integration among our nations. On the one hand, statist and bureaucratic tendencies provoke a unitary disregard for the socio-economic function of republics and autonomous provinces, and on the other hand, they generate tendencies toward isolation within 'their borders.' Both tendencies are fundamentally nationalist and equally harmful to the normal process of social and economic integration."

"Workers' collectives suffer the most from such distortions, as does social self-management, since they tend toward socialist integration in production and not toward nationalist disintegration or unitarism and centralism."

"For producers, there are no borders, since their interests are identical to the interests of the entire social community."

It is worth noting here that between centralism and Great Serbian hegemony on the one hand, and the Croats and other non-Serbian peoples on the other, an open struggle is being waged even within communist ranks; there is no "peaceful coexistence," but rather a bitter "cold war." Since the Croats and Slovenes had recently been openly criticizing Belgrade's "federal" policies, Tito's following remark is directed primarily at the Croatian and Slovenes communists:

"In all our republics, in all national regions, some people sometimes express concern about supposedly threatened national interests. These men see only the negative consequences of various measures in our economic policy that affect their 'territory'; they see profit and benefit only for other territories. They are incapable of considering our economic development in a comprehensive and objective way, that is, the process of our economic system and its subordination to objective factors."

"Such men often arrogate to themselves the right to call themselves 'protectors' of the national interests of this or that people. However, when it is necessary to address the full development of social self-management and workers' rights so that the true national interest can be fully and immediately realized, they frequently and seriously oppose this progressive development of the system of social self-management."

Tito also sharply criticizes the phenomena of "nationalism" in culture and historiography. He claims that these areas manifest themselves "most tenaciously," highlighting "the negative aspects of the past to exert a strong pressure on people's consciences." This, he argues, requires communists to engage in "premeditated ideological action in the struggle for the even more successful repression of nationalist interpretations of cultural achievements and the heritage of the past."

Applied to the Croatian people, this means that Croats should renounce their Western-style cultural values and their history, even though in present-day Yugoslavia these values are systematically trampled and silenced, and the Serbs impose their cultural ideals and traditions on them, as they do on other peoples. In this respect, the Croats have been on the defensive since 1918 and now, according to Tito, they should capitulate.

Tito also admits that "nationalism" and "chauvinism" have infected the youth as well.

For him, the solution must be sought first and foremost in the "new economic system." An effective measure would be "restricting the scope of administrative methods in regulating economic relations between peoples," "...and thereby we will cleanse our ranks of nationalist distortions." The solution to the national question also depends largely on the "new economic system," with greater participation of producers in the self-management of enterprises. In Tito's view, another important measure to suppress nationalism would be the ideological and political action of the communists "in daily educational activities within the spirit of unity and fraternity and of Yugoslav socialist patriotism in all spheres of social life."

This measure is nothing less than the cultural and political integration of Yugoslavia in the spirit of Alexander Karageorgevic and the spokesman for Gran Serbian policy, Alexander Rankovic. To emphasize the importance of these measures, Tito demands “the consistent elimination and repression of all nationalist, idealist, and conservative elements in educational plans, programs, and manuals, in teaching itself, etc.” A full implementation of this program would signify the complete capitulation of non-Serbian peoples to Gran Serbianism, which, in the name of “new Yugoslav socialist patriotism,” seeks to permanently secure its hegemony.

Opposition to this hegemony is growing even within communist ranks, which particularly worries Tito. Regarding this, he said:

“It happens that we are sometimes too tolerant of certain nationalist and chauvinistic lamentations about supposedly threatened national positions and the interests of this or that region. Some in the Communist League even become spokespeople for these phenomena.”

"First, we must understand that under our current conditions, bureaucratic-centralist and bureaucratic-particularist nationalism is no less dangerous and counterrevolutionary than classical bourgeois nationalism."

"Instead of understanding this, some behave irresponsibly and even benevolently toward various nationalist movements, and some resort to the well-known 'arguments' of bourgeois chauvinist ideology."

As a way out of this difficult situation, Tito demands "the strengthening of the unity of our peoples and nationalities and of Yugoslav socialist patriotism." This is the same Great Serbian policy practiced until now. Some slogans and certain emphases have changed, but in substance, the political line remains the same. Thus, Tito, in concluding his presentation and considerations on the national question, reaffirms what he said at the beginning, namely, that the national question is, in principle, "definitively solved."

Kardelj, in his presentation, also addressed the national question. His approach, while determined by partisan politics, reflects in many respects the current discontent of Slovenes and Croats with Yugoslavia and the Great Serbian regime of the "federation." In his dissertation entitled "The Economic Aspect of International Relations," Kardelj addressed all the national contrasts in the economic sphere, and at the heart of his considerations he posited the principle of "the economic independence of each people" as the starting point for the further development of the economic system in Yugoslavia as a "multinational community."

The full implementation of this principle would amount to political emancipation and, ultimately, to the separation of Slovenia, Croatia (including Bosnia), and other republics. This radical demand by Kardelj is inconsistent with his previous stances, and its explanation lies in the current discontent of the broad masses of the Slovenian population with the "federation's" investment policies and with Belgrade's centralism in general. Kardelj, now indirectly, revives the old communist program regarding the solution of the national problem based on the voluntary association of peoples "with the right to separate," a right rejected by Tito and by the Serbian communists even on the eve of the last world war and trampled underfoot in present-day Yugoslavia.

But Kardelj also strives to ingratiate himself with the "federation" and the official party line, distorting its principled stance in these terms:

"The problem of the economic equality of peoples is thus posed (referring to the multinational character of Yugoslavia) in two aspects: as a problem of economic independence, that is, as popular self-management, and as a problem of the gradual elimination of the fundamental differences in the level of development of the material base of national life."

Kardelj continues: opinions arise that "forget one or the other aspect of this problem, or both," and such conceptions are born "both within the sphere of outdated nationalist narrowness and the statist and unitarist tendency."

The panacea proposed by Kardelj for resolving the issues of international relations within "socialist economic relations in our country" would be the following:

"The starting point for international economic relations is, without a doubt, the economic independence of each people, which guarantees them independence in their work and in the distribution of the fruits of their labor—that is to say, in building the material base for the development of their own culture and civilization."

"Of course, I am not referring here to absolute independence, as such does not exist. In our time, the peoples of the world, and particularly those so bound by destiny in a socialist community like Yugoslavia, are united by so many ties that we cannot speak only of independence but of interdependence. However, this interdependence is not imposed from above but rather results from the common interests of the workers of all peoples."

Kardelj, therefore, calls for independence within reciprocal dependence. This "national economic independence in socialist economic relations" is defined as "a peaceful aspect of workers' self-government." These relations should be regulated according to the same principle that governs socialist relations with people, namely, "distribution according to labor and self-management in working communities," but "each according to their ability and to each according to their output." If economic relations between peoples were based on other principles, then there would be no equality, as Kardelj emphasizes.

Consequently, Kardelj calls for the transfer of the "means of expanded reproduction," that is, investment funds, to the sphere of self-management, which aligns with the new party program regarding self-government. In this way, Kardelj reconciles his "nationalist" postulates with the new party line, and later attempts to soften them by interpreting the new role of self-management as giving "new impetus to genuine progressive processes of integration between peoples in the field of economic development." Despite its professed loyalty "to national integration," the main meaning of its future actions and the role of the Communist League of Yugoslavia, as it did not address, is: the further away from the federation and Belgrade ("unitary statist tendencies") the better, or "our purse in our pocket." These are well-known slogans in Croatia during the pre-war era.

It will be interesting to follow Kardelj's position. Will he back down (perhaps for tactical reasons) like Bakaric, or will he persist in defending Slovenian interests? Rankovic, in his presentation, which focused on "Current Problems, Future Action, and the Role of the Communist League of Yugoslavia," did not specifically address the national question, but he did take a clear stance. Reporting on negative phenomena and practices, he also referred to the "serious distortions" of some that give rise to closed circles, "intimate societies," where politics is discussed irresponsibly and chauvinistic rhetoric is uttered..."

Rankovic demands vigilance, unity, and the vigorous repression of such phenomena. This threat is surely aimed at the Croatian communist opposition. Furthermore, he lashes out at the demagoguery of "petty bourgeois," "imaginary liberals," and others, from which "even the press is sometimes not immune, with some newspapers standing out more than others." Regarding the sports crisis, Rankovic censures the press for its "both petty and grand sensationalism."

It is interesting to note that the Zagreb newspaper, Vjesnik, frequently criticized the "federation" and Belgrade until the autumn of 1964 (debates about iron foundries, the sports crisis, the demand to build the highway). Zagreb-Split without consulting the "federation," the backwardness of Croatian industry, etc.), but suddenly that criticism fell silent. A statement by Bakaric to that newspaper marked the end of that campaign and apparently signified a decisive retreat from Rankovic.

Rankovic, it is true, declared himself in favor of democratic relations in the Communist League and in society, and in his speech he explained "new characteristics and the essence of the principle of democratic centralism," but he clearly warned his critics and supporters of liberation that he and his group firmly held power, that they were the owners of the Party and the State, and not the "demagogues," the "petty bourgeoisie," the "liberals," and the "chauvinists." He unequivocally announced a "permanent and relentless struggle." His words were evidently directed primarily at the Croatian and Slovenian opposition.

Even the Montenegrin Vlahovic dedicated a long portion of his speech to the issue. national. He also emphasizes the "multinational character" of the Yugoslav community, but strikingly stresses that "the communists must wage a decisive battle for the consolidation of unity and fraternity" and that "certain positions are retrograde, dragging us into the quagmire of nationalism and chauvinism." Vlahovic, in all respects, adopts Tito's line on the "definitive solution" to the national question.

The form and extent to which this crucial problem is resolved is evidenced by the call to fight against "nationalist and chauvinistic demonstrations" and against "attempts to create nationalist oases and various chauvinistic bunkers, above all, within the ranks of the Communist League." Essentially, this reflects the Great Serbian conception of the national question in Yugoslavia, resolved to the point that, due to the resulting discontent, it is necessary to wage an open struggle within the Communist League and begin destroying "the chauvinistic bunkers" there.

Following the presentations by Tito, Rankovic, and Vlahovic, there was no doubt as to what position the congress resolution on the national question would adopt. Centralism and bureaucratic unitarianism were also condemned in writing, but the focus shifted to the struggle against "nationalism and chauvinism" in the sense of "confinement within national frameworks," which is directed against the non-Serbian peoples in Yugoslavia. Finally, the insistence on "strengthening unity and fraternity" and "Yugoslav socialist patriotism" is an open reaffirmation of the Great Serbian character of Yugoslavia and of the policies pursued thus far, and an acknowledgment that the struggle of the non-Serbian peoples for their national liberation continues and will not be halted despite threats and force.

ECONOMIC POLICY

The Eighth Congress devoted paramount attention to economic issues. The difficulties and crises arising in the economy, coupled with national conflicts and the economic disputes between the republics and the federation, gave priority to these problems, a point Tito emphasized in his speech.

Before addressing these issues, it is necessary to list the main problems and difficulties of the Yugoslav economy.

In Yugoslavia, unemployment reached large and troubling proportions. While official unemployment figures have not been published, based on available data and information, it was estimated that in 1964 the number of unemployed exceeded 500,000. This figure is not decreasing; rather, it is tending to increase due to the influx of workers from rural areas to cities and the industrial crisis. As an escape from this economic burden, workers are legally emigrating to the free countries of Western Europe. "Socialist Yugoslavia" is sending its workers to "capitalist countries" to alleviate its economic crisis. According to Bakaric, at the beginning of 1964, approximately 150,000 workers were employed abroad, and this number increased throughout the year.

The authorities are forcing workers to emigrate to obtain foreign currency. The balance of payments deficit is growing, and this is how they are trying to improve it. Exports are not keeping pace with imports, which is causing the deficit to increase and, at the same time, creating serious economic disruptions, particularly in industries that depend on imported goods. Mass consumption is also suffering due to the negative balance of payments, since imports of consumer goods must be restricted. It was decided to devalue the dinar again, and its value from 1965 onward is 1,250 per dollar, instead of 750.

The greatest burden on the entire economy stems from the persistent crisis in agriculture. Agricultural production cannot meet domestic consumption needs. The socialist sector has increased grain and industrial production to some extent, but harvests are insufficient to satisfy consumer demand. For years, this deficit has been covered by American food aid. Furthermore, the 1964 wheat and corn harvest was poor due to bad weather and the ineffectiveness of the Italian wheat varieties that were imposed without prior testing. Meat and milk production is even less satisfactory.

Here, the socialist sector's contribution is negligible, but because farmers must work under extremely difficult conditions, production stagnates and declines, especially with regard to livestock. The consequence of poor agricultural policy is insufficient market supply and rising prices. The new program does not foresee any radical change to the policy followed thus far. The increase in the price of agricultural products was mandated by the authorities in the summer of 1964, primarily to improve the disastrous financial state of socialist farms, which were operating at a significant loss. This price increase would stimulate some private sector production, but not enough to substantially improve the situation. Radical measures in tax and credit policies, favoring individual producers, would be necessary for this purpose. Moreover, the impact of the price increase has already diminished due to rising costs.

The increased cost of food is a burden that particularly weighs heavily on workers and employees, since the economy, given its insufficient productivity, cannot raise wages accordingly without suffering major disruptions.

On the other hand, many unproductive investments, and their large scale, ultimately harm individual consumers. Thus, a disproportionate share of national income is invested at the expense of consumer goods production.

All these factors contribute permanently and rapidly to rising prices and wages, and since the socialist sector and the state regulate the market in their favor, prices rise faster than wages, thus increasing the discontent of workers and employees. The consequence of such a development is inflation. The internal value of the dinar declines rapidly.

To better understand the debates on the new course of self-management and investment funds, that is, the so-called expanded reproduction, it is necessary to highlight the discontent in Croatia and Slovenia regarding investment policy. In Croatia, this discontent culminated in the summer of 1964, after the federal government's decision to build a large iron foundry in the 1964-1970 seven-year plan. Belgrade rejected the Croatian proposal to build it on the Adriatic coast, thus provoking open opposition from the Croatian communists.

The difficulties in production and wage payments at the "Rade Koncar" factory (Zagreb) arose from the mandatory contribution of large sums to the central investment fund and the insufficient supply of raw materials and semi-finished products by the central authorities.

Workers' discontent was directed against the "federation." The flooding of Zagreb and western parts of Croatia demonstrated that well-developed projects for regulating the Sava River and permanently eliminating the danger of future floods have existed for some time, but Belgrade has prevented their implementation. Furthermore, discussions are currently underway in Croatia regarding the obsolescence of communication routes, transportation infrastructure, and industrial plants, as well as the sabotage of port construction, the establishment of a rail link to the Adriatic, and the development of a suitable route from Bosnia to the Danube basin. This discontent also spread within the communist ranks, hence the "nationalism" and "chauvinism" that Tito and other supreme leaders of the Party and the "federation" censure and repudiate.

The discontent spreading in Slovenia is even more obvious. There, some companies have stopped contributing their "surplus" to Belgrade's central investment fund, instead allocating it to their own funds for investment in the Slovenian economy without Belgrade's consultation or consent. In well-informed Croatian circles, it is argued that the Slovenes are using this method to build the port of Kopar on the Adriatic. Although this port will be competitive with Croatian ports, many applaud this approach by Slovenes who oppose Belgrade and the "federation," a Great Serbian instrument.

Apparently, companies in Slovenia are increasingly adopting these methods. I learned that a large factory in Slovenia decided not to send its assigned "surplus" quota to the federal investment fund, but instead recorded the amount under the company's "investments" category on the orders of its director. They promptly used it to expand the factory. A few months later, an audit from Belgrade uncovered the scheme. The director was prosecuted and given a suspended sentence of four months in prison and dismissed. His factory was sent to Kopar for a period of rest, and all expenses were covered.

After three months, he was reinstated at the same factory as technical director. In this way, workers' and social self-management acquires a new function: workers' collectives have control over surpluses and investments. A "new economic system" is taking shape, consisting of disintegration, and since the "old system" failed completely, new solutions had to be found. It is not surprising, then, that the Eighth Congress, compelled by the prevailing situation and chaos, had to consider the new trends and grant, at least in principle, to self-management the function and authority to decide on "expanded reproduction."

Tito and Kardelj emphasized the "great progress" made in the economy between the Seventh and Eighth Congresses (1958-1964), arguing that these successes primarily signified the strengthening of the social sector of the economy. According to Tito, the average increase in national income per capita amounted to 7.6% annually. Kardelj acknowledged that a disproportionately large portion of national income was invested at the expense of workers.

Tito maintained that the new agricultural policy had yielded "good results" and that "it is not necessary to change our approach to agricultural policy." At the same time, he recognized, as is widely known, "that agriculture is still not in a position to meet the growing needs of domestic consumption and manufacturing, nor can it play the role in our exports that it normally could and should play." The consequence is "that we still have to allocate considerable resources to import food and that the lag in economic production has an unfavorable impact on the standard of living of the population and on economic processes in general."

To demonstrate, however, that the standard of living had improved, Tito and Kardelj cited figures on increased consumption of textiles, electricity, and televisions, as well as on housing construction, but they concealed the true relationship between consumption and workers' income, as well as the purchasing power of workers' wages.

While Tito attempted to prove, using unverified figures, that exports between 1958 and 1964 increased much more than imports, he masked deteriorating balance of payments deficits. Kardelj admitted that the "balance of payments deficit exerts constant pressure on our internal processes and, as such, is a limiting factor in social development." Furthermore, because of the deficit, the authorities were forced to introduce various measures "regarding administrative distribution in the area of foreign exchange and to take several other interventions..."

The economic problems were discussed at the Eighth Congress under the banner of decentralization. This primarily concerned investment policy, which became the battleground for "nationalist conflicts." The transfer of "surplus" funds to the central investment fund in Belgrade and the decision regarding their use—which entails reforming existing enterprises and building new ones, as well as expanding the economy—degenerated into open conflict between the non-Serbian regions and Serbia and the "federation." This struggle was waged within the civil service and the Communist League, and it led to the failure of the "old system." A "new system" was sought through decentralization. In this new system, the decision-making process regarding investments, that is, "accumulated surpluses" and "expanded reproduction," would fall under the purview of self-management.

Within the framework of workers' and social self-management, decisions would be made regarding the distribution of social income, investments, amortization, and social programs. In other words, self-management would decide on the important economic problems that, until now, belonged to the "Federation," which resolved these problems sovereignly, despite frequent changes in decisions concerning "centralization" and "decentralization."

Since all the economic problems at the Eighth Congress were discussed with a view to self-management, and since much of the debate also touched on "nationalism" or the unresolved national question and the standard of living, it is worth analyzing this issue of self-government here. Given the shared viewpoints on all the basic problems, it can be inferred that the inner circle within the Central Committee of the Communist League had already reached this conclusion, and the Congress was merely asked to ratify it. However, Kardelj's presentation demonstrated that there were differing opinions among the communists regarding the implementation of the new resolution. In the generally monotonous discussion, only the Croat Tripalo maintained the unorthodox position, declaring that radical decisions had already been made and expressing doubt about the success of the new measures.

Speaking of workers' and social self-management, Tito emphasized that the period between the Seventh and Eighth Congresses was marked by "the great successes of the socialist forces in our country, led by the Communist League of Yugoslavia, in building new socialist relations of the community, the foundation of which is the self-management of the working people in all spheres of social life."

Tito then declared that "the system of social self-management and direct socialist democracy became the foundation of our entire process, the principal way of managing economic and social affairs. It is quite strange, this 'direct socialist democracy' in which all the important problems concerning income distribution, the accumulation of 'surpluses,' and investments were handled, as Tito, Kardelj, Bakaric, and other communist leaders themselves admit, by the centralist and bureaucratic circles in the 'federation,' that is, in Belgrade, and only now is there talk of transferring this self-management to its rightful holders.

The impotence of this 'direct socialist democracy' could not be more clearly expressed. Of course, such praise is nothing but empty rhetoric. Tito immediately emphasizes 'the weaknesses and problems that today come mainly from outside, that is, from factors external to production.'" Tito must admit that the development "of workers' self-management no longer depends solely on the producers" and that such self-government could no longer fulfill its social function.

“If workers’ collectives were henceforth deprived of independent control over essential material resources—that is, if they lacked the means necessary for the development and expansion of production—the interference of political factors from socio-political communities in social production, as we have it today, is incompatible with a successful production process. This is especially true of the intervention in and arbitrary distribution of almost all of an enterprise’s resources. Even worse, the exploitation of these resources for various unproductive purposes or in unprofitable and outdated investments is unacceptable. Further development of expanded reproduction can only succeed if workers’ collectives have access to the essential material means to which they are entitled under the Constitution.”

"I believe," Tito said, "that those comrades who think the problem of accumulation is solely the concern of political factors, and who tenaciously wish to preserve the current system, are making a grave mistake. These comrades question the right of workers' collectives to participate in decisions regarding the distribution and use of accumulated resources."

The current serious "nationalist" crisis concerning the distribution of surplus and investment decisions forces Tito to acknowledge the impotence and ineffectiveness of workers' collectives and self-management in the face of centralist political forces. The denial of the right of workers' collectives to participate in the distribution and use of accumulated resources has existed since the very first day of workers' and social self-management, which, according to Tito, has become meaningless. Furthermore, the squandering of funds seized from companies must also be considered. Tito, in the era of open "nationalist" warfare over investments, particularly between the Slovenes and Croats on one side and the Great Serbian hegemony of the "federation" on the other, could no longer remain silent about this fact.

"No one today can deny the fact that year after year we have robbed existing industry through our interference and forced depreciation, thereby preventing its renewal. The resources we have thus accumulated are sometimes used for unproductive investments. Such a policy of forced investment has caused and continues to cause major disruptions to our economic development and, above all, contributes to market instability, which together provoke not only discontent among our workers and citizens but also inter-republican friction."

Tito acknowledged that the "federation" had been plundering industry for years, even taking its depreciation funds. Thus, not only the fixed surpluses but also the depreciation funds for the most urgent repairs were taken from the companies to Belgrade. These resources were used to build unprofitable businesses, which contributed significantly to the economic crisis and particularly burdened workers, employees, and consumers in general. The expression "interrepublican friction" refers to the opposition of Croatia and Slovenia to the hegemony of the "federation" dominated by the Gran Serbian clique, whose entire economic policy is geared toward defending Gran Serbian interests and the Gran Serbian conception of Yugoslav state policy. But reality is harsh and cannot be hidden.

Regarding investment and the standard of living, these considerations of Tito are characteristic:

“I think we all agree that our investments are excessive and not in accordance with the material base of our country, the pace of accumulation, and the need to gradually raise the standard of living. This not only contributes to a decline in the rise of the standard of living but also to its stagnation. Therefore, for the standard of living to improve steadily, it is necessary, among other things, to change investment policy.

We must abandon the construction of new, unproductive structures and new, unprofitable factories, the construction of new, identical factories (instead of expanding and cooperating with existing ones, which require far fewer resources), because this smacks of and tends toward economic autarky and constitutes great harm to our community, sometimes even becoming a political problem. Our future investment policy must be oriented in such a way as to ensure the profitability of the means invested for the benefit of the entire community, for the benefit of the standard of living.

On this point, the producers in our socialist society must have their say. Regarding the disturbances that hinder the The improvement of the economic system, approved by the Federal Assembly, cannot be blamed on workers' collectives, but rather on political factors that oppose it. While above we learned of the "nationalist" movement of the investment and self-management policy, here we learn of the social gravity of this irresponsible policy.

Disproportionately to the large share of investment in national income, the production of consumer goods decreases; that is, too much is invested to the detriment of the consumer's daily needs. If unprofitable and unproductive enterprises are then built, further onerous burdens are placed on the worker's standard of living. In this way, the worker, the employee, and the peasant pay dearly for the irresponsible and excessive construction of factories, representative buildings, and other objects for the realization of the hegemonic plans of the ruling Great Serbian class and to satisfy the primitive ambitions and prestige of the communist leaders. From this arises once again the political problem in its national and social aspects. Tito's declaration confirms the existing political and social chaos caused by the investment policy.

This grave situation arose despite the fact, acknowledged by Tito, "that the principle that direct producers must be the main drivers of expanded reproduction has long been proclaimed..." A new system must be built upon this principle, "since past practice and the results of workers' and social self-management have convincingly confirmed the socio-political and economic character of the decisions made by direct producers within their organizations." Thus, producers could always find "the best and most rational solutions to the problems of production, planning, investment, and productivity in their enterprises, with the aim of constantly increasing the income and funds of the workers' organization, and thereby their personal income." In Tito's view, it is necessary "to make renewed efforts to further develop and deepen self-management and direct socialist democracy, in order to progress more successfully and more rapidly."

For these reasons, "we must more decisively and rapidly undertake new changes in the socio-economic system, in the system of social distribution... With such changes in the status of economic organizations, in the process of social reproduction, workers' collectives are enabled to create more freely and achieve the income that they will distribute directly according to their interests and needs, and those of the entire community. This should be the new foundation of self-management and the future development of all social relations."

Tito emphasized that these principles had been proclaimed long ago and now outlined the obstacles to their implementation. These obstacles begin in various enterprises and communes "by bypassing the organs of self-management, with administrative interference and bureaucratic procedures..."...Such relationships and methods, already superseded by our development, lead only to the weakening of the leading role of socialist forces, and above all of communists, nurturing bureaucratic and bourgeois elements and other negative, even anti-socialist, phenomena and tendencies, and bring about new problems and difficulties...".

Other obstacles include bureaucratic-centralist tendencies in enterprises merged administratively, in republican and federal bureaucratism, etc. Tito and the Communist League again proclaimed the principle of direct determination by producers regarding "expanded reproduction," but it is unclear how this should be achieved. The enumeration of these impediments gives the impression that the communist leaders seriously doubt the success of their new decisions.

Kardelj was far more concrete and precise. In his dissertation, he presented himself in a dual role: as a speaker for the Slovenian "nationalist" opposition and as a member of the leadership of the Communist League of Yugoslavia.

Before addressing the central economic problems of accumulation and expanded reproduction, Kardelj dealt extensively with what he called the "economic prerequisites for social progress," distinguishing two groups of problems:

1) Structural difficulties and dispositions "in economic and social development." The main difficulty here lies in the fact that the share of personal income in national income is very small, and the share of investment is too large, which lowers the standard of living. Inflation ensued, exacerbated by insufficient food production. Reducing investment and increasing agricultural production are, in Kardelj's view, the indispensable conditions for overcoming these so-called "structural difficulties and disproportions."

2) The second group of problems concerns extensive industry and investment policy. Related to these problems is foreign trade, which is generating an ever-increasing deficit in the balance of payments. "Extensive economics" consists primarily of the squandering of investment resources, in the prolongation of the Construction periods, the construction of excessively large plants, their unsuitable location, and the building of expensive structures all contribute to the problem. Simultaneously, difficulties arise from the massive influx of young rural workers to urban and industrial centers, resulting in high unemployment.

But greater difficulties arise "in socialist productive relations and self-management," in "the distribution of the products of social labor," and in "expanded reproduction." Analyzing these problems, Kardelj declares himself against "the mentality of a certain kind of statist paternalism," but he does not advocate complete freedom for workers' collectives either, but rather moderate state intervention; that is, "it is understood that under conditions of workers' self-management it would be entirely unrealistic and senseless in principle to reject the instruments of state authority in the sphere of economic life."

But such interference "under our conditions will inevitably act in the direction of limiting and suppressing self-management," that is, it will distort socialist economic and political relations, if it were to accumulate to such an extent the instruments of economic interference and the forms of administrative centralization and distribution of accumulated funds that it would gradually transform the worker into a mere executor of construction programs, determined subjectively and technocratically.

"It would be especially dangerous if such a process were accompanied by ideological error, since economic relations, true socialism, are based precisely on intervention. This is precisely what the Chinese leaders want to convince us of today." This conditional language reflects the real situation in Yugoslavia. They are still obscuring the reality as if "the Chinese communists wanted to convince them of it." In fact, it is the centralism-decentralization conflict that characterizes the entire economic and political process in Yugoslavia in recent years and which found its vigorous expression at the last communist congress.

Undoubtedly, Kardelj is following the line of the Serbian centralists and unitarians when he speaks of the need for "state intervention," "the unitary system of socio-economic relations within self-management," and "simultaneous integration," etc. On the other hand, he speaks under pressure from the Slovenian "nationalist and chauvinist" opposition when he makes this demand:

"The starting point and the means of achieving this orientation must be the effort to ensure that the worker, their collective, and their organization or social service, of which they are an integral part, are in the highest possible position to influence the conditions of their work, beginning with the most basic decisions in the direct work process and through the system of expanded reproduction to the social plan..."

"The freest economic relations within the country, the independence of the producers, and their influence on expanded reproduction must, of course, be reflected in the freest and broadest economic relations with the outside world. This would be the practical expression of socialist integration, which disregards state borders and always has as its objective the working person, from whom such integration originates."

Kardelj called for the self-management bodies to have authority over all significant issues in economic enterprises, emphasizing investment and social planning. But now, as an advocate for Slovenian national aspirations, he also championed the independence of producers in "the freest and broadest economic relations with foreign countries." This demand was identical to the one Bakaric made in early 1964, calling for direct links and participation of the republics in international relations. Here, the Croatian-Slovenian opposition to the Great Serbian centralism of the federation manifested itself in its most vigorous form.

Kardelj had to admit that achieving these goals faced significant and serious obstacles. "The remnants of the old system weigh heavily on the self-management system, substantially restricting its material basis and the possibilities for its full realization..." Kardelj stated, before going on to acknowledge that self-management was impossible or extremely difficult to achieve in areas that, by their nature, depended on the decisions of the "federation." Kardelj describes this form of centralism in these terms:

“This applies especially to railways, electricity, and other economic activities, where, in view of the indispensable centralization of technological work, certain shortcomings still appear regarding the possibility of applying the principle of self-management, which prevents the prompt resolution of certain problems of paramount importance in these areas. The way out of this situation is certainly not to prolong the debates on self-government, but to establish as soon as possible the conditions for the principle of self-management to be fully realized in workers' organizations in these fields as well. In other words,

it is necessary to give workers' communities in these spheres an independent material base, which will enable workers' collectives to become, to the greatest extent possible, independent managers of their work. Technological problems can be easily resolved if one takes into account that self-management is the starting point and foundation of the entire system. One gets the impression that in the debates, technological reasons are merely a pretext for defending the Remnants of administrative centralism persist instead of seeking appropriate forms of democratic centralism based on self-management.”

The financial situation is also serious in other, non-economic spheres. Scientific, educational, and cultural institutions have no income, and self-management cannot distribute surpluses; the allocation of funds depends on bureaucratic centralism, now countered in the Party, the economy, and other sectors by Rankovic’s “democratic centralism” and the “unity of the Communist League,” as the basic ideological line for the new system.

Kardelj emphasizes that the implementation of the new system is hampered “because in our practice, at certain points, elements of the old system clash with the new relationships, which often paralyzes the effectiveness of both.” In addition to these objective difficulties, Kardelj cites many subjective reasons, including “grand-statist conceptions,” that is, Gran Serbian conceptions, which, of course, are not subjective conceptions but rather the foundation of state organization.

All reforms, therefore, should begin with the distribution of the product of social labor based on self-management, and Kardelj formulates it thus:

"The most important task for stabilizing socialist socio-economic relations based on self-management is the necessity for the system of distribution of the social product to be a constitutive part of the socio-economic system and to become increasingly free of the remnants of state-administrative control." Starting from this principle, Kardelj sets as his first immediate objective "The principle of distribution according to labor...in all relations with people... Which means that this principle must be the basis for distribution among the members of the labor community, among the parts of the labor community, among associated enterprises, between society and the labor community, in relations between peoples and between republics, and in obligations to the federation."

The meaning of this postulate is undeniable: the "nationalist" independence of the republic from the federation. "Distribution according to work" and the allocation of new functions to self-management raise the question of whether "federation" is necessary. Croatian and Slovenian demands are identified in this sense, and at the Eighth Congress, Kardelj, strictly speaking, also supported the thesis of the Croatian "opposition."

How would this new system be implemented? The path is not yet clear. As the most important measure, particularly regarding investment policy, Kardelj mentions reforming the credit and banking system, the role of interest, more flexible transport tariffs, a suitable plan for reserve funds, reforming the amortization system, and so on. To finance the expenses of the federation and other "territorial communities," the tax on the movement of finished goods, various personal income taxes, duties, and customs taxes should be used, first and foremost. All of this is still undefined and theoretical, making it impossible to see how the proposed system would function in practice.

For the use of resources from "expanded reproduction"—that is, investment funds—Kardelj calls for reform in the spirit of self-management. But since he advocates "a new form of democratic centralization based on social self-management and the corresponding centralization of resources," alongside decentralization as a starting point, and since he admits that there are no general solutions to these problems, it means that "the new system" is not yet fully developed.

The main difficulty, therefore, remains unresolved, and the central problem of the Yugoslav economy is far from being solved. The most significant outcome of the debates in question is the fact that two antagonistic factions are now facing off within the communist ranks: the centralists and the anti-centralists.

Tito and Kardelj discussed the workers' standard of living without offering them a better outlook for the future. In Kardelj's view, the most important thing would be to increase productivity within the new system of "expanded reproduction." Another substantial measure would be to establish a stable relationship between "labor productivity and personal consumption, that is, between the social standard."

In short, improving the workers' standard of living depends on the success of reforms related to self-management and reducing the share of investment in national income in favor of personal consumption. Kardelj, at the same time, outlines the aforementioned difficulties and acknowledges that "the problem of the standard of living has recently become more acute," and that new promises offer little hope for its improvement, despite the insistence on the principle: "from each according to their ability, to each according to their output."

The Congress Resolution recognizes the principle of "the independence of collectives in decisions regarding expanded reproduction." The need for “integrationist currents” is also highlighted, and it is emphasized that “relations between member companies must be based on the principle of self-management and income distribution according to work.” Planning for “expanded reproduction” is simultaneously “the instrument of the producers themselves and of the community to guide economic development.” Kardelj’s demands were only partially taken into account by placing the federation, the republics, and other socio-political communities on the same level and requiring that their function be “to establish the general conditions for a more harmonious development of the economy, bypassing the indirect allocation of resources…”. Although the entire conflict revolves around the influence and role of the federation, “here its role is equated with that of the republics.”

The Congress Resolution also emphasizes the continuation of agricultural policy in the sense of “the future development of the social sector and broader cooperation with individual producers,” which has thus far resulted in repeated failures.

In general terms, it can be said that the proposals of the Croatian and Slovenian communist “liberals” were accepted with many modifications, but their principles were not refuted. It is interesting to note what this communist opposition thought about the prospects for success of the new system. Miko Tripalo, a Croatian and the only one at the Congress to adopt an opposition stance, doubted the success of the measures taken. His words are characteristic:

“If one reads with some attention the many resolutions, pronouncements, articles, and discussions of the last two years, as well as the conclusions drawn from the constitutional debates, one gets the impression that the vast majority of authors declare themselves, for example, in favor of direct producers having a decisive influence on the policy of expanded reproduction. However, it is a fact that such a policy of expanded reproduction is not being consistently implemented.”

Or later: "It is true, almost all the political decisions on the matter have already been made... However, I think that these decisions are being implemented slowly and hesitantly, and that all too often compromises are sought that satisfy neither those who support such a policy nor its opponents."

Tripalo then observes: "certain factors are trying to maintain the current system of centralized accumulation and decentralize it only to their own level," that these tendencies should not be attributed solely to the federal bodies, "although they are currently more dangerous there." Tripalo states clearly "that as for a strengthening of the material base of the economy—so that it can become the vehicle for expanded reproduction—there has been absolutely nothing so far."

In short: the proposals and conclusions of the Congress on self-management are nothing new. Such resolutions have already been adopted repeatedly, but "the federal bodies" have prevented their implementation. So far, "decentralized resources in labor organizations" have had bad luck, because, as Tripalo states, "a good portion of those funds were siphoned off through other channels, with less publicity than the elimination of contributions..."

Therefore, he doesn't expect much of an effect from the new measures and says: "Reviewing the material and the draft for the 1965 social plan, the same trend is evident again." In other words, the plans for 1965 were drawn up according to the old system. Tripalo cites very interesting examples from the 1965 social plan, which indicate the fate of the new conclusions and the "new system."

"The announced elimination of the income tax on industry has been abandoned. It is true that reforms to the tax on the movement of goods are planned, but at the same time, a mandatory loan to the federal government in the amount of 75 billion dinars is being introduced, which will minimize the positive effect of many measures." Tripalo also points out that "the last two years have been characterized by a scramble to secure investment resources, such that 70 to 80% of the resources allocated in the seven-year plan had already been distributed before its implementation." He adds that in 1966 the policy should be ended and "a thorough review of the approved investments should be carried out, and the social plan for 1965 adjusted to the policy adopted by this Congress."

Therefore, the decisions regarding the 1965-70 seven-year plan had already been made, and the resources were allocated according to the "old system." Many in Croatia, besides Tripalo, do not believe that this system will change.

Tripalo also raises serious arguments against the "old system" regarding the conclusions and orientation of high-productivity industry, with the modernization and reconstruction of industry aimed at increasing its exports. According to him, the actual situation was this:

"However, all measures to date have tended to deprive industry, starting with the depreciation system, the implementation of taxes on the extraordinary income that industry paid precisely because depreciation did not exist, and as a result of new measures that increased production costs, without abolishing, for example, the tax derived from income."

These measures of "plunder," of looting, primarily target industry in Croatia and Slovenia, and it seems unlikely their future will improve much. This is how Tripalo, a representative of the Croatian communists, judges the state of industry and the effect the new measures will have.

ABSENCE OF YOUTH, WORKERS, AND PEASANTS IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY

Tito painted a bleak picture of communist youth and communist influence over them. He acknowledged that communist action among young people was insufficient and that in urban youth, "the negative elements of our social life have more influence than the positive ones," "which manifest intolerance and discontent, and where cases of hooliganism have occurred," etc. In passing, Tito did emphasize "that our youth are mostly close to us," but he accumulated so many negative aspects that the final conclusion is disastrous.

The particular concern of the communist leaders is the chasm between intellectual and working-class youth. "One inevitably gets the impression that a segment of the youth has aristocratic airs, wants to separate itself and differentiate itself from working-class youth," said Tito. This is reflected in the material aspect with wage disparities, with discrimination against working-class youth, which gives rise to social differentiation, etc.

According to Tito, rural youth are being neglected, they are flocking to the cities and want to work in industry. He is extremely concerned by the fact that lately, "various localist and particularist tendencies in our society" are affecting young people. Tito emphasizes that "the vast majority of young people are not infected with nationalist and chauvinist tendencies, but several harmful phenomena in our cultural life, in literature, in historiography, etc., are having a negative impact on them." He tries to mitigate this "negativity" by stating that our youth are "free from all particularism and chauvinism," and that young people tend "towards integration, not unitary but socialist..." The picture he paints of university students is equally bleak. "Student organizations and communists in universities are too insular, which separates them from working-class youth, and then, in production, intellectual workers are differentiated from producers. Instead of striving for the integration of socialist builders, disintegration is the result..." Tito observes.

Such is the situation that communist leaders face with impotence. Communism holds no appeal for young people, and its ranks are primarily filled with mere opportunists. Hence the class distinction between "masters" and "workers," the exclusivism of university students, and so on. The communists had been determined to educate new generations in their ideology so they could overcome difficulties, resolve conflicts with previous generations, and build a new society. However, their influence on youth is very weak, and the results of communist education are contrary to what was expected.

The data cited by Rankovic regarding youth membership in the Communist League demonstrates a great lack of interest in communism and a negative outlook for the future. Rankovic, in his presentation, cites these data and offers the following commentary:

"Statistics tell us that the participation of young people up to 25 years of age in the total number of members declined in the period between the two Congresses, from 23.6% in 1958 to 13.6% in 1964. It is natural that the members of the Communist League are aging, that the vast majority are over 25, but it is not natural that this proportion should be so pronounced. We must pay urgent attention to this problem, especially since the statistical data show that the enrollment of young people is decreasing in relation to the total number of members."

Rankovic also notes that the influx of workers into the communist ranks is insufficient, and especially that of peasants. According to Rankovic, “in some rural organizations, peasants are the minority,” and that, despite the growth in agricultural production, “farmers are joining the Communist League less and less.”

In our analysis of the professional structure of the delegates at the Eighth Congress, we observed that the Communist League is not an organization of workers but of professional communist “politicians” and party bureaucrats and officials. Furthermore, there is a lack of young people.

THE MAIN POLITICAL LINE AND THE NEW LEADERSHIP OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

The Congress condemned centralism and unitarianism and emphasized “that the role and status of members of the Communist League stem from the role of the worker in the system of self-government, which means that a member of the Communist League increasingly becomes a subject…” Rankovic thus outlines "democratic centralism" as the new political line. But by condemning and censuring "demagogues," "liberals," the "demagoguery" of the press, "irresponsible politicking," and by threatening their spokespeople, he suggests quite clearly that the new "role of workers in the self-management system" and "democratic centralism" are empty phrases masking an immutable reality. During the debate, this was confirmed by S. Stefanovic, Rankovic's close collaborator and head of the secret political police (UDBA), who attacked the "dualism" of some communists and called for an investigation into the reasons for the "diminishing of responsibility by certain communists." Rankovic gives substance to "democratic centralism" when he demands "unity" in the Communist League not only in principles and the adoption of precisely formulated programs, but also in their implementation.

The principle of rotation in the Communist League and in important administrative positions has long been adopted. Tito is the only exception, since he was proclaimed president for life. One would expect, therefore, that the core leadership of the Communist League—that is, the Central Committee and the Executive Committee—would change. However, the election of the new bodies of the Communist League of Yugoslavia shows that the Serbian ruling group, which has occupied all the key positions in the state and party apparatus since the imposition of the communist regime, was not replaced.

The Serbs A. Rankovic, P. Stambolic, and S. Stefanovic, who wield the real power, were re-elected to the Central Committee. They were not affected by the rotation system. The election of the Montenegrin Vlahovic as secretary of the Central Committee alongside Rankovic and Kardelj is of little consequence here, since power is firmly in the hands of the Great Serbian clique, which Tito serves perfectly in the eyes of the outside world as General Secretary of the Communist League of Yugoslavia and as head of state. At the closing of the Congress, Rankovic spoke alongside Tito, a sign of his leading role in the Party and the State. Rankovic even emphasized his role, and there is no doubt that he seeks to establish himself as the true master of the situation.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONGRESS FOR CROATIA

The national question was the central theme of the Congress. The Communist League abandoned the "Yugoslav political integration" it had recently championed and renounced the creation of a "Yugoslav nation," but simultaneously condemned the aspirations of non-Serbian peoples to effective national autonomy as "nationalism and chauvinism," and advocated for the strengthening of "unity and fraternity" and "Yugoslav socialist patriotism." Only the words changed, while the content remained the same, as the state organization and the main political guidelines remained unaltered. The struggle against Great Serbian hegemony continued, antagonisms grew, and these issues were discussed publicly.

With the new conclusions on self-management in the economy and on the role of workers' collectives in investment decisions, the decentralizing tendencies of the Croatian and Slovenian communists, in principle, prevailed against centralism and unitarism. However, similar decisions had been made previously but were never implemented. Current reality indicates that substantial changes in this area are unlikely to occur in the future either. Nevertheless, the conclusions of the Eighth Congress may benefit opposition circles, since now, by asserting the independence of workers' and social self-management from the distribution of surpluses and the use of investment funds, they can cloak their demands in legality, invoking the decisions of the Eighth Congress. This effectively "legitimizes" the "opposition's" stance and facilitates its work.

Among the main speakers was Kardelj, who was very forceful in demanding the distribution of income, the proper use of investment funds, and the emancipation of the republics. In many respects, he acted under pressure from Slovenes' discontent, holding similar views and making demands to those recently made by the Croatian Bakaric. Although Bakaric, the Croatian spokesperson, backed down under pressure from the Great Serbian ruling class surrounding Rankovic and did not speak at the Congress, the congress revealed a shared perspective between the Croatian and Slovenian communist "opposition." Nevertheless, it is a positive outcome from a Croatian and Slovenian national standpoint, bearing in mind that Bakaric and Kardelj represent a very moderate expression of the discontent spreading within both communist and non-communist ranks in Croatia and Slovenia. Both are attempting to find a compromise between the "nationalism" of the Croats and Slovenes on the one hand and Great Serbian hegemony on the other. But the clash between centralism and decentralizing tendencies, whose supporters were labeled "liberals and chauvinists" by Rankovic, was sharp and evident. A compromise was reached, and "democratic centralism" and "unity" among the communists prevailed. The struggle between these two tendencies continues.

The "rotating system" within the party apparatus did not affect the Great Serbian Rankovic-Stambolic-Stefanovic group, which has governed and occupied key positions in the party and the state since the founding of communist Yugoslavia. The leading group, headed by Rankovic, remained unchanged.

The Congress did not bring about substantial change to the national question and the struggle for independence of the non-Serbian peoples. However, it gave new dimensions to the conflict of these peoples with Great Serbian hegemony and made certain concessions to the resistance fighters. The struggle continues, and the antagonisms intensify. All the problems remain unresolved.

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL DIFFICULTIES AFTER THE CONGRESS

Tito prepares the withdrawal. – National contrasts, inexhaustible themes for Yugoslav leaders

In early November 1965, Tito visited Zupanja and Varazdin (Croatia) to see the progress of the economic reform and the political problems in general[11].

Tito admitted that the new measures had worsened the standard of living, affecting workers in particular, especially those employed in unprofitable enterprises. Tito's speeches suggest that layoffs had reached enormous proportions. The correspondent for the London Times[12] in Zagreb reported that the economic reforms had increased the number of unemployed by 200,000, that there were 200,000 unemployed workers in Western Europe, and that the Yugoslav communist government hoped to alleviate the unemployment problem to some extent by facilitating the departure of workers.

In his speech in Varaždin, Tito gave a very illustrative and important figure for assessing the results achieved to date by the economic reforms. The primary concern of Tito's regime was the shortage of foreign currency and the large deficit in the balance of trade. Tito declared that Yugoslavia had a foreign exchange reserve of only $140 million and considered the creation of such a reserve a success.

This figure clearly represents the balance of foreign exchange inflows and outflows since the beginning of the economic reforms (July 1965), that is, the foreign exchange currently available, without taking into account debts incurred due to the trade deficit in recent years. Consequently, it includes tourism revenues for 1965, approximately $100 million, the short-term loan from the International Monetary Fund of $80 million, and smaller loans from several countries (the Soviet Union, Italy, France, etc.), some of which were used to pay off old debts. It also includes the regular remittances sent by the 200,000 workers in Western European countries, which must amount to a significant sum.

Given that foreign debt payments for 1965 amounted to $289 million and $252 million for 1966, the foreign exchange reserves of $140 million were insufficient even to cover the regular foreign debt payments. To this must be added the $433 million trade deficit from 1964 and significant negative balances from previous years. A trade deficit was also recorded in 1965, despite drastic and restrictive measures to reduce imports. Between $500 million and $1 billion were required to meet the most pressing needs.

Tito acknowledges that he cannot obtain these funds from Western countries. American aid continues only in the form of food and cannot plug the gaping holes in the balance of payments. Long-term, recoverable loans are available to purchase food in North America, but Yugoslavia expects, as before, to repay them with great ease or even to have them canceled altogether. Therefore, the current strategy is to encourage imports from Eastern countries.

Tito does not explain how he will increase the inflow of foreign currency and reduce the negative balance of payments by strengthening trade ties with COMECON countries. Experience shows that Yugoslavia's trade links with Eastern countries had worsened the situation and forced Tito to seek support from the West. This new approach is determined by the political rapprochement between Moscow and Belgrade. Despite this verbal shift in foreign trade towards Eastern countries, Yugoslavia expects substantial aid from Western countries.

The recent steps taken by the Yugoslav government to establish closer ties with the European Common Market and its attempt in the autumn of 1965 to join the European Free Trade Association tend to increase trade with the member countries of these organizations. While Yugoslavia's integration into these economic communities is not feasible, Belgrade hopes to obtain special concessions for the exchange of goods. To this end, Western countries should extend credit to Yugoslavia to pay for its imports. Yugoslavia owes several European countries considerable sums that it has failed to repay according to its contractual obligations.

The extent to which Yugoslavia is economically dependent on Western democracies is clearly demonstrated by the American food shipments that have for years formed the basis of Tito's regime's food supply. Without American wheat, a large part of the Yugoslav population would lack bread. Due to the flawed communist agricultural policy, Tito's regime failed to resolve the problem of basic food production, despite its great agricultural potential. Despite alleged great successes in agriculture, the Belgrade government had to negotiate with Washington the purchase, under very favorable conditions, of significant quantities of grain from the American surplus.

Tito anticipates further difficulties and admits the possibility of another devaluation of the dinar. In doing so, he prepares for withdrawal while simultaneously announcing that the responsibility will fall on workers' self-management and the management of enterprises. In the following passages from his speech in Varaždin, he seems to foreshadow the new devaluation of the dinar:

"We must try to gradually increase the foreign exchange reserve if we want to maintain the stable value of the dinar, and not have a dollar worth 1,800 or 2,000 dinars in a year..." At that time, prices in Yugoslavia, following the implementation of economic reforms, rose so much that the dollar-to-1,250 dinar exchange rate was unrealistic. The unfavorable evolution of market supply with goods determines the constant rise in prices, and the purchasing power of the dinar falls rapidly. In the current situation, the value of the dollar exceeds 2,000 dinars. Monetary stabilization and the creation of a "strong dinar" remain a great illusion. Consequently, the success of the reform is called into question, as it is impractical without the stability of the dinar and a larger reserve of foreign currency.

Tito acknowledged that national disparities play a significant role in the economic difficulties. Major and insurmountable difficulties arise from the conflict between Great Serbian centralism and the non-Serbian "republics." Tito described this conflict in Varaždin as the fundamental cause of the failure of the economic reform. This conflict constitutes the outstanding, substantial state-political problem, the solution to which is impeded by the Great Serbian communist regime. Today, this problem is so evident in economic policy that Tito is compelled to address it once again. Regarding this, he said:

"In all our republics there are significant demands, some more than others. Now we must coordinate these demands so that economic development in the republics operates more harmoniously, in the spirit of unity and fraternity. Our economy must be governed by the principle that whoever contributes to the community also receives, and whoever does not contribute can receive nothing...

There was a period when it was not possible to consider how much each region contributes, because we knew that everywhere lacked experience, technicians, or other resources, and these had to be provided. Of course, the more developed regions contributed to the less developed ones without protest or misgivings. But that period lasted quite a while, and it is now time to ensure that everyone contributes to the community according to their maximum capacity. Otherwise, people will become disillusioned and lose interest in producing more, even in the most productive regions, and various forms of national intolerance could arise."

Therefore, according to Tito, the republics, in their demands, do not follow the spirit of unity and fraternity, and many receive from the community (i.e., from the central funds in Belgrade) far more than they contribute. It is well known that the western republics, Croatia and Slovenia, consistently contribute more than they receive, that they are exploited by Serbia, and that their opposition to Belgrade within the communist ranks has taken on a hostile character. It is obvious that Tito made this statement under the influence of discontent among the Croats in Zupanja and Varaždin.

How uncomfortable this problem is for the communist leaders is evident from Tito's statement:

"I must say, comrades, that all the negative phenomena in the sphere of national relations have their economic basis. People do not aspire to an abstract union, founded on words, but rather want unity in everyday life, as we coordinate and develop our economy.

"I think you understand what I mean." Although I find it difficult to speak about this topic, I must say that lately there have been many unhealthy phenomena reflected in our social life, even in the implementation of the reform. Therefore, we must bring order to our economic development. This is precisely the purpose of our economic reform. It shouldn't be the case that one republic adheres rigorously to the principles established for the economic reform, while another operates as before, as it pleases. There must be discipline.

"I hadn't planned to talk about relations between our nations today. At the Eighth Congress of the Communist League, we addressed the national question very thoroughly and comprehensively, highlighting several negative phenomena in our social life. But very little has been done since. If I may say so, it seems to me that the situation in this respect has worsened. The causes lie in our economy, in this foundation of socialist construction. All of us who lead this country must organize our work in such a way as to implement the decisions made at the Eighth Congress."

The national contrasts weigh so heavily on the economic front that Tito, as an exponent of Great Serbian policy, must acknowledge that unity is an abstract concept, based on words, and that practice runs counter to unity and fraternity. When one learns that Serbia and Belgrade, in the name of "unity and fraternity," act against non-Serbian peoples, imposing their will and dictates upon them, then Tito's declaration takes on its true meaning.

Tito must also admit that, despite the conclusions of the Eighth Congress of the Communist League, national divisions have intensified, hindering the implementation of economic reform and worsening the situation. Tito stated that "order must be restored," in other words, he announced the use of force to regulate national relations. This opens up bleak prospects not only for economic reform but, even more so, for the non-Serbian peoples: the Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, and the Albanian minority, who oppose Belgrade's centralism.

THE UNEMPLOYED ARE EMIGRATING IN INCREASING NUMBERS TO THE FREE COUNTRIES OF WESTERN EUROPE. EXPLOITATION OF CROATIAN REGIONS

Prior to the 1965 economic reform, the number of unemployed in Yugoslavia was high. Some foreign observers estimated that the figure exceeded 500,000, not taking into account the latent and unregistered unemployment in rural areas. The economic reforms, due to the layoffs, increased that number by 200,000.

While unemployment was previously not even officially mentioned, after the reforms, the press and communist leaders began discussing it. Now, this problem is at the forefront of public debate. How could it not be? With mass layoffs, discontent is spreading among the poorest social classes. Above all, unskilled workers lost their jobs and livelihoods, finding themselves on the streets and forced to vacate their urban homes. The problem is vast and complex.

The unemployed masses are seeking work in free Western countries with the tacit approval of the Yugoslav authorities. Lately, this large-scale emigration abroad has brought with it no small number of problems, because uneducated people leave without employment contracts, taking their chances, in search of bread. Thus, in the autumn of last year, several thousand workers, upon the abolition of visa requirements between Sweden and Yugoslavia, went to Sweden, and since they could not find work and housing in the short term, they were repatriated. As this event attracted the attention of the European press, representatives of the Yugoslav government declared that economic emigration is not at all abnormal, since "workers from a developing country go to advanced countries to earn more."[13]

At the meeting of the Presidium of the Central Council of the Alliance of Trade Unions of Yugoslavia, held in early November 1965, figures were given for Yugoslav workers employed abroad. According to data from the Passport Service, 200,000 workers were employed abroad at that time, namely: 100,000 in West Germany, 30,000 in France, 20,000 in Austria, 5,000 in Sweden, and the remainder in other countries.

The same source estimated that 60,000 workers went abroad in 1965, of whom 32,163 did so in an organized manner, in accordance with prior arrangements made by the authorized bodies. "Due to cumbersome procedures, some go as 'visitors' or 'tourists' and try to find work on their own."[14]

Most of these workers come from Croatia. Of every 100 Yugoslav workers employed abroad, 65 are from the Republic of Croatia. Assuming this percentage remained unchanged, by the autumn of 1965 there were 130,000 workers and technicians from the Republic of Croatia working abroad.

If we include other Croatian regions outside the Socialist Republic of Croatia, this figure is much higher. The Yugoslav press makes very little mention of workers' remittances. It is known that Yugoslav workers, technicians, and professionals employed abroad send large sums of foreign currency in the form of social security and other mandatory contributions. Workers' contributions in foreign currency in the first nine months of 1964 amounted to $49 million.[15]

Since the number of workers in 1965 increased from 140,000 to 200,000, a rise of 43%, and assuming a similar increase in remittances, the total amount in 1965 would reach $93 million. Yugoslavia thus obtains almost the same sum in foreign currency as from tourism, which contributed $100 million that year. Last year, Yugoslavia received almost $200,000 in remittances from workers and tourists, mostly from Croatia.

The Croatian regions contribute the lion's share to address the deficit in the Yugoslav economy and implement economic reforms, without having access to these resources. Criticism from Croatian communists against Belgrade for neglecting tourism and withholding the foreign currency earned from it is very common. These criticisms reveal deep discontent among Croats, both communist and non-communist, toward Belgrade and the Greater Serbian regime. The struggle over tourism development has lasted for years, as Belgrade refuses to include tourism promotion in Croatian provinces in its economic plans.

To obtain foreign currency and alleviate rising unemployment, Belgrade readily sends labor to countries with strong currencies. This policy costs them nothing and yields substantial profits in foreign currency, which they manage as they please. Here, too, Croatian regions serve as a lucrative source of exploitation.

SABOTAGE OF ECONOMIC REFORMS

The third plenary session of the Central Committee of the Communist League of Yugoslavia announces the fight against "class enemies" and nationalism.

Rankovic's Maneuvers

In late February and early March 1966, the Central Committee of the Communist League of Yugoslavia met twice in Belgrade to discuss the implementation of the economic reform. Theses to be discussed were drafted and published. Tito spoke at the beginning and end of each meeting. The relevant resolutions were adopted. This meeting, held as a plenary session of the Central Committee of the Communist League of Yugoslavia, was convened so that the Communist Party could officially comment on the achievements of the economic reform. The reason for the meeting was the difficulties in implementing the reform and the criticism leveled at high-ranking party leaders for not showing sufficient interest in it.

On the other hand, it became clear that national divisions—namely, Serbia's resistance—constituted the main obstacle to the smooth progress of the reform. Consequently, the Party had to condemn once again the "nationalism and chauvinism" of the two peoples of Yugoslavia, a condemnation that the Western press reported and emphasized.

Therefore, the national question and the antagonisms between Greater Serbian centralism and the non-Serbian peoples became the main topic of discussion. Furthermore, the difficulties and the failure of the reform were blamed on "class enemies" within the country and on Western "imperialists." The communist leadership sought to find those responsible for the failure of the economic reform outside the communist ranks, namely: nationalism, the class enemy, and the imperialism of capitalist countries. Since the expected outcome of the reform was not achieved, it was necessary to dialectically seek alibi (a solution) for the party leadership.

THESES FOR THE PLENARY AND PRESENTATIONS BY TITO AND RANKOVIC - IDENTICAL PROBLEMS, GROWING DIFFICULTIES, MEAGER RESULTS

Nationalism was the main topic of discussion. Below are some paragraphs from the theses on this subject. In the prologue, in addition to the decline in the standard of living, the rise in prices, the failure of investment policy, and the increase in the foreign trade deficit, there is mention of "the strengthening of nationalist and particularist practices." Point 4 refers to the opposition of certain communists to workers' self-management, who "sow distrust in self-management" or "demagogically defend particular or group interests or adopt chauvinistic positions." At the end of that section, a call is made to combat nationalistic tendencies: "Today, our entire society is committed to achieving goals that will simultaneously accelerate material growth and uproot the structures that nourish bureaucracy, localism, pseudo-liberalism, and chauvinism."

Along with the issue of self-government, investment policy is the main point of contention between non-Serbian peoples and Greater Serbian centralism. The theses, in section 16, state the following:

"Despite this ambiguous course, conflicts arise concerning expanded reproduction, and the resolution of the Eighth Congress and the aims of the reform are not being observed. Investments were and continue to be the main source of friction and a catalyst for nationalist and localist disagreements: from economic organizations to the federation."

Notwithstanding the principle of self-management, integration, postulated in point 18 of the theses, is being forced:

"The constant promotion of integration processes constitutes an integral part of the efforts to achieve the aims of the reform." But these integration problems are confined within republican and local frameworks, so that "the protection of the interests of such groups very often transforms into inter-republican and international frictions."

" In point 23 of the theses, nationalism is again accused of "preventing workers from benefiting from their self-management rights," and it is emphasized that "bureaucratism dons national garb, so that today the struggle against nationalism is inseparable from the struggle against bureaucratism."

Due to a lack of communist unity, especially on the issue of nationalism, point 18 of the theses states:

"True unity in the Communist League cannot be achieved in practice based on compromises and concessions to bureaucratism, to liberal and nationalist tendencies, which ultimately are contrary to the interests of the workers and our peoples."

In point 31, the communist leadership is criticized for its tolerance of nationalist tendencies:

"The top brass does not adopt a critical stance toward its members and other communists who incite and promote conservative, bureaucratic, and nationalist tendencies."

The gravity of the national question is also evident in the final point, number 33 of the theses, which emphasizes:

"In addition to the issues concerning the further development of socio-economic and socialist relations, the implementation of the reforms gave rise to the need to thoroughly consider international relations, non-economic activities, party cadre policy, etc."

Tito's inaugural speech of February 26th is replete with attacks on nationalism and chauvinism. Tito spoke of lax discipline in the Communist League and the need for "democratic centralism," a point emphasized above all by Rankovic. Tito complained that the communists were influenced by the "carsija" (the leading group of Greater Serbian-oriented bourgeois). "Sometimes we drown, we are dragged down by the carsija, we are dragged down by the adversary..." He then launched a frontal attack against nationalism:

"Let's look in all directions today: phenomena in our literature, various manifestations and the glorification of everything from the past, whether positive or negative, then different Western trends, etc. Moreover, comrades, there is chauvinism, nationalism, and nationalist outward expressions. All of this has the same underlying cause: the class enemy.

"The class enemy, let's say in Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Macedonia, or wherever, doesn't care whether there are more factories in one republic or another. What matters to him is that our socialist system doesn't progress and doesn't succeed. Nationalism and chauvinism are the means he uses.

"We communists must always be aware of what's at stake and guard against the deviations that lead to chauvinism, nationalism, and even localism in every republic. We must keep in mind that the class enemy is still present, and seriously so, due to our lack of vigilance as communists."

" Speaking of investments, he criticized the same elements in these terms: "When it turns out in retrospect that a certain investment is unproductive, discontent arises, which is exploited by the class enemy and other chauvinistic and nationalist elements."

Tito then reproached the communists for allowing themselves to be influenced by the "ideology of the petty bourgeoisie." In this way, the class enemy divides the Party.

"However, some communists allow themselves to be seduced by nostalgia, by Western bourgeois ideology, and by the internal reaction of the pre-war era. Let us see, for example, how some of our writers and historians are proceeding now. They are poisoning relations between nationalities."

Tito here censored the Zagreb philosophical journal Praxis and other newspapers, because "we always find one or two articles and points of view that have nothing in common with our own."

Then Tito announced the purge within the communist ranks:

"For communists who do not implement the resolutions of our League, there is no place in the League; they must leave. We always said that our Communist League is for the cadres, and it turns out that it isn't. From both outside and inside, we are being flooded by various negative phenomena, and the class enemy is exploiting them. We must prevent this, and we must be more consistent than before so that communists do not wallow in the mire of chauvinism, bourgeois ideology, and decadence. These nationalistic tendencies were partly understandable in the early years. But for them to appear and strengthen after twenty years is ultimately our fault and proof of our lack of vigilance. Such phenomena are hindering socialist development and our social relations. All these deviations and actions will, of course, have unforeseen consequences if we do not combat them vigorously."

Finally, Tito blamed foreign powers for the national conflicts in Yugoslavia. "Abroad, people write about the supposed national conflicts in Yugoslavia, they revive them. Of course, such conflicts could arise if we allow the class enemy to intervene..."

Rankovic also devoted most of his speech to national conflicts, nationalism, and chauvinism. This time he also condemned nationalism in Serbia, but his main concern was safeguarding the positions of Greater Serbian centralism against the interests and demands of non-Serb peoples. In recent years, Rankovic rarely addressed the problems of nationalism and "chauvinism" in public as extensively as he did on this occasion.[16]

The economic reforms up to the Third Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist League of Yugoslavia brought no improvement whatsoever; rather, they aggravated the situation. The best indicator is the decline in the standard of living of the masses. Tito admitted this in these terms: "When we undertook the economic reforms, we said that the standard of living would not worsen. I believe, however, that it has worsened..." In the theses, despite the embellishment of the dire situation, "the temporary decline in the standard of living and other difficulties" are acknowledged. The central points of the economic reform are the radical change in investment policy and the consistent practice of self-management.

The theses highlight the reduction of the foreign trade deficit by 1965 as an extraordinary success. This is self-deception. Yugoslavia lost the trust of its trading partner in international exchange and was unable to meet its obligations. Within the framework of the economic reform, imports were drastically reduced due to a lack of foreign currency, which had very serious consequences. With imports reduced and partially suspended, industry was left without the indispensable "reproduction material"—that is, raw materials, semi-finished products, and spare parts—and had to restrict production. The resulting effect was counterproductive, as production ground to a halt, market supply became more difficult, and unemployment worsened. Further changes occurred in early 1966. Imports grew faster than exports, thus worsening the balance of payments.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE THIRD PLENARY SESSION OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF YUGOSLAVIA

The conclusions reached by the plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist League of Yugoslavia on March 11 reaffirm the conclusions of the central government and the Assembly regarding the economic reform measures initiated in mid-1965. The only new element was the infiltration of "class struggle" into the communist ranks, revealing the crisis within the Communist Party. These two factors—the class enemy and nationalism—dominated the discussion on economic reform, whereas last year they were not considered as important.

In the "Conclusions of the Third Plenum," war is declared on nationalism in several places. The invitation to communists to fight against these phenomena is striking. For example, point 9 states verbatim:

"In fighting for genuine national interests, communists must simultaneously combat, in the environments where they live and work, energetically, relentlessly, and concretely all nationalist and chauvinist phenomena. The Communist League has the obligation to reveal the reactionary substance of such phenomena and to unmask their proponents politically and ideologically.

Those who have stooped to nationalist positions have no place in the Communist League. Communists are called upon to fight, through their social role and ideological action, to overcome objective conditions and not use them as justification for nationalism..." In several sections, similar terms are used to describe settling accounts with nationalism.

The duties of communists regarding "the class struggle" within the communist ranks are outlined, particularly in point 11, which states:

"Some leaders and members of the Communist League do not fully grasp the scope of social transformations under current conditions and do not consider the contradictions inherent in these transformations from a class perspective. This weakens political vigilance, facilitates the penetration of bourgeois consciousness and anti-socialist influences, prevents a clear understanding of the specific forms of political and ideological struggle being waged under our conditions, and reveals a number of characteristic features of the class struggle..."

TITO FAVORS SERBIA'S DEVELOPMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF NON-SERBIAN REGIONS

More informative than the Conclusions is Tito's closing speech. Tito does not expect much from the economic reform. He already foresees its failure and makes an indefinite long-term promise. Although the communist leaders initially expected the reforms to bring about a transformation and improvement in the economy, Tito challenged this optimism:

"When we began the economic reforms, we said that this year would be the most difficult. That's true. But next year won't be easy either. Economic reforms can't be carried out in two or three years. Perhaps it will take longer. Therefore, we shouldn't emphasize to our workers what isn't real, but rather present them with all the difficulties we face. Watching television and reading our newspapers, and based on the letters I receive, I get the impression that there's too much hope that from now on, suddenly, everything will run smoothly. This optimism worries me a bit, since it seems to me that our people don't see all the difficulties that await us, difficulties that we will overcome."

Prices remain frozen, the standard of living declines, industry is stripped of its resources, technicians and skilled workers leave for other countries, and so on. The difficulties, instead of diminishing, are piling up. Furthermore, Tito observed that criminals are occupying important positions in the economy.

"I have reports from just one republic that several thousand individuals, convicted as criminals, are once again occupying leadership positions... These cases occur in all the republics. And these people, already convicted of crimes, occupy leadership positions for protection and often continue to operate as before..."

Criminality in the economy is the inescapable consequence of the communist system, where, due to the party's monopoly and bureaucracy, officials are not accountable to the people, and the people cannot control or sanction them.

This time, Tito links his attack on the "class adversary" to "capitalism and imperialism." Despite the copious aid received from the democratic West, Tito now discovers his great enemy there. When the Moscow-Beijing conflict attracts global attention, and no one from the West threatens Tito, he opens fire on the West. Why? Tito perceives that internal difficulties are endangering his regime and the state.

Faced with the threat posed by its internal adversaries and communist neighbors, it preemptively sought to blame the West and thus secure the Soviet Union's support in its struggle against the "class enemy," backed by the "imperialist and capitalist" West. Tito offered the following image of the capitalist specter and the class enemy:

"In the former Yugoslavia, the class enemy held power and material resources. In the new Yugoslavia, we hold the power. The class enemy, or rather, the class adversary, has been dethroned. But it has not physically disappeared; it is still present. It maintains ties with all the elements of the class enemy abroad and enjoys their support.

"As you know, the international situation has recently deteriorated to an extreme degree. The global climate is highly charged, and excesses could erupt at any moment. Capitalism and imperialism are on the offensive to regain their positions. It is no wonder, therefore, that all of this is also reflected in our country, which maintains numerous contacts with other nations."

"Look, comrades, at what some foreign newspapers are writing these days about our plenary session. We promote economic cooperation, the exchange of goods, and other things with the West. However, ideologically, we don't want to get closer to the West. We have our socialist system and our specific path in building socialism."

Referring to the impatience of some communists regarding economic development, Tito stated that certain things could be postponed without causing major harm. He mentioned two cases that demonstrate the delays in the Croatian provinces:

"So far, we've built a lot. Let's take some projects as examples. Instead of talking about the Belgrade-Bar railway, let's take the Zadar-Knin line. We've been building 20 kilometers for fifteen years. Why? Because we thought we should build, even if we allocated a couple of million to that end each year..."

"Meanwhile, on the one hand, vast sums are being spent on the construction of the unproductive Belgrade-Bar railway line (700 km long), which responds not to economic necessity but to Great Serbian megalomania, while the construction of the port in Bar is being forced upon them.

At the same time, the Croatians are being appeased with the construction of the essential Knin-Zadar railway, a couple of dozen kilometers long. Simultaneously, the construction and renovation of Croatian Adriatic ports and the connection of northern Croatia and Bosnia with the Adriatic are being sabotaged. Tito's comparison of the Belgrade-Bar railway line with the Knin-Zadar line is the height of cynicism.

Tito also advocated for Serbia's future, and regarding power plants, he demanded:

"I would like to say one more thing. The Republic of Serbia has greater obligations regarding the construction of power plants. I believe, comrades, that this is not just a matter for the Republic of Serbia, but for our entire community. If we adopt the correct approach, we will enable the Republic of Serbia to construct these plants as soon as possible. Arrangements can be made for another republic, which has the resources, to participate in these projects..."

Therefore, despite the phrases "self-management" and the new investment policy, Tito demanded that non-Serbian regions continue to contribute their resources to Serbia's industrialization. For the construction of the "Serbian Ruhr," other parts of Yugoslavia had to work, sweat, and abandon their own economies. In this way, Tito himself distorted the new economic reform in the sense of decentralization. Serbia's dominant position had to be strengthened at the expense of Croats, Slovenes, and other non-Serbian peoples. It is obvious that Tito is a prisoner of Serbian chauvinism.

THE DEFEAT OF THE CROATIAN COMMUNISTS AND THEIR NATIONAL ORIENTATION

The Croatian communists, led by Bakaric, demanded economic reform while simultaneously aspiring to political reform. They hoped to overcome Greater Serbian centralism with the help of the Slovenian communists. They did not succeed. The monetary system remains centralized even after the announced reform, and detrimental to the Croatian and Slovenian regions. The new banking system and the investments that depend on it are firmly in the hands of the Belgrade bureaucracy. This constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to self-management and the decentralization of investments.

This defeat is also evident in the silence of Bakaric, who, as the main initiator of the reform, did not speak at the Eighth Congress of the Communist League of Yugoslavia in 1964, when resolutions regarding the new economic orientation and domestic policy were adopted at the highest party forum. He also remained silent at the Third Plenum, held in February-March of this year, where Rankovic's centralism prevailed.

Bakaric, for example, is not only silent at important Yugoslav party sessions, but also in Croatia. At the Fifth Congress of the Communist League of Croatia, held in April 1965, Bakaric was absent for alleged health reasons, and Rankovic was the main speaker. The presentation by Marijan Cvetkovic, a member of the Serbian minority in Croatia, as well as the Congress's conclusions, aligned with Rankovic's line.

Shortly after the Third Plenum of the Yugoslav Central Committee, on April 26 and 27, 1966, the Fourth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist League of Croatia was held, with Bakaric present, though he did not even participate in the debates. Again, Cvetkovic delivered the main speech. The Plenum ratified the conclusions reached by the party headquarters in Belgrade the previous month, thus demonstrating its impotence and capitulation. Bakaric's silence, incidentally, implies his displeasure with and opposition to Belgrade.

How important Rankovic's victory at the Third Party Plenum on March 11, 1966, was, and how serious the consequences of the new centralism would be, particularly for the Croatian provinces, are shown by two new examples of the central government's economic policy.

After a long struggle surrounding the construction of the new aluminum production complex, the final decision was made on March 28, 1966. On that day, the executive committee of the Yugoslav Investment Bank resolved that the loan for the construction of the massive plant would be granted to Titograd in Montenegro. This decision rejected the bids from Mostar and Šibenik, which offered much more favorable terms, as they possess raw materials, electricity, and communications infrastructure.

The Herzegovina-Dalmatia region has inexhaustible bauxite deposits, provides the necessary energy resources, and its location relative to the interior and the Adriatic Sea is far superior to Montenegro's. Nevertheless, the decision was made in favor of Montenegro, specifically in favor of the Belgrade-Bar railway line and the port of Bar. The decision was made even though there is no electricity or mining infrastructure in the area. Everything must be built first. The construction of this industrial complex represents a major undertaking that will require enormous sums of money in the coming years. But a large industry must be built in the Serbian area, to the detriment of the Croatian regions. All these cases demonstrate the clear nature of Greater Serbian hegemony. Here, too, any Yugoslav "unity and fraternity" ceases for the Croatian communists. This is the most ruthless and systematic exploitation of Croatia and Slovenia for the benefit of Serbia.

This resolution also affects the economy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Belgrade's refusal to connect Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Adriatic culminates in this new determination. The consequences will not be lacking, as Bosnia and Herzegovina increasingly aligns itself with Croatia and Slovenia and strengthens the opposition to Belgrade.

By rejecting the Croatian proposal to build a steel mill in Nin and an aluminum plant in the Dalmatian-Herzegovinian area, the Greater Serbian communist regime dealt a serious blow to the Croatian economy.

Almost simultaneously, Belgrade provoked further exasperation in the Croatian regions. The newspaper Vjesnik, March 26, 1966, Zagreb, reported that the railway management plans to close and dismantle the narrow-gauge railway line in eastern Podravina due to its inefficiency. It is true that this 80-year-old, 166-km-long railway is outdated, but since the Belgrade government has not built a new line in the region, something is better than nothing.

The news caused great concern and discontent among the population and interested economic circles. Thus, an important economic zone will be left without its most important means of transport. In recent years, this region has fallen behind, and with the dismantling of the Guttmann railway, it will become an underdeveloped area, which Tito so readily supports elsewhere. The people of Podravina and Central Slavonia, as well as the newspaper Vjesnik, have risen up in defense of this old and worn-out railway, to prevent the region from regressing to its primitive state.

In the face of Belgrade's destructive policies, Zagreb made its voice heard in the cultural and political sphere. It was during this period that the ruling class and the opposition in communist Croatia drew closest together. On the occasion of the 130th anniversary of the Croatian national revival, a series of celebrations transformed into a veritable demonstration against Yugoslavism, in support of unity and fraternity, and against Belgrade. Interestingly, the celebrations did not refer to the "Illyrian" revival, but rather to the Croatian one.

Almost all the lectures and dissertations at the Scientific Deliberations, which began in Zagreb on March 30th in the hall of the old Zagreb City Council, addressed the "Croatian national revival." In his opening address, Miroslav Krleza interpreted Illyrianism as the formation of Croatian national consciousness. It is noteworthy that at the closing ceremony, held at the National Theatre in Zagreb, Cardinal Seper and representatives of other religious communities stood alongside the communist leaders. These celebrations, along with the intensified struggle over the literary language against Serbian encroachment, are the natural reaction in defense of vital national interests against the oppression, exploitation, and invasion of Croatian territories.

Brugg, Switzerland

GOJKO BORIC: THE CASE OF THE WRITER MIHAILOV

It turned out that some Western newspapers were right when, at the beginning of the Mihailov affair, they claimed that Yugoslavia was experiencing a second Djilas case. Mihailo Mihailov, a professor of literature at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zadar, was arrested by the communist secret police, the UDBA, in Zadar, a coastal city in Croatia, where he had settled.[17] What wrong had Professor Mihailov done that Tito himself, the president for life of Yugoslavia, deemed it necessary to intervene in the matter?

Tito branded this young professor of literature a reactionary who spoke contemptuously of the great October Revolution and at the same time reprimanded a group of state prosecutors: "Look how much trouble that article, published in Delo, caused us! The prosecutors should have immediately banned its publication and made that measure public."[18] It is a pity that such an interesting article, later published abroad, was read by very few in Yugoslavia because the February issue of the well-known Belgrade magazine Delo was seized at the request of the Soviet embassy in Belgrade before Tito's speech.

The reason for this police action was the second part of Mihailov's work, entitled "The Moscow Summer of 1964." Mihailov, the son of Russians, was born in Zrinjanin, Vojvodina. He has a deep knowledge of Russian cultural life, both modern and historical. In Yugoslavia, he distinguished himself through his studies in Slavic studies and his numerous translations of Russian writers. He devoted himself with great enthusiasm to the study of Fyodor Dostoevsky. To fully understand his case, it is important to emphasize that he was a scholar and writer who diligently sought the truth but was forced to live in a communist state. For a long time, Dostoevsky's works were viewed unfavorably, and to some extent still are, in the Soviet Union. The best example is provided by the "History of Russian Literature," which is now used as a textbook in Yugoslav schools: it has 1,036 pages, and only one and a half pages are devoted to the great writer Dostoevsky.[19]

Some communist-oriented Russian, Serbian, and Croatian critics repeatedly portrayed Dostoevsky as "dark, reactionary, and an enemy of socialism." Mihailov refuted all these unfair and biased criticisms in his study "Dostoevsky Today," published in the literary journal Kolo.[20] Regardless of the prestige of certain communist critics of Dostoevsky, including the names of People's Commissar Lunacharsky, Lenin, and Maxim Gorky, Mihailov critically analyzed their hasty judgments. He objects to their having employed erroneous methods and lacking the capacity to understand Dostoevsky's spiritual life with this statement:

"We will prove that the true cause of the inveterate hostility toward Dostoevsky does not lie in the fact that this writer did not know how to answer the problems posed, or that he perhaps gave an incorrect answer or rejected the only viable solution, 'the progressive one,' but rather that this cause must be sought in the fact that Belinsky, Mikhailovsky, Gorky, and even Lenin did not know how to answer the questions formulated by Dostoevsky, and hence this nervous antipathy which, in the less circumspect and respectful critics, degenerated into grievances" [21].

Mihailov then dismissed all the accusations leveled against the illustrious Russian novelist as prejudices and literary and philosophical platitudes, since they completely contradict everything Dostoevsky wrote. (Mihailov also quotes Dostoevsky's A Writer's Diary.) Here, Mihailov's sincere search for objective truth and his vast literary knowledge are evident.

From Mihailov's description of his trip to Moscow in his article "Moscow Summer in 1964," published in Delo, the reader learns many things only partially known in Western countries. According to Professor Mihailov's observations, the process of de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union was in its initial phase. In his opinion, the main theme of Russian literature would long revolve around the concentration camps. As Khrushchev stated, between 1956 and 1964, the editorial offices of Soviet magazines and newspapers received 10,000 novels, short stories, and memoirs dealing with life in Soviet concentration camps.

“Of that enormous number,” Mihailov continues, “only a few manuscripts were published (we must be cautious, Nikita Khrushchev said); however, Soviet journals increasingly resemble the annals of Philip II’s Inquisition… Today, the Soviet government faces this choice: either send all those rehabilitated back to the concentration camps or let them speak freely.”

In three decades, between 8 and 12 million people were deported to concentration camps and the distant Siberian reaches. To date, a certain number of communists have been rehabilitated. That is why a student from Moscow State University complained to the visitor from Croatia:

“The communists only rehabilitated their supporters. What about the thousands upon thousands of honest people who are not communists? Well, they apply a double standard: one to Stalinism and another to those who fought against it. On the one hand, Stalinism is condemned, and on the other, the anti-Stalinists are condemned.” Those who managed to escape even before World War II are branded as traitors. Mihailov cites the case of Ivan Solonevic, who in 1937 took refuge in the West, where he published his well-known book "Russia in the Concentration Camp." He even mentions the Croatian translation of this work, published by the "Croatian Literary Society of St. Jerome" in Zagreb, which was later confiscated by the Yugoslav communists.

The Soviet press does not write about Stalin's concentration camps. "That's understandable," Mihailov states, "since the first death camps were not organized by the Germans but by the Soviets."

"Regarding genocide," Mihailov continues, "Hitler was not the first either. Before the Second World War, several small villages in the border regions with Persia and Turkey were deported to northern Siberia, where, unable to withstand the cold, they died like flies. This was the reason why, during the Second World War, many units of the Red Army joined the ranks of Hitler's criminals. These units were composed of Kalmyks, Tatars, Cherkes, and members of other small villages, subjected to the most severe reprisals. The same can be said of the Don Cossacks and the formation of the Cossack army under General Vlasov, that is, the 'Russian Liberation Army,' a unique case in Russian history."

"The most interesting and, at the same time, dangerous aspect—not only for Russian but also for Yugoslav communists—is the part where Mihailov argues for a revision of the interpretation given to the national and guerrilla groups that fought against the communists in the last world war. The Soviet magazine Junost (Youth) published a novel on this topic. Its author, Eugenio Piljar, tries to understand the men who fought in General Vlasov's liberation army. Piljar describes the heroic conduct of the Cossacks, taken prisoner and tortured by the Red Army. The author grapples with the dilemma: "...I know they are traitors, but how can one explain the treachery of these men, all of them simple Russian peasants who so heroically went to meet their deaths?"

It also addresses the problem of the partisans who fought against both the Soviets and the Germans. Mihailov believes that in the very near future, the entire historical narrative of World War II will have to undergo a complete revision.

What impressed Professor Mihailov most during his stay in Moscow was the evening he spent with Moscow students reciting poems about Stalin's concentration camps.

"I will never forget that night," Mihailov writes, and continues, "I could never have imagined that something like that could exist in the Soviet Union... There were many poems from the prisons and camps, full of despair and mockery, protest and resignation... It is the most magnificent folklore of our time." "We must not forget that the prisoners had to hear every day that the USSR is the first socialist country, the greatest homeland of the working people—and, most importantly, the freest country in the world!"

"We must not forget that the prisoners had to hear every day that the USSR is the first socialist country, the greatest homeland of the working people—and, most importantly, the freest country in the world!" (Former General Secretary of the Croatian Communist Party, Dr. Ante Ciliga, wrote a moving and testimonial book about life in Soviet concentration camps. This book was published in French in Paris under the title *Le pays du grand mensonge* and in German as *Im Land der verwirrende Lüge* by Verlag Rote Weissbücher, Cologne, in 1953. Ciliga's book *Siberia - Tierra de destierro e industrialización* was published in Buenos Aires in 1951.)

However, some of these poems reveal a somewhat cold humor, such as the following, dedicated to Easter:

With luminous gaze I contemplate the sky,

Earlier this morning I grasped its true meaning.

I want that day, I want it like "the miner's day,"

Like "the day of our armed forces."

Today the eggs are smashed with a resounding crash,

The joyful ear hears the merry peal of bells,

And the proletarians of the world gather

Around the festive Easter table.

Everyone paints eggs with green and blue

And I paint them only with bright red

And proudly I carry them like unfurled flags

As a symbol of our heroic victories.

With the solemn clatter of knives and spoons

The delicate scent of the Easter bread enveloped us.

How pleasant it is amidst that forest of bottles

To discover, at least, the face of the informer.

Come, oh! passenger, let us give each other a fraternal kiss,

Forgive my immaculate joy.

We are beginning to resemble men.

Come, one more embrace, Christ is risen!

Muchas de esas poesías tienen un tono triste y pesimista o tratan de la "culpabilidad" de los condenados:

I don't know why they locked me up,

But the accuser is certainly right.

Without protest, we shouldered the guilt of others

And in successive stages, we all marched

Toward our grim fate...

Indeed, these songs will be recited for a whole century—once they are granted the right of citizenship—just as the poems of Russian prisoners are sung and recited today, which are not as beautiful as contemporary Russian melodies, concludes Mihailov in his reflections on the folklore of the concentration camps.

It goes without saying here that Professor Mihailov is primarily concerned with literature, and his trip to Russia had a literary purpose. He even recorded the folklore of the concentration camps on sound tape and had fascinating encounters with Russian intellectuals.

His first encounter was with the poet Bela Ahmadulina, who, because of her creations and way of life and thought, is the complete opposite of a typical Soviet poet. Even more interesting was his meeting with the writer Yuri Bondarev, author of the anti-Stalinist novel *The Calm*, which depicts the lives of Moscow students during the era of Stalin's cult of personality. They discussed at length Bondarev's book, *The Causes of Fascism and the Relationship Between the Spiritual and the Material*. The curious thing is that intelligent men, like Bondarev, have not yet managed to free themselves from Stalinist thinking. Mihailov writes in this regard: "It is surprising how naively the most intelligent Soviet men (except for the younger generation) believe that the causes of Nazism lie exclusively in economic conditions."

Mihailov had the same experience in his conversation with the writer Vladimir Tendriakov:

"When we discussed the problem of education, I was astonished that the leading minds of the Soviet Union embraced the most important tenets of Stalinism. Tendriakov defended the famous educational system of the 'new man' in the sense of collectivism and submission to the interests of society. 'If someone doesn't want to work for the benefit of society, we will force them,' the Soviet writer exclaimed forcefully. I replied that there is only one step between that way of thinking and the concentration camps, and that history has proven that one cannot treat people in that way in the long run."

"Youth," says Mihailov, "is Russia's only hope. Although the communists claim that there is no generational conflict in 'socialism,' in today's Soviet Union there is a profound chasm between the old and new generations, just as there is between former Stalin supporters and the young guard for whom Stalin and his era are simply another link in the Soviet past. One of the most interesting representatives of the new generation is the singer Bulat Okudzava, the most popular in the Soviet Union. His popularity stems from the apolitical content of his songs. He is interested in everything except what Pravda and Izvestia write. His love belongs to the 'humble people' in whom only the 'Three Women, Three Sisters, Three Nurses: Faith, Hope, and Love. Three popular Russian names and three Christian principles' place their trust."

Okudzava is an antimilitarist. Speaking of war guilt, he says:

The first war—it's nobody's fault.

The second war—it's nobody's fault.

The third war—it will be my fault!

Mihailov complains that in communist Yugoslavia, very little is known about real life in the Soviet Union. The names of Viktor Shlovsky, one of the best Russian literary critics, theorists, and historians, Nikolai Fyodor, a Russian philosopher of the last century, and Mikhail Siemonovic Gus, an excellent scholar of Dostoevsky's work, are unknown. Likewise, Vladimir Nikolaevich Turbin, one of the apologists for modernism in the desolate social-realist landscape of Soviet intellectual life, is unknown. Gus, in his book "Comrade Time, Comrade Art" [22], defends all modernisms, including Cubism, in a lively and poetic way.

That there are poets in the Soviet Union not obliged to write about the Five-Year Plan is proven by the case of the lyric poet Eugene Vinokurov. Mihailov says: "His poetry stands out in the ocean of countless collected works by the most diverse writers. There are no social themes, no patriotic or revolutionary notes. Vinokurov writes for select circles of poetry lovers." "What everyone likes is always the worst," Vinokurov declared.

Mihailov's encounter with the writer Ilya Ehrenburg is also very interesting. Despite his worldly manner and vast culture, Ehrenburg "is a typical representative of Soviet psychology, deaf and blind to all arguments and empirical facts."

Mihailov had some pleasant surprises in his interactions with other critics and men of letters. "I noted with satisfaction that one of the typical social-realist and historical theorists, like Gus, is familiar with the work of Teilhard de Chardin." But from Mihailov's notes and observations, one can infer that very few Russian intellectuals are willing to fight for their independence. “However,” one of his interlocutors told him, “heretics are the salt of the earth and sustain the life of the cosmos.”

Nevertheless, Mihailov soon discovered that in a totalitarian state, heresy leads directly to prison. Komunista, the organ of the Central Committee of the League of Communists (Communist Party) of Yugoslavia, condemned Mihailov’s description and observations in harsh terms, albeit somewhat belatedly. Entitling his critique “The Mystique of a Chronicler,” Miodrag Bogicevic wrote:

The Moscow summer of 1964 speaks not only of literature and folklore, but also of a dubious political excursion... The publication of his article in a literary journal gives us the opportunity to address once again the problem of responsibility regarding public statements. This problem is especially urgent today, after the Eighth Congress of the Communist League. The Congress clearly and unequivocally emphasized that in our democratic development, socialist deviations disguised as freedom of discussion are inadmissible.[23]

Shortly afterward, an article appeared in the Serbian weekly Nin labeling Mihailov a "member of the White Guard." Mihailov protested in a letter to the editor of the weekly. From his letter, 290 copies of which were sent to all newspapers and publications in Yugoslavia, it can be inferred that Mihailov considers himself a Christian and that he does not agree with "scientific socialism," based on the natural laws of evolution. In Mihailovic's opinion, the official reaction against his article signifies a return to Zhdanovism.[24]

"The point is," he explains in his letter, "that I dared to think for myself, without prior permission, and to see with my own eyes. The crux of the matter is that in a country where the feudal system still prevails—since the peasants are administratively bound to the kolkhozes—I paid more attention to folk songs than to the pompous advertising that extols space rockets."

Mihailovic is right when he points out the danger of relapsing into Zhdanovist conceptions. Tito, in his speech to the prosecutors, also censored other journals that had been warned by the party's top officials for their relative independence. Examples include the Slovenian political and cultural publication Perspektive and the journal Praxis, published in Zagreb by the Croatian Philosophical Association. Perspektive had to replace its entire editorial staff, while Praxis continued to displease government officials with its unorthodox Marxist views. Shortly thereafter, Perspektive ceased publication due to "insufficient funding," and the quality and intellectual level of Praxis's contributions declined considerably after Tito's speech.

Mihailov's trial was scheduled to begin on April 24, 1965, in the Zadar District Court, but at the defendant's request, it was postponed for five days. After spending a month in pretrial detention, Mihailov was released so that he could defend himself while free on the date of the trial, April 29, 1965. The magistrate charged Mihailov, invoking paragraph 175 of the Yugoslav Penal Code, with the main charge being that of defaming a friendly country and distributing printed material without authorization. "That unauthorized distribution of printed material" refers to the letter Mihailov sent to the editorial offices of newspapers and periodicals. The court sentenced him to ten months in prison, minus one month he spent in pretrial detention. Mihailov appealed.[25]

When he faced the court, Mihailov was abandoned by everyone. The management of the journal Delo washed its hands of the matter with a statement published in the March issue (the deputy editor-in-chief, Milosav Mirkovic, was released after ten days, and Delo continues to be published normally). The administration of the Faculty of Philosophy in Zadar sent a note to the local newspaper Narodni list, claiming that many colleagues had advised Mihailov not to publish his articles. The letter then states: "The Council of the Faculty of Philosophy of Zadar repudiates Mihailov's reactionary attitude and condemns his way of proceeding... Mihailo Mihailov's conceptions never found support in our group. The Faculty leadership has suspended him from his position" [26].

It is already strange that Mihailov was convicted for publishing a series of facts that coincide so closely with Tito's public statements from the time of the Moscow-Belgrade dispute. On the tenth anniversary of the communist uprising in the Bosnian mountains of Kozara, Tito, before several thousand listeners, accused the Soviet Union, making the following accusations, among others: "By what moral right can Molotov reproach us for being murderers, for killing the people, and for wanting to exterminate them? By what right can one of the leaders of a country where horrific crimes were committed and entire peoples were liquidated and exterminated before the eyes of the whole world speak like this?

Where is the Volga German Republic now, where one of the most capable peoples once lived? It ended up in the Siberian steppes. Where is the Crimean Tatar Republic? It no longer exists; it disappeared into the marshes and steppes of Siberia. Where are the Chechens of the Caucasus? ... Where are the thousands upon thousands of citizens of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia...? They no longer exist; day after day they are deported to Siberia, where they are forced to work in appalling conditions until they disappear." soon from the face of the earth" [27].

Tito also agrees with Mihailov's description of the Soviet concentration camps. In this regard, we will quote the speech Tito delivered at the Second Congress of Trade Unions of Yugoslavia, held in Zagreb in 1951:

"We have already spoken about relations with the workers; let us look a little more closely at the inhumane methods being applied against the working people of the Soviet Union. Workers are condemned to long periods of forced labor; they are deported to concentration camps... In short, they try to educate people there with draconian, police-like methods. These are not socialist methods; such conduct has nothing to do with socialist methods."[28]

The violent reaction against Mihailov's remarks cannot be explained solely by the fact that current relations between Belgrade and Moscow are friendly and close. In all the countries of the Soviet bloc, at least publicly, Stalin's crimes were repudiated and condemned. And in communist Yugoslavia? In Yugoslavia, Stalin's old disciples remain "taboo" because of their unredeemed misdeeds from the period of close and subservient collaboration. with Stalin, despite Tito's timely resistance (to Stalin), which primarily focused on foreign policy.

One of the main reasons for Mihailov's condemnation is that, surely, the attentive reader of his writings will be able to draw certain comparisons between the situation and methods of the Stalin era and those that prevail today in Tito's Yugoslavia. The cult of personality is obvious. Moreover, what Jovi does not allow, bovines do not.

COLOGNE, WEST GERMANY

FRANCISCO NEVISTIC: ARE WE WITNESSING THE COMMUNIST RETURN TO HUMANISM OR TO COMMUNIST HUMANISM?

GENERAL TRENDS IN THE LIBERALIZATION OF COMMUNIST REGIMES - THE "YUGOSLAV" CONTRIBUTION TO THIS TREND

For some years now, precisely since the time of N. Khrushchev's spectacular political career as Soviet premier, we have often read in publications from the free world about the supposed doctrinal and political changes in communist regimes. Romania, Poland, Hungary, Russia, China, and Yugoslavia are, from time to time, the scene of events supposedly tending toward a liberalization or humanization of communism.

Here we want to offer some reflections on this phenomenon within the general framework of Marxist doctrine, with special reference to what the journal Praxis, published by a group of Marxist philosophers in the Croatian capital, Zagreb, offers us on this subject.

Communism as a philosophical, social, and political doctrine is characterized by two fundamentally contradictory features. The first is its liberal tradition,[29] accepting universal evolutionism in the form of dialectical-historical materialism, and the second is its rationalism with the consequent propensity for political dogmatism and absolutism.[30]

It is within these two essentially opposing extremes, within this theoretical antithesis of liberal-revolutionary theory and the absolutist practice of Marxism, that we wish to examine current doctrinal trends and their pale reflection in the policies followed by communist regimes, giving particular attention to the "Yugoslav" contribution in this regard.

To avoid confusion or to minimize it, it would be necessary to clearly define the concepts of evolutionism, rationalism, and humanism. However, we will limit ourselves to the most essential points, assuming our readers have sufficient knowledge of the subject.

Evolutionism is the theory, hypothesis, or thesis according to which everything that exists, in all orders—material or spiritual—is the result of a universal genetic evolution. From the inorganic world comes the organic world, from the organic world the animal world, and, as the evolutionary culmination, from the animal world man develops, combining "energies and faculties that already exist in subhuman nature" [31] with the subsequent superstructure of his intellectual and ethical life.

Thus conceived, evolutionism inherently involves materialist monism as its Weltanschauung, its theory of the universe.

Although the theory of evolution is increasingly establishing itself as a definitive thesis, specific and essential differences exist in its interpretation. We therefore consider it necessary to present some aspects of these interpretations. According to them, the likenesses of humanity and the world appear in an essentially different light. These interpretations stand out in a peculiar way regarding the meaning of evolution.

There is a Catholic interpretation, an agnostic-positivist one, and another like a "horizontal religion" (Camus), such as the belief in the mission of the race or the proletariat, of scientific-technical and socio-economic progress, which should lead to universal well-being, justice, and freedom.

At first glance, there is no unanimity, even within the Catholic scientific and intellectual circles, where unanimity seems more natural. Some, like the Jesuit priest and French paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin, accept evolution as a definitive thesis.[32]

The Magisterium of the Church, in turn, while admitting the possibility of evolution, sets limits on it and advises extreme prudence, both in its acceptance and its interpretation.[33] However, there is no substantial difference between Teilhard de Chardin's opinion and official Catholic doctrine. Impressed by his paleontological and biological studies, Teilhard accepts the evolution of the material world in its entirety, even though gaps and missing links exist, while official doctrine proceeds with extreme caution. But both positions are clearly theocentric.

Everything is inspired by the love of Christ, and everything must return to Him, with ever-greater harmony, friendship, and fraternity being realized, in stages, among all beings, especially among humankind. An optimism radiates from both positions regarding the future of humanity, while also cautioning against succumbing to the dream of a paradise of absolute justice and freedom in this "vale of tears." But we can hope for a better future, the humanization of mutual relationships in the love of Christ.

This interpretation of evolution is called "creationism." Total organic evolution is possible, but not yet proven, and the rational soul is the fruit of direct divine activity, its evolution from matter being impossible. This is creationism "strictu sensu" [34].

As a typical example of the positivist interpretation, we can cite the case of the French biologist Jean Rostand, one of the leading authorities in the field of current biological science. He openly declares that we do not know the factors of evolution, nor do we know under what conditions the genesis of life could have taken place, and he also doubts the subsequent evolution of species.

Nevertheless, he acknowledges that he finds no better solution to these problems than the theory of evolution. For him, this hypothesis clarifies much, even though it is itself not clear, leaving room for other possibilities and opinions. Rejecting it altogether, Rostand believes, would lead us back to mythical solutions, including religious doctrines that invoke a special revealed knowledge. As for the meaning of evolution, Rostand, a liberal and an atheist, ends in absolute pessimism.[35]

J. Huxley, another authority in the field of biological science, does not admit, as Rostand does, the possibility of another thesis, such as creationism. According to him, and in accordance with the current state of science, the mystery of the origin and meaning of life remains for humankind. But the difficulties in unraveling it are temporary. One day we will discover a special energy that animates matter, that feels and thinks at the same time, just as we have discovered electrical energy, which illuminates and heats, even though it remained unknown to our predecessors for millions of years.[36]

These two opinions constitute the positivist and liberal evolutionary interpretation. In the freedom of science, of rational inquiry, humankind limits all political, religious, or social power, seeking new solutions and a better order of things, moving closer to a humanitarian ideal, to liberal humanism.

As a counterpoint to these interpretations—some deifying and optimistic, others materializing and pessimistic—we have two others that are simultaneously pseudoscientific, pseudoreligious, and prophetic.

Nietzsche, they say, inspired National Socialism. Zarathustra is said to be the doctrinal basis of its racist Übermensch. "I teach you the Übermensch. Man is something that must be overcome... The Übermensch is the meaning of the earth. I beg you, my brothers, to remain faithful to the earth and not give your faith to those who come to you speaking of otherworldly hopes..." the German philosopher emphatically stated.

But the adventure of National Socialism has ended tragically for many. We do not wish to discuss here the accuracy or inaccuracy of such assertions. We are interested in the communist position, the palpable reality and the determining factor in the lives of many enslaved peoples, which constitutes a permanent element of insecurity for free peoples. What, then, is the Marxist-Communist position?

Despite the divergences and unresolved scientific debates, communists are total and absolute proponents of evolutionism. For them, there is no doubt not only about the origin of the human body, which comes from pre-existing living matter, but also about the rational soul and what constitutes the edifice we call civilization. Monistic materialism and universal evolution are therefore two indisputable facts. Communists do not admit any extraterrestrial or spiritual forces. Their historical materialism is based on absolute immanentism. According to this interpretation, there is no "essential concept of man" but only a "natural systematic concept," forged from the "morphological, physiological, and psychological point of view" of man (Scheller).

For this same reason, Marxists reject mechanistic-metaphysical materialism as inept and inadequate to explain life, evolution, and history. This is a bourgeois, metaphysical materialism. Only dialectical materialism becomes the appropriate tool to fulfill this role. The law of the unity of opposites is the principal key to this end.[37]

In our view, Engels did not relegate this law to a secondary position, but rather gave it paramount importance, assigning it the key role in the interpretation not only of evolution and processes in inorganic or organic matter, but also in human life and history.[38]

For us, Engels's "innate movement of matter" and Bochme's "Qual," which Engels accepts as the active principle within things, are nothing other than the transposition of the dialectical law of opposites to the historical and socio-human sphere. Engels's idea, in its essence, is the same as Lenin's, only expressed in different technical terms. Lenin's terminology is more precise. It takes the form of an official, dogmatic philosophy, translated into "scientific" canons, later becoming socio-political canons and the tenets of a society governed by absolutism and a brutal police state.

Until the emergence of dialectical materialism, according to Marxist doctrine, history unfolded unconsciously or, at best, revolved around mythological, religious, or idealist philosophical fictions. In religion, especially the Christian era, and in privately owned society, particularly bourgeois society, humanity lived in illusions, enslaved and dehumanized in its essence, in its work, and in its relationships.[39]

To put an end to this period of dehumanization and inaugurate a new historical epoch, it is necessary to destroy bourgeois society, based on private property, and the bourgeois state, an instrument of oppression in the hands of the wealthy against their class adversaries. This new period is the historical period of socialism-communism as a system of absolute freedom, historical well-being, and justice. Science and rationalism will henceforth guide history and humanity, not the mythological and religious fictions invoked by the inhuman exploiters and controllers of material wealth. Human alienation will disappear completely. Human beings will be the highest value for themselves. Thus begins the epoch of communist humanism, the epoch of humanity.

Accepting the critique of religion and Feuerbach's idealist philosophy, Marx elaborates his critique of bourgeois society and the bourgeois state.[40]

But Marx did not stop at mere critique. He became the promoter of the most consequential revolution against bourgeois society and the greatest prophet of the future proletarian, social-communist society. "Moralizing critique" is ineffective. There is no immutable essence of man. Man is what he is in his socio-economic relations. These must be changed in order to change man.[41]

The realization of this new society, this new "praxis," was undertaken first by Lenin, then by Stalin, and today is being fostered by many of their disciples and imitators. Development and the journey toward universal humanization are no longer a game of chance. Man himself takes the reins of evolution and history into his own hands; he is "the director of evolution."[42]

The humanist-rationalists of Marxism have thus ushered in a new era. With them begins a new age of the "adventure of protoplasm," as J. Rostand would say. A path and a stage, certainly, that are very painful. Their adventure will amplify, in form and scope, the old pains, frustrations, and illusions that the French biologist locates within the biological, historical, and social development up to this point. Protoplasm, reaching its rational state, will apply its illusions to its adventure in the most rational light and will cause greater pain than ever before, because these pains are rational, true, and just, in view of the imagined communist future.

Their rationalism is not liberal rationalism, which trusted in principles (Camus) and the freedom of all, but rather the rationalism of the proletariat, of the party, of its leader—Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Tito—the rationalism of the party, the sole and absolute master of knowledge and of society. For the idealists of one class, God guides history, enlightens humanity, and saves it in a higher order; for the others, the function of the human brain is subject to unknown forces, to "causes akin to witchcraft" [43].

Lafargue, a friend of Engels, says in the same work on this future communist society:

"The communist ideal illuminates our intelligence with a new flame, but this ideal is no longer a reminiscence; rather, it springs from the very heart of reality, it is a reflection of the economic world. We are not utopians, dreamers, like the Lollards of England and the plebeians of Greece: we are men of science, who do not invent societies, but rather detach them from the capitalist environment."

But, despite this evolutionary, spontaneous element with which the new society should emerge, it is rationalism, it is political absolutism, that prevails [44]. This communist rationalism is quite different from that of liberal rationalism, for whom:

"The greatest thing in man is the sovereign freedom of the spirit, the idea that no internal or external power, no force or dogma can limit the perpetual effort and perpetual investigation of human reason; this idea, according to which humanity in the universe is a commission d'enquete, whose operations should not be constrained by any governmental intervention, any celestial or earthly intrigue... always preserving our critical sense... and a feeling of secret rebellion... in all our assertions..." [45].

Contrary to this liberal rationalism, communist rationalism inaugurates the most complete and total political absolutism. "I build and destroy, I destroy and build" is its principal motto. After a complete destruction of society, the State, and private property, the future society will be realized through the general progress of science, technology, and industrialization. An abundance of goods will be achieved, which can then be distributed to each person according to their needs. In view of this future society, current sacrifices and pains do not matter.

“Indeed, what importance does the sacrifice of men have if it is to serve the salvation of all humanity? Progress resembles that terrible pagan deity, who would drink nectar only from the skulls of his slain enemies. It is a progress, at least, that will cease to be torturous after the industrial apocalypse, on the day of reconciliation.” “What does it matter if that will be through dictatorship and violence? In this new Jerusalem of the noise of marvelous machines, who will still remember the cries of the slaughtered?”[46]

Marx—Camus tries to excuse him—had not foreseen all this. Faithful to his Judeo-Christian tradition, the Marxist ideologue said: “An objective that requires unjust means is not a just objective.”

Those who know humankind, its essence, its history: those who have thoroughly studied the systems of philosophy, of social, economic, and political doctrines, were well aware of what would happen when an attempt was made to realize “this communist ideal.” But what they said seemed to many like a biased opinion, a preconceived position inspired by class interests.

Despite all the negative aspects of the new system of government and society, the "ideal" remained unattainable by criticism, and its architects retained the aura of authentic representatives of humanity on the path to achieving universal well-being, freedom, and reconciliation. Only at the 23rd Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, through the words of N. Khrushchev, did the lie, the mystification, and the illusory nature of the new attempt begin to be revealed. The supreme architect of earthly paradise, Stalin, has become the supreme criminal of history, unworthy of being buried next to Lenin, who did not have enough time to catch up with Stalin in his implacable absolutism of communist rationalism.

The new slaves cannot reconcile themselves to their fate. "The slave, those who have a miserable present and no consolation from heaven, is assured that the future belongs to them. The future is the only kind of property that owners willingly grant to their slaves." ... "But rebellion in man is the rejection of being treated as a thing, of being reduced to mere history. It is the affirmation of the nature common to all men, which escapes the world of force."[47]

The foregoing is eloquently confirmed by the Croatian Marxist philosophers in the journal Praxis. They delve into the very heart of the system in all its aspects. Their testimonies are invaluable to those concerned with humanity, its fate, and its place in society and history. What until now were bourgeois assessments by the "traitors" of the system, who chose "freedom," are now the self-confession of Marxists themselves, who have felt the stark contradiction between their deepest vocation as thinking men and the system and regime they dreamed of in their unilaterally instilled philosophical education.

The first feature article in the aforementioned journal from 1964 states verbatim:

"National tradition itself, attraction or aversion, different historical starting points, the varying degrees of industrialization in countries marching along the path of socialism—all of this had a greater impact on the development of socialism than anyone, not even its creators, could have suspected." Furthermore, "the discussion about the prospects for socialism in highly industrialized countries has increased interest in its barely touched-up subject: that Marxism must largely transform its traditional categories if it is to successfully analyze the world today."

But: "The greatest attention has been drawn to the analysis of the human condition, which differs significantly from that described by Marx a hundred years ago." One of the contributors to issue 2 of Praxis, considering the critique of "everything that exists" as one of the essential points of Marxist doctrine today, has reached the point (in the realization of socialism) where something completely contrary to Marx is valid. Therefore, one must be consistent and reject Marx without simultaneously appealing to him... Because here, whether they like it or not, only that logical-formal principle is valid and can be valid. Either Marx is valid, or those who defend essentially contrary positions are valid (Praxis, No. 2, p. 294, Milan Kangrga).

Danko Grlic, in turn, writes:

"In the same context of problems concerning absolute and eternal truths, we can ask why—in order to maintain at all costs an almost mythological faith in what the classics expounded—we overlook (or at best try to conceal with 'feel-good expressions') formulations and expressions with double meanings, that Lenin actually held a different opinion from Marx, and Marx a different one from Engels, on many, and often essential, issues?

Remaining consistent Marxist-Leninists, such a favorite slogan, means today for many being faithful to all the positions of Marx and Lenin, without realizing that their concepts, often on various problems, especially in the field of positive sciences, on scientifically proven theses, are actually outdated, and that adhering to them (and not only literally, in the form of quotations, but also to the spirit of some theses) means today the impossibility of understanding certain characteristics of the socialist-communist regime today, or, to put it another way, In other words, it means no longer being a Marxist.

To look this fact straight in the eye, and not merely emphasize obedience as the highest virtue, and no attachment to the tradition of the classics as the sole justification for being for or against Marxism, would be, it seems to me, one of the prerequisites (but not the only one) for that idea which in our time they prefer to call "creative Marxism" (Praxis, No. 1, p. 48).

Regarding the ideal of a future communist society of general welfare and universal freedom and justice, Grlic continues:

"Likewise, in my opinion, it is clear today that in the name of this illusory goal, current suffering can no longer be justified." (Who here will not recall Camus, who said in this regard: "To the slave, to those whose present is miserable and who have no point of consolation in heaven, we assure that the future, at least...") "It belongs to them. The future is the only kind of property that masters grant to the exclaves"—our observation). "Thus, for example," Grlic continues, "it is asserted that socialisms, ours and the Chinese, lead surely and without hesitation to one and the same objective: the organization of communist society.

The means, we admit with sorrow, are different, but the motive for the movement is entirely common, the end of all effort identical. Even in the case of a radical critique of the means, this objective remains sacrosanct: no one, not even the most audacious, attempts to doubt it, its realization, or its qualities. And we do not ask ourselves, things being thus conceived, how is it possible, after an imaginary voyage on a steamship, in which all the passengers, with sorrow, would cease to think and feel humanly, that a new solid ground of humanity awaits us on the horizon? How can all this be the objective, if for its realization we have adopted means completely contrary to it?" Once again, Marx's words come to mind:

"An objective that requires unjust means to achieve it is an unjust objective (our observation). What will communism be, and how can it be, if in socialism bureaucrats without conscience or scruples are dominating, and if the cult of personality continues to create a climate of duality and impersonality? Therefore, the Chinese claim that they have already entered communism should not only provoke an ironic smile and evoke a few amusing jokes. The matter is much more tragic in its painful truth: if Chinese socialism continues on its current path, it will and can only achieve the Chinese type of communism."

"Is it still necessary today—after both joyful and bitter experiences—to maintain such an illusory view of the future? Only then will we thoroughly deny the Christian eschatological demands regarding the future; only then, in opposition to sacrifice for the invisible, will we sacrifice this rosy future in the name of the 'here' and 'now,' which is the only true springboard for the future.

Because only a 'here' and 'now,' with its 'how' and 'what,' can become the foundation for something truly new. Therefore, today cannot be the reign of ascetics nor the dominion of mediocrity, which would lead us to opulence; it cannot be a military barracks, which would fail to introduce freedom of thought; the rule of hidden directives behind the scenes, of denunciations and morally wrinkled accusers, which would lead us to a state of finished personalities; the rule of hatred, which would bring us closer to love; or a police force that would enable..." Freedom, from the inhuman, that opens the door to the human. For who, and in whose name, will build the future society as a homeland of humanity? Who, and from where, will bestow upon us such a builder, if today we mutilate humanity and render it insensitive, immune to all that is human?

From where, if not from heaven, will a new human being of love, of enthusiasm, this humanized human being of this humanized society, fall? For we could not find him on earth if we reduce him to exhausting, vegetative labor, to coercion, to rigorous discipline, to mental castration. Must we, perhaps, wait for God, in an extraordinary and supernatural moment, to illuminate his intelligence and ennoble his soul?

I believe it is necessary, in the times in which we live, that communism, as a concept of the future imagined state of permanent joy and common contentment, of the satisfaction of all needs and of complete harmony, become a real concept of a society that arises from all contradictions, conflicts, pains, and illnesses. "Of the man of our century, the man whose questions are different, whose needs are more varied, whose discussions and dilemmas have changed since the time when the classics formulated the ideals of the new society."

"Who could have foreseen all these deviations, all these profound distortions, national oppressions, the outward expression of the darkest chauvinistic passions, genocide, the treatment of ideological and political adversaries worse than that of common criminals, as well as all the other horrors of dehumanization, personal terror, gray bureaucracy, caste rule, and primitivism—and all this within the framework of a system that was, in principle, among the most humane and free, and in the name of the most intelligent and liberal minds, such as Marx? Perhaps

Didn't Stalinism signify all of this, and, in some countries in modified forms, doesn't it still signify all of this today? Precisely for this reason, and after these experiences: neither doubts, nor pain, nor human suffering are the same as they were a hundred years ago. Today, moreover, it is becoming increasingly evident that all of this is not the result of a temporary disorder or ideological or economic underdevelopment, or a lack of awareness... as is often stated in some pedagogical-political theses.

Indeed, people contemporary with the movements within socialism don't realize that many problems still remain unresolved as a result of a temporary disorder, which can be eliminated and overcome through further development, continuing with the new era and its work.

The issue of morbid ambition, of the will to power, the emergence of nations that lead and exploit smaller peoples, the elimination of those who don't think politically like us, and so many other distortions—all this cannot simply disappear in this new era, regardless of its economic development or any other label we give it.

Finally, we must bear in mind that not only do these questions remain, questions that will always trouble humanity until it is truly human—and it would be a terrible impoverishment if we could reach a state where humanity no longer felt them or reacted to them—but the question arises: to what extent can a harmonious concept of society, in which everyone is content, a society where the slogan "to each according to their needs" is realized, truly be a reality? Moreover, why is it precisely at the moment when, in our ideological projections, we are entering history, into communism (and for some, already into socialism), that we replace the dialectic of contradictions and conflicts with the peaceful harmony of a logical satisfaction of all needs?

To illustrate the enduring nature of those questions to which Grlic alludes, questions that will always trouble humanity anew, we reproduce what B. Bonsjak says in issue no. 2 of Praxis, p. 253:

"Without a doubt, humankind is the most tragic being in nature. Only humans know that they are mortal and must die. The awareness of this constitutes a tragedy... The fact that humans must die remains the greatest mystery of human existence. Theology will say that God has endowed humans with reason to use it as best as possible and thus come to know the divine perfections of the universe." But why can't even the most recent scientific discoveries serve as a convincing argument for religious people against religion and against divine existence?

Because the totality (of being) cannot be the object of knowledge... The impossibility of knowing the totality still leaves religion with a possibility, which invokes its eschatological solutions... That is to say, egoism (in the form of the desire for the eschatological) and human mortality remain elements reserved for religiosity, regardless of the form of the social system... That is why the things of this world (ovostranost, Diesseitigkeit) cannot completely endanger religion... According to the "logic of illusion," religion cannot be extinguished. On this point, we must have clear ideas.

Thus, in essence, our Marxist philosophers speak. They reveal to us the complete frustration of communism in all its aspects. Its contradiction between liberalism and evolutionism on the one hand, and the rationalist desire to create a rational society on the other, has transformed it into a system that presents us with society and the state in their most inhumane forms. The ideal has become its opposite. Instead of humanization, we find the most complete dehumanization, where people are, in effect, treated like things, objectified, which Cornu, the French Marxist, believed to be the exclusive phenomenon of bourgeois society.

To conclude our reflection, we can add that the world today has formed two types of state according to Marxist conceptions. The free world organized the bourgeois state, an instrument of oppression in the hands of the wealthy, plutocratic class, against the poor, "lacking sociological means," while the communist world structured the proletarian state, an instrument of oppression in the hands of yesterday's proletariat, but today's oppressor class. It has shaped these systems, but is now decisively entering a period of overcoming them.

The postwar neoliberal state has achieved great successes in all fields—scientific, technical, economic, and socio-political—demonstrating its superiority over the communist state in many areas. The latter, apart from some spectacular successes in the scientific and technical fields, displays incurable weaknesses in economic, political, and general human terms, more so than any other oppressive system known in history. Having reached the extreme of its absurdities, this form of society seems to require reorientation.[48]

Regarding the explosions "of the same tendency," the "humanizing" one, before the emergence of Praxis, F. Zagar wrote in the Croatian Review, Buenos Aires, 1961. The author, with a strong sense of synthesis, provided an overview of the foundations of this kind within the philosophical and literary critical sphere in the Republic of Croatia under the title: "The Decentralization of the Spirit."

For now, this orientation should occur in the direction of a return to liberal-scientific rationalism. Metaphysical and religious factors are excluded, but the right to opinion, discussion, and the coexistence of different ideas is recognized. From here, it seems to us, the path to a truly democratic society is not far off.

Recognizing the failure of the ideal of a paradisiacal communist society and the impossibility of changing humanity in its essence—recognizing, in short, the tragic failure of "the physics of the soul" (Camus), after an implacable terror aimed at molding humanity's evolutionary "plasticity" according to the demands of communism—our Marxist philosophers contribute greatly to the foundations of a more humane society than communism, in all its versions thus far, has shown us. A return to communist humanism would only signify the confirmation of "rational terror" in the face of an impossible ideal.

"Nous sommes au temps de la préméditation et du crimen parfait. Nos criminels ne sont plus ces enfants désarmés qui invoquient l'excuse de l'amour. Ils sont adultes, au contraire, et leur alibi est irrefutalbe: c'est la philosophie qui peut servir à tout, même à changer les meurtriers en juges... Mais à partir du moment ou …, le crime se raisonne, il prolifère comme la raison elle même, il prend toutes les figures du syllogisme. Il était solitaire comme le eri, le voilà universel comme la science. Hier jugé, il légifère aujourd'hui" (Camus).

Croatian Marxists testify once again that positive science is not identical with communist rationalism; they also recognize that communist regimes have stifled evolution, imposing the "harmony" of society through terror, even though Lenin said that movement is absolute, unity only relative, and Marx had formulated that goals are not just if they require unjust means. It is at this point that the question of whether or not communism as a power can be humanized will be decided. Many other matters of transcendental importance depend on this decision.

As this article was being finished, sensational news of a dramatic change in the Belgrade government was circulating. The leading exponent of terror in the Yugoslav communist regime, A. Rankovic, and his closest collaborators were removed from their nefarious positions. They are being replaced by lesser-known, but no less cruel, figures. In what sense, then, will the current mysterious unrest within and under Tito's communist regime be revealed? Contradictions and hesitations. Epur si muove!

The imprisonment of M. Mihailov and his friends, however, is depressing and significant, but not cause for despair.

Buenos Aires

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND THE INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES IN YUGOSLAVIA

Production Plans 1957-1964 and Their Implementation

Jure Petricevic, Brugg, Switzerland

In 1963-64, the important seven-year phase (1957-1964) in Yugoslavia's agricultural policy came to an end. This phase had been initiated by the "Resolution of the Federal People's Assembly on the Prospective Development of Agriculture and Cooperativism" of April 27, 1957. This resolution reaffirmed the trend toward a more liberal agricultural policy, which had been introduced in 1952-53 with the dissolution of the kolkhozes, the recognition of the peasant proprietor as a permanent element in social and economic life, and the intensive promotion of the socialist sector of agriculture.

This resolution established as its main objective the intensification and accelerated increase of production, with the aim of achieving total self-sufficiency in the domestic market for food and agricultural raw materials and becoming independent of imports, that is, of aid from the United States in the form of food products. The socialist sector of agriculture—namely, state farms, the remaining portion of peasant work cooperatives, and the farms of agricultural cooperatives and other agrarian institutions—was envisioned as the principal instrument of this new agricultural policy of the Tito regime.[49] The greatest importance was attributed to collaboration between the agricultural cooperative and the individual producer. Through this cooperation with the cooperative, the individual peasant was to be included in the socialist sector and collectivized indirectly. The search for new solutions through the incorporation of private farms into the official program was understandable and necessary after the failure of collectivization, since at that time only 10% of the total arable land belonged to state farms and agricultural cooperatives. In 1963, this ratio reached 12% [50].

To broaden the production base, it was necessary to attract as many peasants as possible to cooperatives and thus strengthen the socialist sector. This collaboration was generally limited to cereal production and some other tasks (plowing, sowing, harvesting, etc.). Until now, this cooperation was not extensive, and in 1963 it comprised only 13% of the arable land of individual farms, while livestock, wine production, and fruit production were not affected by the "cooperation" between the peasant and the cooperative. Through this cooperation, the general agricultural cooperative was supposed to become the driver of progress and the socialization of the agricultural labor process. Given the weak participation of peasants in the "cooperation" and based on official data, it can be objectively stated that this cooperation fell far short of its intended goal and, in fact, failed completely.

The agricultural assets of the "socialist sector" (state-owned), together with individual producers under the management of "cooperatives," were tasked with achieving the established goals, and all state and cooperative resources were placed at the disposal of this sector. Almost all the funds of the national budget were spent through this sector; it was granted every credit and tax advantage, and it received preferential treatment in the acquisition of machinery and implements, etc. Individual producers could only access certain short-term loans, and even then, only in collaboration with communist cooperatives. But in long-term investments, these producers have been and continue to be completely sidelined. The private sector is burdened with high taxes and condemned to a difficult existence and capitulation to the "cooperative."

The resolution of the Federal Assembly on agricultural development and cooperativism outlines the production targets to be achieved over the six or seven years of the current plan. According to this plan, the previous wheat yield per hectare was to be increased by an average of 50% across the entire country within that period, reaching 2.3 m² per hectare. In the predominantly grain-producing regions of Eastern Croatia and Vojvodina, the average yield per hectare was to reach 3 tons. The corn yield was also projected to reach 3 tons instead of the current average of 14 quintals per hectare. Livestock production was also expected to increase by 50%. Furthermore, a considerable increase in the production of industrial crops, fruits, vegetables, legumes, potatoes, etc., was anticipated.

With the expiration of the planned seven-year period and the beginning of the new seven-year plan, it is worth assessing and analyzing the results of the 1957-1964 plan.

Given the limited participation of individual farmers in the cooperative effort, we observed that this new agricultural program also failed in its political dimension. Since the arable land of the socialized assets, representing 12% of the total area, was very small, the logical and direct effect of the new policy was minimal. (In 1963, the arable land of the socialized farms and private farms in cooperation with cooperatives accounted for 24% of Yugoslavia's total area, that is, barely a quarter.) This failure is even better illustrated by the ratio of livestock on socialist farms to that on individual peasant holdings. By the end of 1963, the number of breeding females in the socialized sector barely reached 9% of the livestock in Yugoslavia; the remaining 91% belonged to small peasant landowners.

Cereal Production

Since the greatest difficulties in agricultural production and food supply in Yugoslavia pertain to cereals, and primarily wheat, we will focus on them first in our analysis of the 1957-64 plan. The results of the 1964 harvest and the heated debates in the Yugoslav press afterward facilitate this assessment. While in recent years the communist leaders had announced significant progress in production and, despite the growing dependence on the United States for wheat supplies, expressed confidence in further successes and in becoming independent of foreign aid, the 1964 wheat harvest represented a major failure and increased reliance on American—that is, foreign—aid, exacerbating the latent agricultural crisis. Dependence on foreign aid became even more acute and uncomfortable when the US Senate, and previously the House of Representatives, blocked further aid in September 1964, placing it within the framework of regular trade. The increased grain imports, payable in dollars, presented Yugoslavia with insurmountable obstacles. Tito's regime's only hope lay in the Washington government finding a way to continue its substantial food aid. Here, the prospects were not as promising as in previous years, given Tito's integration into the Soviet bloc. However, it should not be ruled out that, due to the political instability arising in Eastern Europe, Washington might again yield to Tito and continue providing economic assistance. This aid should be long-term, as the decline in agricultural production is a serious problem that cannot be resolved in a single year.

The results of Tito's agricultural policy must be assessed using two criteria: yield per hectare and wheat imports.

When the resolution on promoting agriculture was adopted in April 1957, it took into account the average wheat yields of several years, which exceeded 10 quintals per hectare. A target yield of 23 quintals was set. At this rate, the harvest from the total cultivated area of approximately 2 million hectares would yield 460,000 railcars of 10 tons each, which, according to rough estimates, would cover domestic needs. After the resolution, yields increased thanks to forced fertilization and the introduction of Italian wheat varieties, which were generally of poor quality and had low resistance to cold and pests. However, during the period from 1957 to 1963, the yield per hectare never reached 20 quintals, and in 1964 it only reached 17.6. It should be noted here that the wheat yield of 20 quintals per hectare is very low compared to the yields achieved in Central and Western Europe, and that the average for many years in several countries ranged between 30 and 40 quintals per hectare.[51] The following diagram shows the evolution of wheat production from 1957 to 1964.

Wheat Production in Yugoslavia

	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
Superficie total 1000 has.	1970	1990	2130	2060	1960	2130	2140	3100
Producción total 1000 ton.	3100	2450	4130	3570	3170	3510	4140	3700
Rendimiento por ha., quint.	15,8	12,30	19,4	17,3	16,1	16,5	19,3	17,6

Wheat yields per hectare, despite some increase, have remained within very narrow limits in recent years. According to official data, the average in the "socialist sector" is much higher due to intensive fertilization of Italian wheat varieties, from which miracles were expected, but which failed to deliver as predicted by experts. As a result, the wheat harvest is insufficient to supply the country with bread, which is reflected in imports that grow year after year. Cereal imports and exports are shown in this diagram:

Cereals and their products

	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963
Importación, 1000 toneladas	1199	829	1119	187	826	867	1922
Exportación, 1000 toneladas	56	748	366	677	384	56	110

In 1960, there was some improvement in the supply of bread wheat. Thanks to the good harvest of 1959, imports decreased, and there were even exportable surpluses. This was a temporary phenomenon. Subsequently, Yugoslavia's dependence on grain imports grew rapidly, reaching 15 million tons in 1963. This figure fell to almost 2 million tons in 1964.

What is the cause of the slow growth and, in recent years, the decline in wheat production? Since natural conditions are favorable and the current state of production technology makes it possible, in the opinion of competent specialists, for yields in Yugoslavia to reach 30 quintals per hectare, the causes must be sought elsewhere: in the organization of production and in agricultural policy.

It is a flawed policy to neglect private farms, which comprise 88% of the arable land, while promoting and supporting the "socialist sector" for political reasons. This approach seeks to sideline the individual producer and implement socialization in agriculture. It wasn't forced socialization that failed, but rather indirect socialization, achieved through the neglect of private peasant property, which was further burdened with heavy taxes.

The authorities' aim was to increase food production on state farms to meet most or all of market demand. This need is greatest for wheat, and at first glance, it seems easy to overcome. Because the objective was urgent, the Party resorted to the simplest means: introducing high-yield foreign wheat varieties and applying contemporary production techniques (deep plowing, dense sowing, abundant fertilization, etc.) to ensure a guaranteed and rapid success.

Without much hesitation, Italian wheat varieties were chosen for their high yields. Many specialists immediately warned of the dangers and risks of such an experiment. Unlike other agricultural crops, foreign wheat varieties cannot simply be transplanted to other soils; instead, local varieties suited to the local conditions, resistant to frost and pests, etc., must be cultivated. Foreign varieties can also be tested for selection. The specialists knew that the Italian wheat varieties were not appropriate for the local conditions and that their quality was poor. However, the authorities opted for this variety since the local ones were unsatisfactory and it would take a long time to cultivate and select new varieties.

By plowing very deeply, in contrast to what was done in wheat-growing areas, through overly dense sowing and intensive fertilization, they tried to achieve maximum yields of 50, 70, and even 100 quintals per hectare. Occasionally, these yields are achieved on state farms. But the overall average increased only modestly, which was attributed mainly to the peasants' outdated production methods. Further successes were expected in the "socialist sector" to such an extent that there would no longer be a need to import wheat.

The poor wheat harvest of 1964 revealed the weakness of this policy and necessitated a thorough re-examination of the established program. Conferences of specialists and officials were organized in Vjesnik, Zagreb. Since the blame could not be placed solely on the bad weather, wheat varieties and production techniques were once again discussed. Despite differing opinions, it can be concluded from the surveys and conferences that relying exclusively on Italian wheat varieties was unwise, as they proved unsuitable for Yugoslavia's climatic conditions and were also of poor quality.

It was also confirmed that the techniques employed contributed to the poor harvest of 1964. Therefore, the wheat policy would have to be fundamentally revised, without explicitly admitting it. It was acknowledged that local varieties, whose cultivation and selection were diligently pursued by Professor M. Koric, who had achieved considerable success even before the war and was among the most vocal opponents of introducing Italian wheat varieties, should be given priority. In this way, the proposed goals will take time to achieve, and wheat procurement requires rapid successes and high yields. Thus, the problem is once again reduced to the political arena.

To achieve solid and lasting success, the authorities should encourage private farms, provide them with all the benefits enjoyed by the socialist sector, and lower taxes on private property. In this way, with local variations, production would gradually but surely increase, and the domestic market would be supplied. A reorientation of agricultural policy in this direction is unlikely, as it is a matter of principle that is of great importance to any communist government. Moreover, depending on imports, that is, on American aid, is not convenient, and lately, it is precarious, given that the Washington Congress is demanding the suspension of food aid to Tito's government.

The Yugoslav communist regime is therefore embroiled in a serious crisis. To find a way out, in the summer of 1964, agricultural prices were increased. This increase occurred primarily at the request of the "socialist sector" of agriculture, which, despite copious government aid, was operating at enormous losses. Of course, the peasants would also benefit from this increase, which would partially stimulate production. However, since the other factors of production in the private sector remained unchanged for the time being, this increase alone would not bring about a radical change.

Maize production in Yugoslavia

	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963
Superficie total 1000 has.	2590	2390	2580	2570	2510	2460	2410
Producción total 1000 tn.	5660	3950	6670	6160	4550	5270	5380
Rendimiento por ha. quint.	21,9	16,5	28,8	23,9	18,1	21,5	22,3

During 1957-1963, the target of 30 quintals per hectare was not met in a single year. According to initial estimates of the 1964 maize harvest, the highest yield since the 1957 Resolution would be achieved: total maize production, according to these estimates, would reach 6.8 million tons, or 1.3 million tons more than in 1963. On an area of 2.4 million hectares, this would correspond to an average yield of 28 quintals per hectare. The proposed target of 30 quintals per hectare is quite modest in light of current progress in maize production.

Thanks to hybrid maize varieties and modern techniques, the average of 30 quintals per hectare is now considered low, and progressive free countries register higher average maize production, exceeding 30 quintals per hectare and trending toward an average of 50 quintals per hectare or even higher. In Yugoslavia, the natural conditions for maize production are very favorable, and the country ranks second in Europe in cultivated area, after Romania (excluding the Soviet Union). There are large, largely untapped production reserves. Yugoslavia, with its current maize production, can meet its domestic needs, but with higher yields, it could increase its exports and better ensure sustenance, pasture, and fodder for its livestock, which is essential for increasing livestock production.

Livestock Production

Livestock production is of paramount importance for feeding the population, and all government and Communist Party plans dedicate special attention to it. The 1957 Seven-Year Plan projected a significant increase in this production. However, the results achieved here are lower and less satisfactory than in other sectors, as can be seen in the following diagram of livestock and milk production:

Number of Livestock and Milk Production

	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
Total ganado 1000 cabezas	4947	4860	5038	5297	5702	5884	5355	5106
Cant. vacas 1000 vientres	2562	2634	2503	2536	2678	2763	2689	2616
Leche vacuna en mill. Lts.	2094	2126	2231	2214	2181	2153	2105
Prod. leche s/vaca lechera	1103	1098	1122	1107	1063	1078	1091

From 1957 to 1964, the number of cattle increased very little. A larger increase was recorded from 1959 to 1962, but since 1962, the number of cattle has declined rapidly and now hovers around 5 million, the same as it was 10 years ago. A similar trend can be observed with dairy cows. As milk production per cow has remained unchanged over the last seven years, total milk production has stagnated, resulting in insufficient supply for the market of 20 million consumers, as reported by the Yugoslav press.

To better appreciate the current state of dairy production, it is helpful to compare annual milk production per cow in Yugoslavia with that recorded in Western European countries. As can be seen from the preceding diagram, a dairy cow in Yugoslavia produces 1,100 liters of milk annually, while in West Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Great Britain, annual milk production per cow ranges from 3,000 to 4,000 liters, and sometimes even more.[56] In these countries, annual production below 3,000 to 4,000 liters is not profitable, and today, production of 4,000 to 5,000 liters is considered essential.

If we compare these yields with that of Yugoslavia, we see that the production of 1,100 liters per cow annually is very low and economically disastrous. This occurs in a country where conditions for cattle breeding and dairy production are optimal. If it were a minimal difference, it might be acceptable, but milk production in Yugoslavia is three or four times lower than in the aforementioned countries, which is due exclusively to the economic system in place in Yugoslavia. But not only is the lag significant, but despite the seven-year plan and agricultural development initiatives, milk production has remained unchanged since 1957. This is the clearest indication that the new agricultural policy is unsound and counterproductive.

As for meat production, the situation is somewhat better than for dairy. The number of livestock slaughtered increased between 1957 and 1963. The largest increase was in pig slaughter (55%), followed by cattle (28%) and sheep (12%). However, this increase falls far short of meeting the actual market needs or the stated objectives. The chronic shortage of meat on the market, ongoing discussions about how to improve the situation, and new plans fill the pages of the Yugoslav press daily. The situation has not improved recently; in fact, it has worsened, as evidenced by the decline in the number of cattle.

Regarding livestock production, the relationship between socialist farms and private landholdings differs from that in grain production. In livestock farming, the socialist sector's share is negligible. Of the total livestock in 1963, only 9% belonged to state farms, and for dairy cows, this proportion reached only 6%, for pigs 13%, and for sheep 5% [57]. Thus, livestock production depends almost entirely on the private peasant sector. Livestock production is more complex than wheat production, and therefore the "socialist sector" is largely ineffective in this area.

But since, moreover, for political and doctrinal reasons, the communist regime does not want to strengthen the peasant farm, production cannot progress. Given the prevailing conditions, the peasant has no incentive to increase production and lacks the necessary means. Many peasants abandon the land and take up other occupations. Part of their land was transferred to communist agricultural cooperatives, which were unable to cultivate it properly. Barren landscapes, abandoned fields, and empty villages are common sights in present-day Yugoslavia.

Deeper Causes and Consequences

Although the "socialist sector's" participation in agriculture was small, the authorities attempted to meet the market's and population's food needs through this means. Despite the allocation of all state resources, the proposed objectives were not achieved, and the failure in wheat production was significant. The calculation was flawed. The socialist sector, neither in its size nor its capacity, is capable of satisfying this demand.

One might ask, why not expand the "socialist sector" and increase the number of socialized farms to the extent necessary to meet market demands, given the stagnation of the private sector? This is, in essence, the fundamental problem of the communist system in agriculture. According to the communist doctrinal program, the simplest solution would be to establish state farms and communist cooperatives that would handle total production.

However, neither the Soviet Union nor other communist states could achieve the complete socialization of agriculture for a very simple reason: in the sovkhozes, the state bears all the risk, since all employees are paid from the state treasury, and all investments and other expenses are borne by the state. Because of the lack of interest and initiative among employees and workers, coupled with bureaucratic inefficiency, operations often run at a loss.

Therefore, Stalin did not dare to nationalize all agriculture. For this reason, collective farms (kolkhozes in the Soviet Union, peasant work cooperatives in Yugoslavia and other communist countries) were experimented with. Here, the producers, the cooperative members, bear all the risks. These collective farms must give the state a portion of their produce under favorable and pre-established conditions, and since the producer's interest in these systems is not substantial, their success and progress are not satisfactory. Stalin allowed the kolkhoznik, in order to encourage their interest, to cultivate up to half a hectare on their own and raise a cow or other livestock. In this way, the general and private interests were balanced; the market was barely supplied, and certain goods came largely or entirely from the private farm. This system continued after Stalin's death; neither Khrushchev nor his successors changed it.

Given the specific conditions in Yugoslavia, Tito had to make greater concessions to the peasantry than Stalin. In 1952, he was forced to dissolve the collective farms (kolkhozes) and grant freedom to the peasants. However, for doctrinal reasons, he could not simultaneously facilitate the development of private property and attempted to collectivize it indirectly. The peasantry welcomed their liberation from the kolkhoze and other coercive measures, and urban consumers were satisfied with the establishment of the free market. Food supplies were improving, but some fundamental problems for both the peasantry and the regime remained unresolved.

The Washington government was supplying the shortfall. With the failure of new experiments and "liberalization," Tito is permanently dependent on this aid, which, for political reasons, is becoming increasingly precarious. Should this assistance cease, his regime will find itself in a very precarious situation. Washington politicians have failed to realize that they are destroying the free peasantry of Yugoslavia, the most effective opposition to communism.

Nor has the situation of the peasantry improved. He is now free in his fields, but due to burdensome taxes and a lack of state support, his land is stagnating and going bankrupt. Tito's regime is unwilling to grant him greater freedom, as this would undermine its foundations. Today, after Tito's reintegration into the Soviet bloc, such concessions are less likely.

One of the major consequences of the neglect of the countryside and the pressure on the peasants is the massive influx of labor to urban centers. This influx created new and serious problems. Industrial development in Yugoslavia is slow and undergoing a severe crisis, unable to employ all the workers whose numbers are growing daily. The result is widespread unemployment, primarily among unskilled workers arriving from the countryside. By the summer of 1964, the number of unemployed had reached half a million. Furthermore, the large influx of labor created serious housing difficulties. The housing shortage was already chronic in Yugoslavia, and the new influx of workers to the cities exacerbated it. It is obvious, then, that a forced and arbitrary agricultural policy has negative effects on the working class and housing situation, burdening all social classes.

Of course, Tito's regime was under more pressure than the peasantry. The severe food shortage had to be addressed. The backwardness of agriculture was crippling the entire economy and paralyzing the country's progress. The regime was searching for a solution, and in the summer of 1964, the central authorities in Belgrade established a new program for agricultural development. The most significant measure was raising the prices of agricultural products.

New Agricultural Program in the 1964-1970 Seven-Year Plan

The poor harvest of 1964 and the insufficient supply of meat and milk to the market forced the government and the Party to re-examine the situation and try to find a way out of the agricultural crisis. On July 10, 1964, the Federal and Economic Council of the Federal Assembly adopted a Resolution on agricultural development. This was a kind of agricultural program for the upcoming 1964-1970 Seven-Year Plan. The main points of this program can be summarized as follows:

First, the "great successes" of the previous plan in agricultural production are emphasized, but immediately afterward, it states verbatim: "Agriculture was, in the expired plan, one of the main causes of the disproportionate and unstable economic development of the country." "In the coming period, it is essential to ensure a greater increase than has been achieved so far." How to achieve this goal? The Resolution sets out the path:

"In the current structure of agriculture, production growth can only be ensured through the accelerated development of large-scale social production and the increased activity of workers' organizations in developing cooperation with individual producers."

"The factors of expanded reproduction, the development of production, and socialist relations in agriculture in the future period must be agricultural complexes, farms, (communist) agricultural cooperatives, and other organizations engaged in the processing and marketing of agricultural products. Therefore, the development of organized agricultural production will henceforth constitute the basis for faster, more efficient, and more stable development of all agriculture and the agricultural market."

It is then emphasized that, in addition to intensifying production on existing land, it is necessary to increase the area of social production, strengthen the integration of agriculture and industry, and so on. Regarding production goals, the Resolution states:

"The most important objective of production policy in the coming period is the elimination of wheat imports and the accelerated development of livestock production."

The primary and most important measure for the accelerated increase in production is expected to be a price increase.}

"Therefore, it is necessary that, with freer market activity and economic policy measures, the prices of agricultural products gradually increase and their relationship to prices in other economic sectors be adjusted."

Ensuring the single market, price levels, and price relationships is the responsibility of the federation and other political-territorial communities.

The role of the individual producer was redefined. Their place is guaranteed only within the framework of collaboration with agricultural organizations. The relationship is defined in these terms:

"Due to the remarkable productive capacity and the insufficiently utilized potential, it is essential to promote agricultural production on privately owned land more energetically and extensively through the cooperation of agricultural workers' organizations with individual producers. Economic policy should encourage farmers, in conjunction with the social sector, to increase production and labor productivity, thereby achieving higher incomes and raising their standard of living."

"Within the framework of this cooperation, loans, awards, and other incentives are provided, and it is stated that this cooperation must be on par with that of socialist farms (previously privileged).

The need to resolve the problems related to the socialization of the countryside is also emphasized. This constitutes the core content of the agrarian-political program within the framework of the new seven-year plan.

The main characteristics of the new agrarian program are, therefore:

The main factor in agricultural production is the "socialist sector." This sector comprises the following organizations: 1. Combined agricultural estates, farms, and estates (mostly state-owned); 2. Peasant work cooperatives (kolkhozes); 3. The economies of general agricultural cooperatives; and 4. Farms belonging to various institutions, etc. This sector comprised only 12% of the total arable land in 1963.

According to the new program, private producers could only operate in cooperation with agricultural organizations, primarily with agricultural cooperatives, under a special contract. Their production was encouraged only if they collaborated with an agricultural organization.

Consequently, the current course of socializing agriculture through cooperatives and other organizations was intensified, a course which, as we have seen, yielded negative results. All financial and other resources (credit, advice, acquisition of implements and fertilizers) were channeled through socialist production. Private producers could only utilize these resources to a limited extent, that is, by collaborating with a cooperative.

Up to this point, cooperation by individual producers was incipient. If the combined area of social and private farms participating in production cooperation were calculated, it would amount to a quarter of the total arable land. In livestock farming, this cooperation is insignificant, and livestock production generally takes place on private farms, outside of the cooperation that the new program completely omits.

This production policy has not yet yielded the desired results. On the contrary, it has failed both in its yield targets and in the economics of the social farms, which generally operate at a loss that the new plan intends to offset with special funds. Given past experience, when cooperatives take over the abandoned fields, the difficulties will only increase.

The agrarian-economic system, therefore, has not changed. The new program reinforces and expands it. Its previous failure was corrected by abundant American food aid. This perpetuated the illusion of the new system's self-sufficiency.

Partial Improvement of the Agricultural Situation - Burden on the Economy and Consumers

The new factor in the 1964-70 plan is the emphasis on the need to increase the prices of agricultural products as the main incentive for future production. It appears that this price increase is insufficient to achieve the established production goals.

The socialist agricultural sector operates at a significant loss. The balance sheets of socialist farms in the Socialist Republic of Croatia in 1963 showed a profit of 3.652 billion dinars and losses of 4.411 billion, resulting in a deficit of 759 million dinars.[58]

To alleviate the serious financial situation of the socialist sector, its representatives had long been demanding an increase in the prices of agricultural products. The Belgrade government approved them in principle, and in July 1964, the prices of certain products were increased. The price of wheat rose from 47 to 60 dinars per kilogram, maintaining the existing premium of 2 dinars; corn from 38 to 50 dinars; sugar beets from 7.80 to 12 dinars; sunflower seeds from 75 to 85 dinars; and milk from 50 to 55 dinars, with an increased premium of 20 dinars per liter. The prices of other products did not change, although a general price increase was demanded.

According to official estimates, this price increase will boost agricultural revenues by 140 billion dinars, with 60 billion going to agricultural organizations, 10 billion to cooperatives, and 60 billion to individual producers. Officials emphasize that these measures will benefit individual producers, even though they were implemented to improve the operations of socialized farms. These measures will undoubtedly stimulate production, although many experts doubt that price increases alone can resolve serious agricultural problems. Meanwhile, livestock prices remained unchanged, as current meat prices are very high compared to wages. Those involved consider these prices insufficient to cover current meat production costs. The meat supply crisis is very likely to continue.

Simultaneously with the rise in agricultural product prices, the prices of electricity, coal, and copper also increased. The argument is the same as in the case of agricultural products: these sectors of the economy were also operating at a loss at the previous prices.

From the consumer's perspective, it is extremely important that all these increases contribute to the higher cost of living. Consumer expenditures would increase by 200 billion dinars. But since retailers and various intermediaries further increase prices, consumers will be burdened with an additional sum exceeding 200 billion.

It is well known that the standard of living for the masses in Yugoslavia is low and that raising it is one of the country's greatest internal challenges. To prevent the standard of living from falling along with rising prices, wages and salaries should be increased. To cope with the rising cost of living, the salary of an employee or worker with a typical family to support should increase by 2,700 dinars per month. Since the family allowance will also increase by 1,200 dinars (two children at 600 dinars each), the net salary increase will amount to 1,500 dinars.

Who will bear the average burden of 1,500 dinars per month per employed person in the economy? It must be absorbed by businesses from their own funds. However, many of these businesses are not in a position to absorb such an increase, as they are already operating at a loss. Thus, according to the Vjesnik newspaper of July 23, 1964, in 1963 in the Socialist Republic of Croatia, 825 companies posted losses, including large companies with several thousand employees and workers each.

For these reasons, consumers reacted negatively to the rise in food prices—although the wage increase partially offsets this increase—and the economy, especially industry, is also unhappy with it, as many companies will be unable to absorb the wage hike. For example, the large Zagreb-based electrical company Rade Koncar, which has long been struggling due to Belgrade's anti-Croatian policies, will face further difficulties. The industry's reaction to the wage and salary increases was forceful and directed at the central authorities in Belgrade.

The press bluntly stated that the entire "administrative" increase would have to be paid by industry from its already depleted funds. Where such funds were lacking, the burden would fall on the workers and employees, whose wages could not be increased beyond the minimum stipulated amount. Therefore, in economic circles, the central government is criticized, and there are calls for the new redistribution not to be limited to distribution within the economy "but above all between the economy and the beneficiaries of social accumulation outside of it," as K. Dzeba noted at the end of a series of articles on the subject in the Vjesnik newspaper on July 25, 1964. In other words, this means that the federation is taking enormous funds from the economy but not using them to raise wages, which would be necessary due to rising prices. In recent years, the contribution of enterprises to central funds has been high, and this is one of the main reasons for the crisis in a large number of companies, especially in Croatia and Slovenia, which are systematically exploited by Belgrade.

From the above, it follows that agricultural policy is closely linked to prices, wages, and the standard of living of large segments of the population. Because of irrational agricultural policy, vast common resources are being wasted in the socialist sector of agriculture. Due to the losses incurred by this sector and the neglect of the private agricultural sector, the prices of agricultural products must increase, burdening workers and employees. The central government places the entire burden on them and on businesses, which, in turn, due to bureaucracy and the dictates of the central authorities, cannot operate freely and guarantee their workers a fair and satisfactory wage. Poor agricultural policy and economic policy in general overwhelm both farmers and consumers.

The high pressure on the standard of living of workers and employees stems from agriculture and the influx of unskilled labor from the countryside, which increases unemployment in urban centers and exacerbates the already acute housing crisis. Therefore, the entire economy suffers: businesses, workers, and employees alike. Here, too, these sectors must pay the price, and the damage was caused by the central government in Belgrade, committed to the communist transformation of the countryside.

Thus, the entire Yugoslav economy is trapped in a vicious cycle, lurching from one crisis to another. From the perspective of the vast masses of the population, there are no positive solutions within the existing framework and according to the prescriptions of the communist dictatorship. A way out is possible only with a radical change of regime and the establishment of democratic order.

The bread supply in Yugoslavia depends on American aid.

Agriculture is the weakest point of the Yugoslav economy. Despite all the plans, programs, and optimistic declarations, Yugoslavia, an agrarian country, failed to achieve independence in its wheat supply, although the problem is simple. The average yield per hectare is low, and total production is insufficient to supply the entire country with wheat, which, given the low standard of living, is far more important than in free European countries, where bread consumption is declining and the consumption of meat, fruit, and specialty dairy products is increasing.

According to the 1957-63 seven-year plan, the average wheat yield should have reached 23 quintals per hectare, but in no year did it exceed the modest limit of 20 quintals. In 1965, the average yield reached 20.5 quintals, but the total harvest of 3.46 million tons was lower than that of 1962, 1963, and 1964 [59]. Since Yugoslavia's current needs are estimated at 5 million tons, the 1.5 million ton deficit is considerable and exacerbates its already precarious foreign exchange situation. Without Washington's aid, the wheat market in Yugoslavia would not be supplied. In the implementation of economic reforms, the 1.5 million ton wheat deficit is very significant, as purchasing that amount outright would require paying approximately $90 million, roughly the amount Yugoslavia earns from tourism. These figures were published following further deliberations by the communist leaders in the autumn of 1965 regarding increased wheat production.

M. Sabol outlined these difficulties, which are a consequence of the irresponsible and incompetent communist agricultural policy.[60]

The impact of the failure of Tito's agricultural policy is so great that all new plans for increasing grain production using the old methods seem ridiculous. The Yugoslav press now partially acknowledges the reality, overlooking the fact that wheat cannot be imported without American loans and that a large portion of the country's needs for this staple food will remain unmet.

The new procedure for importing American wheat is as follows: By resolution of the Washington Congress, adopted in the autumn of 1964, wheat deliveries will henceforth be paid for not in dinars—which would effectively be a gift—but in dollars. Since Yugoslavia does not have dollars, Washington is supporting it by extending dollar-denominated credit. Thus, in October-November 1965, Washington and Belgrade were negotiating new shipments of American wheat based on dollar-denominated loans. The world press reported an agreement for the shipment of 1.2 million tons of wheat, that is, the amount Yugoslavia needed to supply the market. It was reported that Yugoslavia had purchased 700,000 tons for $46 million, a sum payable over the long term.[61]

According to UPI news agency [62], the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the delivery of $23.2 million worth of surplus wheat to Yugoslavia under the Food for Peace program. This is very likely the first shipment within a larger program. Washington provides the food to Yugoslavia in installments and on credit. If this resource covers Yugoslavia's wheat deficit, its value will amount to $90 million per year, as reported in the Yugoslav press.

To meet these needs, Yugoslavia would have to use all of its annual foreign currency earnings from tourism, but its foreign exchange reserves do not allow for such a drain. For the moment, the precarious situation is being averted by the U.S. loans. This example shows that the agrarian crisis in Yugoslavia cannot be resolved without radical change. But since agricultural policy remains unchanged, Washington is still footing the bill for these costly experiments, at least in part. Because the shortage of foreign currency is so severe, American aid can only temporarily alleviate the crisis, not resolve it.

Many agricultural organizations and farms are burdened with large debts, and to facilitate their future operations, concessions are planned, particularly regarding the payment of annual installments. It is proposed to extend payment terms, reduce interest rates, and perhaps even cancel all outstanding loans.

The agricultural organizations require greater resources to implement the production program. The following means are envisaged for their financing:

"Since the agricultural organizations will also be unable, under the new economic conditions, to secure the necessary resources for the independent development of agriculture, it will be necessary, especially at the outset, for the federation and other socio-political entities, through loans and economic policy, to ensure the allocation of banking and other resources essential for carrying out agricultural production tasks."

Therefore, the community—that is, the worker and the free peasant—must foot the bill for the failed socialist sector in agriculture.

FRAY CARLOS BALIC, SCOTIST AND MARIOLOGIST

(On the occasion of the 700th anniversary of the birth of John Duns Scotus, 1266 - 1966)

Fr. Dr. Pedro Capkun, Rome, Italy

Whoever writes the history of the renewal of scholastic philosophy and theology in general, and of the Franciscan school of Scotus in particular, as it has taken place over the last fifty years; whoever writes the history of Mariology and the Marian movement and recounts the preparations and work of the Second Vatican Council (June 18, 1959 - October 11, 1962 - December 8, 1965) will undoubtedly record, in several places, the name and role of the Croatian Franciscan Friar Carlos Balic.

As this year marks the 700th anniversary of the birth of John Duns Scotus, the great doctor of the Franciscan order and leader of the Franciscan school, nicknamed the "subtle and Marian doctor"—who was Balic's teacher and inspiration in all his work—and as the Franciscan order is organizing a major international congress to be held in Oxford and Edinburgh (from September 11 to 17, 1966), it seems appropriate to summarize the life and work of Father Balic, especially since this meritorious researcher is approaching 70 years of age.

This is a very arduous task, given the multifaceted nature of Balic's work; he is an outstanding and multifaceted personality, at once a writer, researcher, and organizer of numerous projects, which began during his university studies in Leuven, continued in Croatia, and culminated in Rome, with worldwide repercussions. However, Balic devoted most of his energies to scholasticism of a distinctly Franciscan-Scotist orientation, to Mariology, and to conciliar tasks. His other works and achievements were, we might say, circumstantial, determined by the times and their needs.

Early Services and Works

Born on December 6, 1899, in the village of Katuni near Omis, in the diocese of Split [63], in the classical soil of Croatia, not far from ancient Salona, the capital of the Roman province of Dalmatia, Carlo (baptized Lorenzo) Balic inherited from his rocky homeland a combative and enterprising spirit and from classical culture a broad vision and a love of research. In the minor and major seminaries he attended in the Dalmatian Franciscan Province of the Most Holy Redeemer from 1912 to 1923 (he received the habit of St. Francis on February 2, 1917, on the islet of Visovac in the Krka River, near Sibenik, Croatia)[64], he encountered the rich spiritual and doctrinal tradition of the Franciscan order. The then well-known Croatian Franciscan writer Dr. Peter Grabic instilled enthusiasm in the young Balic[65].

In September 1923, newly ordained, he was sent to the University of Leuven, where, precisely in that postwar period, under the vigorous impetus of Cardinal Mercier, neo-Scholasticism and Mariology were flourishing, especially the doctrine of Mary's mediation.

The studies he undertook in Leuven, under the guidance of excellent professors, above all Joseph Lebon and Albert de Meyr, set the standard for all of Balic's subsequent work. There he learned and assimilated the fundamental requirements of historical criticism and editorial technique, how to investigate the original doctrine of the great doctors and provide their authentic texts with critical apparatus and precise clarifications for contemporary scholars. From Leuven, Balic visited European libraries and archives, delving into medieval manuscripts related to Scholasticism, particularly the Scotist school and Mariology. Even in those early years, he conceived the idea and drew up the organizational plan for the critical edition of the complete works of John Duns Scotus, under the high patronage of the University of Leuven. The first fruit of these efforts was his doctoral thesis: Theologia mariana franciscana seculorum XIII-XIV [66], which revealed to him the centuries-old richness of the Marian tradition in the Franciscan work. Other specialized works soon followed, namely: Quelques précisions fournies par la tradition manuscrite, sur la vie, les oeuvres et l'attitude doctrinale de Jean Duns Scot [67].

Upon returning to Croatia, he taught at the Higher Institute of Philosophy and Theology in Makarska (Dalmatia) from 1927 to 1933. He published works, dissertations, and articles in Croatian, French, and German journals [68]. He engaged in discussions about Duns Scotus with various scholars, such as Pelster, Pelzer, and Schmaus,[69] and with the Orthodox university professor Dr. Jaksic, defending the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary against their attacks.[70] In 1931, he founded the Bibliotheca Mariana medii aevi - Textus et disquisitiones collection at the same institute,[71] to publish the literary treasure of great and classical authors, including studies on Mary, beginning with St. John Damascene and continuing to the Council of Trent. It was the first collection of its kind and the first scientific Mariological collection within the Franciscan order.[72] To date, eight volumes of texts and treatises have been published.[73]

Such scholarly work could not go unnoticed by the Franciscan order's governing body. Therefore, when the new Franciscan University Antonianum was founded in 1933, Balic was among the first to be called to the chair[74], and in this way new possibilities for action were opened up for him. Since then he has taught the literary history of scholasticism and Mariology (a chair -states Fr. Rodericus Normandin, O.I.M., rector of the University of Ottawa in Canada- due to its results became "in the space of a fortnight one of the most fruitful and most distinguished scientific bodies in the theological field"[75].

The programmatic address, the so-called prolusio, at the solemn inauguration of the new university was entrusted to Balic, who addressed the theme De Ordine Minorum tamquam duce pii fidelium sensus in quaestione Immaculatae Conceptionis [76], linking the new university to the ever-present Marian tradition of the Order and encouraging the new central scientific institute to follow in the footsteps of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Bonaventure, John Duns Scotus, St. Bernardino of Siena, and so many others up to the most recent times.

Besides being a vigorous writer and an excellent professor, Balic soon distinguished himself as an enterprising spirit and efficient organizer. Thus, in 1935, he organized the first international congress of professors from the Slavic Franciscan provinces in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia; two years later, in 1937, he organized the second congress of professors from the same provinces in Krakow, Poland. He edited the proceedings of these congresses into two thick volumes in the collection he founded specifically for this purpose: Collectanea franciscana slavica[77]. For the professors, he founded the "Association of Slavic Franciscan Professors"; he drafted its statutes, according to which they were to continue their work in the scientific and cultural fields[78]. Both congresses primarily addressed theological and scholastic problems. It is significant that at the Krakow Congress, a request was made to the Holy Father that the Church promulgate as dogma the doctrine of Mary's mediation (Mediatrix omnium gratiarum) and the Assumption of Mary into heaven, body and soul[79]. Surely, the congress participants could not have imagined then how near that moment was (the dogma of the Assumption was proclaimed in 1950) and that Father Carlos Balic would work so hard for this cause[80].

The Critical Edition of the Complete Works of John Duns Scotus

In the general neo-scholastic movement, initiated a century ago, which gave impetus to new critical editions of the works of scholastic masters such as Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, Albert, and others [81], it was not long before a complete and critical edition of all the works of John Duns Scotus, as one of the illustrious scholastic doctors and leader of the Franciscan school, was demanded from many quarters. This was all the more so since in the old Wadding edition of 1639 [82], reprinted by Ludovico Vives in Paris in 1891 [83], many unverified works were published alongside authentic ones, while several authentic works by Scotus remained unpublished [84].

As early as 1870, certain medievalists and specialists such as P. Fidelis a Fanna (editor of the works of St. Bonaventure), Cardinal Ehrle, Duhem, Grabmann, and later Pelster, Pelzer, Delorme, etc., began to question and distinguish between the authentic and inauthentic works of Scotus.[85] Balic himself, from 1924 onward, tenaciously and diligently researched in libraries, examined Scotus's manuscripts, and presented new problems and solutions.

The first results of this persevering work are two books of paramount importance for the critical edition of Duns Scotus's works: the first, published in Leuven in 1927, under the title: Les commentaires de Jean Duns Scot sur les Quatre livres des Sentences[86], which merited the following judgment from the great scholar of Dominican scholasticism, Professor... Martin: "They have their own book! We have no doubt that this work will bring many surprises. It possesses the importance of a major event in the movement created around Scotus"; Balic's second book is entitled: Ioannis Duns Scoti, Doctoris Subtilis et Mariani, Theologiae marianae elementa, published in 1933 [87], and in the opinion of medievalists, it constitutes a most important specimen of the Subtle Works of the International Edition [88].

In 1927, at the Franciscan International College of St. Bonaventure in Quaracchi near Florence, a special Scholastic Section was created which, until 1938, was dedicated to researching and photographing the Scotist codices containing the texts of some of his philosophical works [89].

When the difficulties of a critical edition seemed insurmountable, the Order's leadership transferred the entire matter from Quaracchi to Rome and entrusted Balic with undertaking this monumental work in accordance with modern editorial standards[90]: propositum arduum et implicatum sed utilissimum et desideratissimum[91], "an immense, courageous, and entirely selfless undertaking," as E. Gilson, a member of the French Academy, used to express it[92].

Father Balic embarked on the task with his proven energy, establishing the Franciscan International Commission and integrating it with the most prominent figures of the Order. He structured the commission so that there would always be twelve active internal members or collaborators, while external collaborators (whose number was indeterminate, depending on the needs) would re-examine the libraries, photograph the unphotographed codices, and provide assistance where the internal members could not reach. The internal members, already specialized, under the guidance of President C. Balic, must carry out the textual, verbal criticism—internal and external—of the collected material; they must establish the authentic text of Scotus, systematize it, and provide it with indispensable critical apparatus in accordance with the requirements of the latest critical editions of other great ancient and scholastic writers.[93] P. Balic, for the realization of this great work, gave instructions and directives from the beginning, which he gradually expanded and perfected.[94]

However, it soon became clear that the task was very arduous and complex, more so than expected, since the edition of Duns Scotus's works—as P. Pelster, S.J., admitted—is the most difficult of analogous editions.[95] First, it was necessary to establish the authentic works of Duns Scotus and separate them from the apocryphal ones that had borne his name throughout the centuries; it was necessary to establish and coordinate the criteria that would govern the composition of the new edition, since the criteria adopted in the edition of similar works were not entirely applicable.

It should be noted here that Scotus's works remained unfinished in their manuscripts due to his premature death,[96] so that they are in a chaotic state as manuscripts or as printed works; we had them as Reports of various recensions (as each student noted while Scotus lectured or discussed in public debates); in the form of transcriptions of apographs of his works, which his students completed and prepared for publication after the master's death; in the form of transcriptions of the first prepared edition, but with numerous marginal notes on the parchments regarding the texts, if they can be found, and as in Scotus's autograph (that is, after verification with the autograph).

Since both the autograph and the apograph were lost over time, the great master's literary legacy reached us through such murky channels that it was necessary to go back to the source, step by step, studying every detail and every note in the manuscripts, separating the authentic from the apocryphal, reconstructing the genesis of certain recensions, the affinity of the codices, and their value in relation to the original text of Duns Scotus.

In this veritable jungle of parchments (more than one hundred codices) and old editions (more than three hundred), the old Assisi codex (Biblioteca communale, 137) of Duns Scotus's principal work, the Ordinatio, which for centuries was known as the Opus Oxoniense, rendered an invaluable and extraordinary service.

This codex, written ten years before Scotus's death, was compared with Scotus's autograph from the apographs of his parchments. In the margins and in the text, numerous critical marks and warnings are found indicating that in place of the text in Scotus's autograph there is blank space (Duns Scotus left these spaces to be filled later); for other fragments, it says that Scotus himself erased them from his autograph; for still others, it says that he added them by hand in the margins of his parchment, and so on.

Nevertheless, with this great contribution, the Assisi codex imposed an enormous task on the editors. Since it was not a direct transcription of the autograph, but rather a corrected codex, the author who compared it to the original could have overlooked many things, unintentionally made mistakes, or committed numerous errors with the best of intentions. There was no other option but to examine and interpret this codex alongside several hundred others, word by word, investigating, discovering, and explaining each omission.

Having completed the complex task of reconstructing the original text, numerous editorial problems had to be resolved, as is necessary for an edition of such importance. After several attempts and many consultations, the "small quarto" format was chosen. Scotus's text was set in 12-point type, and below the text were arranged the four types of critical apparatus, which, like spotlights, illuminate the text and serve as a reliable guide for those undertaking the study of Duns Scotus. The first apparatus contains Scotus's own notes, fragments of text he had deleted, and texts added by his disciples and editors, taken from other works by Scotus.

The second apparatus presents, arranged in a mosaic-like fashion, the variations of the text as they appear in various codices and editions. These serve to clarify the authentic, difficult, and less clear texts of Scotus and bear witness to how his text was understood and transcribed in the tradition of manuscripts and printed works. The third section lists the authors whom Duns Scotus expressly mentions and cites in his text; the fourth section lists the authors Scotus uses without explicitly mentioning them, followed by parallel passages from other works by Scotus (where the meaning and difficulties of the text require it, or where Scotus himself invokes them), essential clarifications to facilitate the reader's study of the Subtle Doctor. The presentation of the edition and the composition and layout of these sections are technically very well done. This work was and continues to be carried out by the Vatican Polyglot Press.

All this "prodigious work" [97] has been carried out by Balic and his commission from 1938 to the present. Since 1926, while fulfilling other tasks, he has not neglected his main work; he researches, writes, and remains abreast of every problem he solves as it arises. To get a rough idea of this immense undertaking, one would have to read not only his *Les comentáires* and *Theologiae marianae elementa*, but also the three volumes of the collection *Ratio criticae editionis Operum omnium Ioannis Duns Scoti* [98], *Disquisitio historico-critica de Ordinatione I. Duns Scoti*, several *Adnotationes* that preface some volumes [99], and then numerous articles that Balic published in various journals and books about the great medievalists [100].

However, only someone who, in the last 27 years, spent days and nights with him studying codices and solving their problems can have an accurate picture of his Herculean task. Particularly, one had to be with him during the first twelve years when the fundamental problems were being solved—problems that today seem commonplace, but which were then enigmas and arcane secrets. Until 1950, only two volumes of Scotus's complete works could be published. After that, a new volume was published every two or three years. Today, in 1966 (on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of Scotus' birth) we have eight volumes of the new edition containing Scotus' authentic commentary, the first called Ordinatio and the second Lectura, on the first book Sententiarum of Peter Lombard; these are volumes that contain Scotus' main philosophical-theological doctrine[101].

The importance of this work was demonstrated by unanimous worldwide critical acclaim. If we could gather all the opinions of the leading Scholastics, we would have a veritable anthology. We will therefore limit ourselves to transcribing some of the judgments of the most authoritative critics.

Professor Masai says that the Vatican edition of Scotus's works "constitutes almost the pinnacle of perfection achieved in this field" [102]; it allows us "to follow the course of Duns Scotus's authentic thought"; Monsignor Pelzer, scriptor of the Vatican Apostolic Library, states [103]; there we find "the true Duns Scotus" [104]; for Gilson, "in scientific terms, the new edition approaches perfection as closely as a human work can" [105]; for Professor Geyer, "the edition itself is technically almost unparalleled" [106]; That is why Professor Pelster, S.J., the best-known Jesuit medievalist after Cardinal Ehrle, puts this edition as an example for editions of texts by medieval authors, sic kann, mutatis mutandis... als Vorbild dienen für andere mittelalterische Textausgaben[107]; in Italy,

Professor Nardi accepts it without reservation, saying that the Commissione preposta all´edizione delle Opere di Duns Scoto... dovrebbe essere presa ormai a modello di ogni futura edizione critica [108]; the Spanish Carmelite and well-known writer, Father Xiberta, acknowledges that this edition "has already established itself as one of the most impressive achievements of our century in the field of textual criticism" [109]; This is the edition, notes Van Steenberghen, a professor at Leuven, before which "we find ourselves in the presence of a work that commands respect for its highest scientific qualities" [110] and for this reason, when speaking of the two volumes, he concludes: "I cannot end these brief reviews without once again expressing my admiration and the gratitude of all medievalists for the magnificent work carried out by the team of Franciscan scholars gathered around Father Balic" [111].

In 1928, the Dominican Father Martin, reviewing Balic's Les commentaires, justifiably complained about the lack of a critical edition of Duns Scotus: "The name of Scotus commands respect from historians of doctrine, whatever theological school to which they belong. Duns Scotus is a great lord in the realm of thought. He is linked to an illustrious tradition; in turn, he became head of a school, and his disciples remain resolutely attached to his doctrine. However, this respect is mingled with a feeling of pity, even sadness, at seeing the state in which we find, after six centuries, the doctrinal legacy of the master...; this precious legacy... is not offered to us by any edition in its entirety and absolute purity.[112] If this renowned and meritorious writer could take up his pen again, surely his complaint would now be transformed into recognition of Father Balic for having filled the void and provided the new edition, partly printed, partly by to be printed.

Today, thanks to the persevering work of Balic and his collaborators, we know the authentic Scotus, his authentic works.

However, to have a complete picture of Balic's work in the scholastic field, in addition to his major work on the edition of Duns Scotus's Opera omnia, and his treatises on scholasticism, textual criticism, and editorial technique, we must also consider four international congresses aimed at the renewal of comprehensive scholasticism. We have already referred to the two congresses of Franciscan professors from the Slavic provinces.[113] Balic convened the third congress in 1950 in Rome to present the first two volumes of the new edition of Duns Scotus's works to the public.[114] The fourth, the largest in size and scope, will be held from September 11 to 17 of this year in Oxford and Edinburgh in honor of John Duns Scotus, on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of his birth. birth[115].

The reform of integral Scholasticism fully responds to the directives and desires of the Second Vatican Council, which hopes, through study and clarification of the great Doctors and founders of the important schools, to deepen and clarify the "perennially valid philosophical patrimony" and "mysterium fidei" [116], as summarized by Cardinal Francis Seper, Metropolitan of Croatia, in his lecture given in Rome on November 10, 1965, on Scholasticism in the light of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, emphasizing, among other things: "The Council, therefore, assumes that the future of Scholasticism depends more on the truth and vitality of its ideas than on its affiliation with one school or another... The words used in the conciliar document (which name St. Thomas) do not, in fact, exclude, but rather include other doctors and founders of the great currents of thought... and among these, John Duns stands out." Scotus...; since the Church does not lose sight of the entirety of Christian culture, it does not exclude from its teaching other masters, such as St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, and Duns Scotus, mentioned by the Council Fathers[117].

In the Mariological Field

Mariology is another specific field of study for Fr. Balic, which, incidentally, has a broader scope than Scholasticism. Since it is not possible to follow him in every step, we will only record the main points.

When, on March 2, 1939, the Secretary of State, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, was elected successor of St. Peter with the name Pius XII, he included three important tasks in the program of his Pontificate: one concerned "the definition of the dogma of the Assumption"[118]. Shortly afterward, Pius XII formed a commission, composed of the most prominent theologians, to study everything concerning this revealed truth and to carry out the preparatory work for its definition. Among the first to be called upon to serve on this commission[119].

Having Given his previous Mariological work and his training in the Mariological tradition within the Franciscan Order, Balic was able to work with dedication and expertise on this commission. He worked for twelve years until the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, solemnly announced in St. Peter's Square on December 1, 1950 [120]. It was only fifty years after the promulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary that the respective preparatory acts were published [121]. When the acts related to the dogma of the Assumption are published, Father Balic's participation and role will become clear. It can already be stated that he worked extensively and successfully, and, according to many indications, his participation in the preparatory work was very significant.

At the same time, we find him during this period giving lectures, publishing articles and studies in journals and encyclopedias [122], and compiling the testimonia de Assumptione B. V. Mariae ex omnibus saeculis, the fruit of many years of effort and assiduous work ("a pluribus eternim annis huismodi testimoniis colligendis vacantes"), which were finally printed in two volumes between 1948 and 1950 [123]. These two volumes constitute "a considerable collection of texts presented with clarity and rigor, which is the fundamental working tool for the study of this subject" [124].

During this period, Balic moved the headquarters and management of his aforementioned Bibliotheca mariana medii aevi collection from Makarska (Croatia), due to the vicissitudes of war and postwar years, to Rome, and accelerated the publication of new volumes [125]. At the same time, the idea of expanding it and adding four more volumes, all of a Mariological nature, matured in him: two were dedicated to the investigation of medieval and modern Mariological studies (Bibliotheca mariana medii aevi and Bibliotheca mariana moderni aevi)[126], and the remaining three to the study of Marian privileges, which involve various problems concerning Mary (Bibliotheca Immaculatae Conceptionis, Bibliotheca Assumptionis and Bibliotheca Mediationis)[127].

Mariologists greeted this new achievement with enthusiasm and gratitude. Thus, Laurentin repeatedly refers to Balic's collections and acknowledges their superior status: "He has founded a series of collections for the study of the history of Mariology... Others are in the planning stages. The volumes of the various collections stand out for the breadth of their research, the objectivity of their presentation, the clarity of their style, and the care taken in compiling numerous indexes, bibliographies, notes—in short, all the apparatus that allows for convenient and efficient use. Throughout, one sees the demanding and expert guidance of the founder of these collections" [128].

To date, the five collections have published 27 remarkable volumes that constitute a valuable contribution to Mariological scholarship and literature. "It is quite risky to formulate even the slightest assessment of the salutary influence that these publications have exerted not only in the various religious provinces of the Order, but also in numerous theological circles of Christendom, already won over by the Mariological movement" [129].

When Pius XII sent the circular letter Deiparae Virginis Mariae [130] to the Catholic episcopate on May 1, 1946, requesting reports and opinions on the beliefs in various Churches concerning the Assumption of Mary, the Franciscan Order, at Balic's initiative, formed the "Commissio Marialis Franciscana" in August of the same year, including in its program, among other points, "to fully elucidate and scientifically pursue all the privileges of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to promote, foster, and guide the study and congress of Mary, and to guide and guide its success" [131]. Appointed president of this commission, Balic drafted its statutes, which were approved by the Franciscan Order on April 29, 1947 [132].

Under the auspices of this new institution, in the short span of 1947-1950, Balic promoted, organized, and directed national Assumptionist congresses: in Italy (Rome, 1947), Spain (Madrid, 1947), Portugal (Lisbon, 1947), and Argentina (Buenos Aires for Latin America, 1948); he supported and inspired congresses in Canada (Montreal, 1947), France (Puy-en-Velay, 1949), and the United States (Washington, 1957). He always found the time and energy to prepare the program, organize the speakers, and engage collaborators, and he personally participated in most of these congresses. He published the proceedings of all the congresses in the collection founded for this purpose, Studia Mariana [133], an essential source for the study of the Assumptionist movement before and after the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption [134].

Promoting the Mariological movement, Balic soon realized that something was missing. Until then, it had been led by the so-called "Marian Societies," each acting independently. Consequently, some were unaware of others' pronouncements, leading to "confusion, repetition, misunderstandings, and divergences." Thus, a perceptive French theologian began to distinguish between different types of Mariologists, classifying them into two groups or categories: the "critical type," distinct from the "devotional or mystical type" [135].

It was clear that an international institution would have to be created to represent and even direct the technical organization of Mariological congresses "at the highest international level, to report on the progress achieved in national conventions, to evaluate their results, and to introduce them into the common domain of Mariology" [136]. Balic conceived this idea along with the founding of the Comissio Marialis Internationalis, and the name Academia Mariana Internationalis was given to it on the eve of the international Marian congresses that would later confirm its purpose.

Balic boldly decided to convene the international Marian congresses in the Jubilee Year of 1950. The first congress was organized in Rome, precisely on the eve of the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption, from October 23 to 31, so that its sessions were compared to the Council of Ephesus, which defined the divine motherhood of the Virgin (Theotokos)[137]. The second congress was again convened in Rome in 1954, from October 24 to November 24, on the occasion of the centenary celebrations of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

The external festivities culminated in the proclamation of Mary as Queen of the Cosmos and a memorable procession with the miraculous effigy Salus Populi Romani, accompanied by Marian banners from the most celebrated shrines in the world. The procession went from the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore to St. Peter's Basilica, where the Holy Father crowned this miraculous image of the Virgin with a new crown made by Balic using voluntary contributions collected worldwide.[138] The third international Marian congress was held in Lourdes from September 10 to 17, 1958, to commemorate the centenary of the Marian apparitions.[139] The fourth congress took place during the Second Vatican Council, from March 18 to 25, 1965, in Santo Domingo.[140]

Father Balic succeeded in enhancing the prestige of the Academy to such an extent that it soon counted among its members the most prestigious Mariologists and became the central, efficient, and coordinating institution of the worldwide Marian movement. Anyone fortunate enough to attend any of its congresses will never forget it. Regarding the first and second Roman congresses, Father Normandia, Rector of the University of Ottawa, says: "During those days, Rome, the center of Christendom, was the meeting place for Mariologists from all over the world.

They came from everywhere, invited by Father Balic, President of the Marian Academy, from national societies of Marian studies, universities, and religious institutes, to combine their efforts for a week with the purpose of deepening their knowledge of the mystery of Mary... In 1954, the experience was repeated with the same success for the glory of the Immaculate, again through the Marian Academy and its tireless President, Father Balic" [141]. What was said about the first and second congresses applies, perhaps to a higher degree, to the congresses of Lourdes and Santo Domingo[142].

The proceedings of the 1950 congress were published by Balic in 13 volumes under the title Alma Socia Christi[143], the proceedings of the 1954 congress in 22 volumes under the title Virgo Immaculata[144], the proceedings of the 1958 Lourdes congress in 16 volumes under the title Maria et Ecclesia[145]; the proceedings of the congress in Santo Domingo, published under the title Maria in Sacra Scriptura, will comprise about 10 volumes[146].

All this enormous material was classified and systematized by Balic, with the help of his collaborators, and the introductions were written outlining the sound thinking and significance of the works contained in each volume. "We admire once again the prodigious activity of the president of the Marian Academy, who knew how to master this mass and give it form as far as possible"[147]; "The publications of the Marian Academy are produced with the utmost care: clear and airy typography, neat presentation, and an index of people and subjects at the end of each volume. It goes without saying that the quality of the edition of each volume surpasses that of private societies" [148]; since each of these large and numerous collections "constitutes a set of very uneven efforts, many of them new and valuable, a detailed review would require a volume" [149]; each collection, each volume is a "mine," the "volume," a veritable mine of documentation on the co-redemption [150]; "P. Balic, with this congress, has prompted numerous contributions to Marian studies" [151].

Like R. Laurentin, a thorough connoisseur of Marian literature, other Mariologists praise the congresses and their proceedings [152]. Work of such magnitude and scientific value could not go unrecognized. Pope John XXIII, taking into account that the Marian Academy, due to its intense activity, was known and recognized as a supranational and central entity, desired for an equal and necessary consummative value of single, national, or single mariological entities[153], wished to sanction it legally and "motu proprio" by means of the letter Maiora in dies of 8/XII/1959, recognizing the merits of the Marian Academy for Catholic theology, and gave it the title of Pontifical so that henceforth, with all inherent rights and privileges, it would be called the Pontifical International Marian Academy. At the same time, he decreed that a permanent council should be formed within it, "which will preside in the future over the direction, organization, and celebration, every four years, of world mariological-mariani congresses"[154]. He also approved the new statute of the Academy ad experimentum, and Paul VI definitively ratified it on July 6, 1964 [155].

Father Balic's Participation in the Second Vatican Council

It was not difficult to foresee that Father Balic would also be called upon to participate in the preparatory work and sessions of the Second Vatican Council, placing his talents and vast experience at the service of the Church during this momentous time of reform in all its structures.

There is already extensive literature and a wide variety of information about the Second Vatican Council, making it difficult to understand and determine the work and role of each participant, especially the Council's experts. The official acts of this great ecclesiastical assembly have not yet been published in order to control certain information and journalistic accounts. Regarding Father Balic's work, it suffices to point out here the salient facts that suggest the role he played.

As soon as the Council was announced, Balic was called upon to serve as an expert on the Theological Commission[156]; he was also among the first selected for the Council's Commission of experts[157]. Throughout the entire period of feverish preparatory work, from October 27, 1960, to November 10, 1962, as well as in the subsequent work of the Theological Commission and in the sessions of the Council Fathers, Balic was present and active.[158]

Working on the theological preparatory commission, the conciliar commission, and various subcommittees, Balic, in accordance with his proven practice, sought to illuminate current problems with the scientific tradition. Thus, from 1960 to 1964, in collaboration with distinguished writers, mostly experts of the Council, he prepared three voluminous works on the three most discussed problems of the Council.

On the eve of the opening of the Council in 1962, he edited the book entitled De Mariologia et oecumenismo[159] where, with sixteen other Mariologists, in almost 600 pages, the Mariological problems are clarified in the light of ecumenical efforts.

"This splendid volume offered by the Marian Academy to the Council Fathers of Vatican II, rather than directly addressing the relations between ecumenism and Mariology, seems to attempt to solidly establish some foundations that must be preserved when dealing with Mariological questions within the ecumenical concern"[160]; "this thick volume deserves the most attentive consideration and the most due reflection of all those who work for the union of Christians"[161]. "The most important is the collection edited by Father Balic: De Mariologia et oecumenismo, more than 600 pages and 17 studies... The conclusion has the merit of raising, for the first time, a problem that ecumenical dialogue places in the foreground: Is there convergence or opposition between the Marian movement and the more recent ecumenical movement, to which John XXIII assigned so much importance? [162].

Another complex problem that arose at the Council concerned the sources of Revelation, that is, it revolved around Sacred Scripture and Tradition.[163] Therefore, between the first and second sessions of the Council, Balic, in collaboration with 38 specialists, prepared and published, in more than 700 pages, De Scriptura et Traditione, offering this work to the Council Fathers, prae oculis habita gravitate et actualitate quaestionis de revelatione.[164] The work was described as "a monument to Balic's activity, dynamism, spirit, and capacity for achievement... and deserves the most attentive consideration of theologians and Council Fathers."[165] This impressive document appeared in bookstores at the beginning of July. Once again, the tireless Fr. Balic displayed his talent as a teacher" [166]. "No fewer than 30 diverse studies on the subject are collected in this impressive volume... The remarkable value of some of the works and the collaboration of so many specialists make this volume an extraordinarily valuable work... It offers very valuable monographic studies" [167].

The third book edited and prefaced by Balic during the Council is De quaestione mariali in hodierna vita Ecclesiae [168], by the illustrious Jesuit theologian and Mariologist José Aldama. The book was written to shed light on the lively discussion surrounding Mariological problems and the movement, revived especially by the work La question mariale [169] by R. Laurentin, a well-known Mariologist. While the chapter De Beata Virgine Maria was being discussed in the conciliar commissions, the two books cited had polarized opinions and followers. "Comparing, in "Both books," notes García Garcés, president of the Spanish Mariological Society and director of the journal Ephemerides mariologicae, "represent, I repeat, two irreducible positions...; considering the two works objectively, one tastes of magisterium, of tradition, of theological solidity, and the other tastes of impressionism...; Father Aldama's book... (is) a book that will mark an epoch in the history of Mariology and of sacred science in general, due to its masterful understanding of the true theological method" [170].

The acts of Balic, once made available to scholars, will tell us about the work carried out by Balic during the Council. From what is known, it can already be stated that Balic's main efforts were concentrated on everything concerning the Virgin Mary. In the drafting of the eighth chapter of the dogmatic constitution De Ecclesia, dedicated to Mary, Balic took an active part from the first draft to its final approval by the Council.

We can even assert that he was the principal architect of the text. It is known that, as a rapporteur on the Preparatory Commission, he was assigned the drafting of the text on the Virgin Mary, which the subcommittee, together with him, had to refine in the meetings of June 6, September 21-22, and November 23, 1961, and in the meeting of the Theological Commission. general in March 1962. The text, after five drafts, was approved on June 20 by the Central Commission and on November 10 was delivered to the Council Fathers[171].

On the eve of the Council Fathers' vote on October 29, 1963, when it was to be decided whether the text of De Beata should be treated as a separate document or adapted to the constitution De Ecclesia, Balic, in a special statement, explained to the Council Fathers the procedure by which the text of De Beata had been arrived at.[172] When, by a majority of only 17 votes, the adaptation and inclusion of the text in the constitution De Ecclesia was chosen, and when the small commission of four (later expanded) failed to find a solution, Monsignor Philips, professor at Leuven, and Balic, president of the Marian Academy, were delegated to draft the definitive text of De Beata, which, together with the constitution De Ecclesia, would form a harmonious whole.[173]

The new text went through five drafts, from the first, proposed by Bishop Philips, who drew heavily on the official schemata (Balic), to the fifth, which was discussed in the plenary session of the Theological Commission. Finally, it was distributed to the Council Fathers.[174] Anyone who had the opportunity to closely follow these drafts and the work of both drafters knows that Father Balic played a leading role in ensuring the text was complete in both doctrine and form.[175]

Father Balic's opinion also carried weight on other matters, such as Revelation, papal primacy and the collegiality of bishops, and issues related to studies, etc. He enjoyed great authority on Mariological problems, and hundreds of Council Fathers congratulated him upon the approval of the eighth chapter of the constitution De Ecclesia.

Other Services and Activities

Our account would be incomplete if we limited ourselves to the three areas of Balic's work mentioned above. It is necessary to complete it, albeit briefly, with other services and commissions he undertook during his fruitful life.

While teaching in Makarska, Croatia, he distinguished himself as an excellent preacher. From 1938 to 1962, he was a member of the governing board of the Croatian College of St. Jerome in Rome. He was Rector Magjerac's right-hand man, especially during the dark years of the war and the postwar period. He worked tirelessly to ensure that the Croatian sculptor Ivan Mestrovic remained in Rome and stayed at the College of St. Jerome, facilitating the creation of immortal works of art such as the Pietà and Stigmata of St. Francis of Assisi. He maintained correspondence with Mestrovic until the latter's death.

As vice-president of the Confraternity of St. Jerome, restored in 1945 to provide aid, as it had during the Turkish incursions, to thousands of Croatian refugees, Balic was deeply concerned with alleviating their precarious situation. He shared the pain and suffering of his captive people and intervened wherever he could, seeking help, understanding, and protection for so many refugees and those persecuted.

In 1954, Friar Carlos Balic, then president of the Marian Academy and fulfilling the intentions of Pius XII, who always placed the suffering Church under Mary's protection, organized "liturgical services for the Church of Silence"... in the Patriarchal Liberian Basilica, specifically in the Borghese Chapel of the Blessed Virgin Mary Salus Populi Romani.[176] Initially, once a month, representatives of the eighteen nationalities of the persecuted Church gathered before the image of Mary to pray for their people. This liturgical rite was then celebrated several times a year, coinciding with the principal feasts of the Virgin Mary. The most prestigious figures of the ecclesiastical hierarchy took turns officiating. Some of the speeches delivered have historical value.[177] This liturgical practice continues to this day, sponsored by the Marian Academy. In 1957, Balic published Maria e la Chiesa del Silenzio, which contains images of the Mother of God from the principal shrines of each nation, with a brief reference to the Marian devotion of the respective people.[178]

Balic, a great medievalist, thoroughly studied the authenticity of the works of Saint Anthony of Padua, published a treatise on the subject, and presented it to the Sacred Congregation of Rites so that Saint Anthony might be granted the title of Doctor of the Church.[179] When Pius XII proclaimed St. Anthony a Doctor of the Church on January 16, 1946, conferring upon him the title of Doctor Evangelicus [180], at the initiative of Father Balic, the three branches of the Franciscan Order (Friars Minor, Conventuals, and Capuchins) celebrated Antonian Weeks in Rome and Padua. These weeks of study took place in Rome from April 28 to May 5, 1946, and in Padua from May 12 to 19 of the same year. The proceedings of these studies were published by Balic, in collaboration with the Conventual Father Di Fonzo, in a thick 500-page volume entitled St. Anthony, Doctor of the Church [181].

During 1947-1953, Balic was rector of the Pontifical University Athenaeum Antonianum in Urbe[182] and raised the level of studies and the prestige of this educational institution to such a degree that Cardinal Pizzardo, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Studies, often cited it as a model and example. He persuaded the Definitorium of the Order, and especially the then-Busfarer General, Father Domingo Mandic, to build the new main lecture hall and new facilities, a library, a reading room, etc.[183]. When Contardo Ferrini, professor of Roman law and Franciscan tertiary, was beatified on April 13, 1947, Balic, as rector of the Antonianum, organized a series of study sessions on the new Blessed from April 10-20.

At these conferences, Ferrini's colleagues and students spoke, including Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, Salvatore Riccobono, Pietro di Francisci, and Gualberto Archi. All the lectures were published in the specially founded collection, Bibliotheca Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani.[184] In 1948, he founded another university collection, Studia Antoniana, to publish the outstanding doctoral dissertations of Antonianum students.[185] In 1949, he convened the first international bibliological congress in Rome (February 20-27), where world specialists, particularly those from the Vatican Library, discussed book-related issues. Balic lectured on "Technique in Critical Editions." The proceedings of these conferences were published in 1950 under the title Il libro e le biblioteche in the Bibliotheca Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani collection.[186]

In 1942, Pius XII appointed Balic a consultor qualificatus of the Sacred Congregation of Offices, and in 1953 a consultor ordinarius of the same Congregation, which after the Council was called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.[187] His work in this most important ministry of the Church is considerable and, by its nature, secret. Since 1962, Balic has also been a counselor of the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and University Studies.[188] He is a proponent of the reorganization of the Roman ecclesiastical universities according to the unified studies of the medieval University of Paris.[189] In addition to his professorship at the Antonianum, in 1959 he was appointed professor of Mariology at the Pontifical Lateran University.[190]

In addition to the aforementioned functions, Balic continues to direct and edit several collections and the official journal of the Marian Academy, Acta Pontificiae Academiae Marianae Internationalis.[191] He has been an ordinary member of the Theological Academy of Zagreb since 1936; an ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of the Immaculate Conception in Rome since 1950; an associate member of the Philosophical Society of the Higher Institute of Philosophy at the University of Louvain since 1953; an ordinary and governing member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy in Rome since 1956; an honourary member of the Spanish Mariological Society in Madrid since 1950; and holds an honorary doctorate from the Catholic University of Ottawa since 1957.

Before concluding, it is worth highlighting another, lesser-known aspect of Balic's life, which we might call a curriculum vitae, a career. Saint Paul, moved by the Spirit, traveled throughout the Roman Empire four times for the purpose of evangelization. Father Balic is a tireless "runner." Even as a student, he traveled throughout Europe in search of codices; as a professor, he journeyed to organize scientific congresses; as a Mariologist, he visited towns, states, and continents to stimulate, promote, convene, and organize... Perhaps in this pursuit, the angel of the prize will find him.

To briefly summarize the above, it is obvious that Balic sowed deep seeds and left indelible marks in various fields of ecclesiastical science and in the events of the Church during the last four decades.

As a medievalist, he managed to resolve numerous problems surrounding the critical edition of the works of Duns Scotus, serving as a model for the edition of other authors. His Scotist Commission is an excellent school for training specialists in the critical edition of ancient classics and medieval writers.

Balic's merits in the scholastic reform are great; His criteria were increasingly adopted, as Balic maintained that Scholasticism needed to be renewed through the knowledge and careful study of all the currents and masters who had left a profound mark on the history of philosophical and theological thought. After the Council, his prestige and influence grew.

This monumental work of Father Carlos Balic, both on the doctrine and works of John Duns Scotus and on Scholasticism as a whole, received its most beautiful culmination and most solemn confirmation in the recent Apostolic Letter Alma Parens, which Pope Paul VI addressed on July 14 to the Catholic hierarchy in England and Scotland on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of John Duns Scotus's birth. In this monumental epistle, which inaugurates a new era in the study and appreciation of medieval philosophical and theological thought, the Holy Father recommends the historical-critical method for the study of the medieval Doctors, highlighting and praising especially the doctrine of John Duns Scotus, who deepened the work of other Scholastics and built upon solid foundations a magnificent theological cathedral with bold towers, alongside that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, becoming the most qualified leader of the Franciscan school; love prevails, Christ acquires his primacy, and at his side shines the Immaculate Virgin. It is the doctrine that refutes atheism and provides a basis for ecumenical dialogues that should lead to the union of the Anglican and Catholic Churches.[192]

Regarding Mariology, Balic is distinguished by his original opinions and theses, which he successfully defended, especially concerning the clarification of the doctrine of "debito in Blessed Virgine" according to the teaching of Duns Scotus, mediation, co-redemption, the death of the Virgin, etc.

His efforts at the Second Vatican Council to ensure that the chapter on the Mother of God was as comprehensive as possible, including the terms of mediation and the motherhood of the Church, were ultimately successful.

Balic's organizational activity in the fields of Scholasticism, Mariology, and other disciplines bore unexpected fruit. This work is perpetuated in two institutions: the Pontifical Marian Academy International and the Commission of Works I. Duns Scotus Criticize the Edesprit.

His guiding principle in his work, "the present in light of a sound and scientific past," yielded excellent results.

We believe that our modest assessment will gain greater scope and depth as time goes on. If the Dalmatian Saint Jerome were to return to continue his work *De viribus Illustribus*, although he was quite reserved in his remarks about Chrysostom and Ambrose, it is very likely that he would dedicate a few lines to his compatriot, Rev. Charles Balic.

Translation from Croatian: Branko Kadic

DANTE AND THE CROATS

On the occasion of the seventh centenary of his birth (1265-1965)

Antun Nizeteo, Ithaca, USA

In 1964, the fourth centenary of Shakespeare's birth was celebrated, and in the spring of 1965, the 700th anniversary of Dante Alighieri's birth was commemorated. "Shakespeare," wrote T.S. Eliot, who considered Dante the most universal poet of all modern languages, "gives the greatest breadth of human passion; Dante, the greatest height and depth. Between them the modern world is divided; there is no room for a third."

On the occasion of the 700th anniversary of the great Florentine's birth, the entire Western world evoked the poet and his work. In general, what was repeated was what previous generations (sometimes more beautifully and with greater insight) had said about the Florentine's personality, his era, and the Divine Comedy, his masterpiece. We believe that the best way to evoke the immortal poet, who was a political outcast and exile like ourselves, would be to briefly outline the echo and influence of his work in Croatia, emphasizing also what Dante wrote in his magnificent poem about the Croats and Serbs, our eastern neighbors.

Although evidence is lacking, it is reasonable to assume that Dante's contemporaries in Croatia were already familiar with him in the 14th century. During the Renaissance, educated Croatians held a remarkable devotion to Dante, manifesting it in various ways,[193] primarily through reading and translations, imitations, prints, and illustrations of his works. As early as the 15th century, when The Divine Comedy was first printed, Marko Marulic, the father of Croatian literature, was the first to translate Dante in Croatia.

However, before I refer to the repercussions of the Italian poet on Croatian literature and to what and when the Croatians wrote about Dante, I would like to emphasize Dante's mention of Croatia in his Divine Comedy, in canto XXXI of Paradise.

Qual é colui, che forse di Croazia

Viene a veder la Veronica nostra,

Che per l´antica fame non sen sazia,

Ma dice nel pensier, fin che si mostra:

"Signor mio Gesù Cristo, Dio verace,

Or fu si fatta la sembianza vostra?"

Like one who perhaps from Croatia

comes to see Veronica, our face,

because of her fame, and is not satisfied with seeing her,

and repeats to himself, while she is shown:

Jesus Christ, Lord and my living God,

is it true that this was your face? ([194])

Oliko Delorko[195], a Croatian poet, Dante scholar, and translator, commenting on the transcribed verses, emphasizes: "It is interesting that in one of the most sublime moments of his poem, Dante remembered the Croatians, at the moment when he describes his wonder and rapture. Some Italian interpreters wanted to see in the Croatian man, because of that 'forse,' a concept of the 'primitive, backward foreigner.' It is true that certain early Italian commentators shared this opinion, for example, the anonymous Florentine[196] and a few others. It is regrettable that these comments were taken up by Andreoli, Camerini, and other prominent Dante scholars to this day. In fact, Dante did not think this way, nor was his comparison with the Croatian pilgrim invented or inserted ad hoc. We know that his poetic world was impressed early on by this comparison of the foreigner, the traveler who arrives from afar. We find it in his first work, La Vita Nuova." :

"Ne la terza dico quella che vide, cioè una donna onorata la suso è chiamolo allora "spirito pelegrino", acciò che spiritualmente va la suso, e si come peregrino, lo quale è fuori de la su patria vi stae.

...vede una dona, che riceve onore

e luce si, che per lo suo splendore

lo peregrino spirito la mira^[197]

("In the third verse I describe what he sees, that is, a woman honored on high, and I call him a "pilgrim spirit" because spiritually he goes there and resides there like a pilgrim far from his homeland.

... He sees a lady girded with praise

and, because of the vivid radiance he attains,

the pilgrim spirit gazes upon her")}

It is quite plausible that Dante, who in 1300, when Pope Boniface VIII granted the great indulgence during the Lateran Jubilee, was in Rome, where among the multitude of other pilgrims he noticed the presence of the group of Croatians, whom he knew to be very devout[198] ("fervent and pious Croatia," said John XXIII). On such solemn occasions, the veil (sudarius) of Saint Veronica was displayed in St. Peter's Basilica, with which, according to legend, she had wiped the sweaty face of Jesus Christ as he carried the cross to Calvary. Before this relic, all the pilgrims stopped in awe and contemplated it in ecstasy. The figure of one of them (the Croat forces)[199] was etched in Dante's memory and, by association, brought back to mind the aforementioned image from La Vita Nuova, when in Ravenna, twenty years later as an exile, he wrote the verses dear to all Croats.

If Dante honored the Croats by mentioning them in a very solemn moment of his Comedy, being a man of universal knowledge, he did not fail to allude to the territory where the Croats and Italians meet. This is not a coincidence, but rather the result of study and knowledge of the subject. Even in his treatise on vernacular language (De vulgari eloquentia), which must have been a treatise on theoretical poetics and a philological treatise on the character and unity of the Italian language—from which it can be inferred that he knew the main European languages—Dante accurately traces the boundaries to which the Italian language extends on the Adriatic coast. Among the Italian dialects, he does not include the ancient Romano-Dalmatian language (extinct at the end of the last century), nor does he mention any dialects from the eastern shores of the Adriatic, except for that of western Istria.[200] It can therefore be concluded that he considered the eastern borders of Italy to end as he defined them in his poem:

Si com´a Pola presso del Carnaro,

Ch´Italia chiude e i suoi termini bagna^[201].

(Infierno, XXX IX, 113-114)

(... O en Pola del Cuarnaro, que son tersos

cristales en la Italia cierra y baña.)(^[202])

Dante also refers to the Croatian language, and in the aforementioned treatise he speaks of "Schiavoni," a name widely used by Italians to refer to Croats. Furthermore, Serbia is also mentioned in The Divine Comedy, under its then-current name, "Rascia."

... e quel di Rascia

Che mal ha visto il conio di Vinegia^[203]

(... y del de Rascia el nombre escribiráse,

que el cuño contrahizo veneciano).

Some Dante scholars believe that Dante learned something about these nations from the students during his stay in Bologna, where many Croatians were studying.[204]

The Divine Comedy was first printed in the 15th century (1472), and at that time the first encounters between Croatians and Dante took place. Our master printer Dobric Dobricevic (Boninus de Boninis), born in Lastovo,[205] and Marco Marulic,[206] the father of Croatian literature, translated the first canto of the Inferno into Latin hexameters.

Humanae spacium vitae concesserat aetas

Jam medium, tenerosque mihi subduxerant annos,

Per loca quum tenebris obscura atque aspera silvis

Me miserum errantem sensi, gresuque represso

Incertus que viae mentem confusus inhaesi

Et circumlustravi oculis pavitantibus...

We knew that Dante and Petrarch were not unknown to Marulic, who had Boccaccio's biography of Dante in his library, but until a few decades ago (1924) we did not know[207] that Marulic had translated certain cantos of The Divine Comedy. Although his version is Latin and not Croatian, it is significant, since it was the first time a Croatian had translated Dante, and that was in the 15th century. Until Marulic's translation of Dante was discovered, the first attempt at translating him in our country was considered to be the anonymous version signed with the initials V.L. and published in 1845 in the Zadar newspaper Zora Dalmatinska, that is, four centuries after Marulic's translation.

This chronology of efforts to translate Dante is all the more significant given that the Divine Comedy in Croatian literature, as in most European literatures, manifested itself and became evident, more than anything else, in the translations of his works, and first and foremost, the Divine Comedy.[208] It is worth noting here that Dante is the most translated poet into Croatian. This is not merely a literary curiosity, as these translations constitute a valuable contribution to the historical research of the Croatian language. That is to say, by studying and comparing the Croatian versions of Dante's works, one can trace the evolution of Croatian literature, its literary language, and the possibilities of poetic expression.

[208] Echoes and even influences of Dante can already be found in early Croatian literature, for example in Mavro Vetranic (Piligrin), Petar Zoranic (Planine), and Juraj Barakovic (Vila Slovinska)[209], but none of them came close to matching Dante's inspiration and creative power. The same can be said of the work of the Spalatian writer Hieronymus Kavanjin, whose "great poem" Bogatstvo i Ubostvo sometimes shows direct influences from the Divine Comedy, but this influence here proves counterproductive, even anti-poetic.

Croatian literary figures of the 19th and 20th centuries appreciated Dante more, studied him more deeply, and translated him more effectively. While not having direct influences, the importance of the Divine Comedy in the formation of the poetic personality and work of Preradovic, Vraz, Mazuranic, Tresic-Pavicic, Kranjcevic, Nazor, Vojnovic, Ujevic, etc. cannot be denied.[210] It is true that, apart from several translations, the study of the Divine Comedy in Croatia has not produced any significant historical-literary and critical works. However, there are abundant essays, notes, references, and contributions from Croatian writers who sought to introduce the work of the immortal Florentine to Croatian readers.[211]

From Marulic to the present day, several Croatians have undertaken the arduous task of translating Dante, especially his Divine Comedy. With the exception of Marulic's version, all translations date from the 19th and 20th centuries.

Vidovic[212] lists all the Croatian translators of Dante according to the publication date of each version (omitting Stanko Vraz, "who belongs to Croatian literature, but translated a fragment of Dante into Slovene in 1835"). These include: Marko Marulic, V. L., Stjepan Ivicevic, Petar Preradovic, N. N., Dragutin Prcic, Stjepan Buzolic, Juraj Caric, Ivan Androvic, Ante Tresic Pavicic, Ivan Cabric, Milan Begovic, Vinko Lozovina, Isidor Krsnjavi, Franjo Tice-Uccelini, Vladimir Nazor, Antun Sasso, Antun Vio, Miho Gjuranec, Marko Sljacic, Mihovil Kombol, Milan Pavelic, Marin Vuletic, Krunoslav Quien, Marin Bego, Uros Predic, Olinko Delorko, and Sibe Melicic. To these names must be added that of Frane Cale and Antun Nizeteo, who published their versions of some of Dante's cantos.[213]

The first complete translation of the Divine Comedy with commentary belongs to Bishop Franjo Uccellini-Tice (Kotor, 1910, Dalmatia). The translator worked for thirty years and performed pioneering work, giving Croatians the first complete version of the Divine Comedy. The translation is quite faithful to the original, but rendered in the monotonous popular decasyllable.

Matica Hrvatska published (1909-1915; 2nd ed. 1919-39) a deluxe edition, with illustrations by Mirko Racki, of the prose translation of the Inferno, by Iso Krnsjavi. In the prologue, the translator emphasizes: "I have translated Dante's holy poem." The beauty of his verses is untranslatable, and therefore my primary interest is to faithfully express the poet's thoughts."[214] Vladimir Nazor translated the entire Comedy into twelve-syllable verse without rhyme. Only the Inferno was published.[215] According to Dinko Sirovica,[216] an expert Dante scholar and friend of Nazor, our poet did not have a very high opinion of his translation. Nazor believed that Dante could not be translated with rhyme, that it was beyond human capabilities. Fortunately, his thesis was refuted by Mihovil Kombol, author of the most accomplished translation of the Divine Comedy into Croatian.[217]

In his aforementioned study on Dante in Croatian translations, Vidovic devoted particular attention to Mihovil Kombol's version, which is justified, as it is the best edition of Dante's poem into Croatian. Comparing it with other versions, Vidovic summarizes: "In Mihovil Kombol's translation, for the first time, the arduous task of capturing and reflecting all the elements of the original was successfully accomplished. Kombol sacrificed nothing—neither rhythm nor stanza nor rhyme—and this fact doubles the value of his successful solution. Kombol distinguished himself more in translating Dante's rhythmic and rhyming values than in the fidelity of his thought. Nevertheless, even in this respect, he surpasses many translations, even those that lack the three constitutive elements of Dantean poetry: rhyme, tercets, and rhythm" [218].

Of course, this does not mean that future Croatian generations will not strive to surpass Kombol's masterful version by improving their poetic expression. It is likely that future Croatian poets will continue to love and glorify Dante, as their predecessors did.[219]

Matos, Nazor, N. Polic, Delorko, Tadijanovic, and others praised him in their poetry. The prominent Croatian poet Olinko Delorko, who successfully completed the Kombol feat, wrote a rigorously formal sonnet dedicated to Dante three decades ago.

But Dante was not only a favorite inspiration of Croatian writers; he also inspired many visual artists. "From Juraj Dalmatinac, Dobric Dobricevic, and through Julius Clovius,[220] interest in Dante has persisted in Croatian visual arts to this day."[221] Our sculptor Juraj Dalmatinac sculpted a bust of Dante in the 15th century, and later Julius Clovius illustrated his Divine Comedy.

[221] One of our earliest master printers, Dobric-Dobricevic (Boninus de Boninis), published Dante's Divine Comedy in the series of classical authors he edited in Brescia (1483-1491), under the title: Cantica, overo Comedia del Divino (1487). This incunabulum, illustrated with 68 artistic engravings, is one of the first editions of Dante in its genre and a true masterpiece of the nascent art of printing.[222] This Brescia Dante edition, as it is known in the bibliographical world, is considered the second illustrated edition of the Divine Comedy and the first edition illustrated with engravings. The first illustrated edition of the Comedy was published in Florence in 1481. One copy of that rare Dobricevic incunabulum is held in the State Archives in Zadar, the second in the rare books section of the Cornell University Library, Ithaca, USA,[223] which prides itself on possessing one of the finest Dante collections in the world. The third copy has just been donated to the Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection at the Library of Congress in Washington.

As in our review of Dante's translators in Croatia we had to move from the 15th century to the last century, something similar occurs with visual artists. Only in the 19th and 20th centuries do we find renewed interest in Dante and his magnificent poem in Croatian visual arts. Certainly, the credit for this must be given to one of our most outstanding Dante scholars.[224] Peic writes about this: “Insistent on discussing Dante, Krnsjavi, who was then head of the Department of Culture and Art, didn't have much luck with our painters and sculptors. He momentarily enthused some, like Bukovac[225], and engaged others for longer periods, hoping they would become Dante enthusiasts, as happened with Czikos[226]. He soon lost them because he went too far: he not only suggested verbally what they should paint, but he took the brush from their hands to show them how to paint in the style of Dante. In this situation, with his Dante-inspired artists abandoning him, he was about to publish his translation of the Inferno. He was looking for an illustrator. Among the artists with whom he had discussed Dante up to that point, he found no one capable of doing it as he imagined. It so happened, however, that he came across a young painter whose temperament and painting style seemed suitable. His name was Mirko Racki[227]. Racki, through Krsnjavi, thus began to illustrate Dante, and it is generally for this work that he is known in modern Croatian painting.”

It is true that Racki’s illustrations of Krsnjavi’s translation of the Inferno greatly contributed to popularizing Dante in Croatia, which was evidently Krsnjavi’s wish. This wish was inspired by the deep love that our Dante scholar felt for the great poet. As is well known, Dante was a political exile and proud of his banishment. He considered it an honor. It is fitting, then, to recall his verses dedicated to the politically persecuted, for never has there been so much political persecution and so many exiles as precisely in our century.

E io, che ascolto nel parlar divino

Consolarsi e dolersi

Cosí alti dispersi

L´esiglio che m´e dato onor mi tegno

Cader co´buoni e pur di lode degno^[228].

Even better known are these verses of Dante on exile; let them serve as a consolation to the high exiles of Croatia and other nationalities (alti dispersi):Tu lascerai ogni cosa diletta

Più caramente; e questo e quello strale

Che l´arco dell´esilio pria saetta.

Tu proverai sì come sa di sale

Lo pane altrui, e com´è duro calle

Lo scendere e ´l salir per l´altrui scale

E quel que più ti graverà le spalle,

Sarà la compagnia malvaggia e scempia,

Con la cual tu cadrai in questa valle;

Che tutta ingrata, tutta matta ed empia

Si farà contra te;ma poco appresso

Ella, non tu, n´avrà rotta la tempia.

Di sua bestialitate il suo processo

Farà la pruova, si ch´a te fia bello

Averti fatta parte per te stesso".

Paraíso, XVII, 55-70

You will leave behind what your love holds most dear: for this is the most grievous arrow that the bow of exile launches.

You will see how bitter alms taste to us,

and what anguish lies in the ascent and descent of another's step,

and what will poison you even more will be the foolish and wicked people with whom you will fall

into the bosom of misfortune.

For every ungrateful, treacherous, and incipient one

will be against you; though very soon she

will have no reason to blush.

It will be proof that her folly seals

her clumsy deed; so that your honor is upheld by

acting for yourself alone, apart from her ([229]).

The exile of one of the world's most illustrious exiles was, in general terms, identical to the exile of others; a time of hope and despair, of anxiety and fear of the future, of bitterness regarding the past.

However, when the Florentine authorities offered him (1316) "amnesty"—under conditions that Dante could not accept—he haughtily rejected the offer:

"Is this, then, the glorious way in which Dante Alighieri is called back to his homeland after almost fifteen years of exile? Does this merit an innocence that is evident to all? Is this the sweat and the long labors? Far be it from the man of familiar Philosophy to accept this thoughtless baseness, worthy of a heart of mud, that he, at the mercy of a certain wretched know-it-all and others lacking fame, should suffer, almost defeated, to be offered as a ransom! Far be it from the man, apostle of justice, offended by injury, to pay his offenders a tribute as if they had done him a favor!

"By such a path, O my father, one does not return to one's homeland; "In case ever again, whether through you or others, it is found that I will not betray Dante's fame and honor, I will cling to it without delay: and if by such a path one cannot enter Florence, I will not enter Florence. What? Will I not see, wherever I may be, the sphere of the stars and the sun? Will I not be able, from wherever I may be under the sky, to meditate on the sweetest truth, if I do not first deprive myself of all glory, indeed, become ignominious before the people and the city of Florence? Bread, certainly, I will not lack."

We have reproduced this fragment from Dante's famous letter "because Dante's soul is reflected in it, and because many exiles of our time may need to meditate on it," wrote Giuseppe Mazzini, also an exile, in Apostolato Popolare on September 15, 1844, London.

SIBENIK AND ITS CATHEDRAL

On the occasion of the 900th anniversary of the founding of the city of Sibenik by the Croatian King Petar Kresimir (1058-1074)

J. G. Fratija, Buenos Aires

This year, Croatia is celebrating, with patriotic fervor, the 900th anniversary of Sibenik, one of the picturesque Mediterranean cities on the eastern coast of the Adriatic.

Croatia boasts numerous cities, many of which date back to the time of Illyrian independence, the Hellenistic colonization, and subsequently the Roman Empire, which lasted for more than six centuries in the area of present-day Croatia. This territory encompasses almost all of Roman Dalmatia and Lower Pannonia. Due to their importance and influence within the Empire, these Roman provinces can be compared to Gaul and Hispania. They gave the Empire numerous legions, illustrious military leaders, prefects, and emperors, most notably Diocletian, and the Christian Church the martyrs of Salonitan and Sirmian, and the greatest Dalmatian of all time, Saint Jerome, known as the Father of the West.

The cities along the Adriatic coast are divided into two groups: those founded in antiquity and those formed in the Middle Ages during the Croatian national monarchy. Šibenik belongs to the latter. Although it is neither the oldest, nor the largest,[230] nor the most illustrious city, it is dearly loved by every Croat because of its origin, its name,[231] and its original, distinctly Croatian ethnic composition.

The City of Kresimir

Strictly speaking, Šibenik was founded more than 900 years ago, but it is first mentioned in 1066 in a document of the Croatian king Petar Kresimir, called the Great, of the Trpimirović dynasty, as his residence and stronghold (castrum). Therefore, for all Croatians, Šibenik is "the city of Kresimir," linked to the memory of the powerful king who, in a document, refers to the Adriatic as "our Dalmatian Sea" [232].

In this document, written in Latin, it is stated [233] that on Christmas Day in 1066, Cika, abbess of the newly founded Benedictine monastery of St. Mary in Zadar, appeared before King Petar Kresimir, who was in Šibenik (in Sibinico) surrounded by his nephew, Prince Stephen [234], the nobles of the kingdom, and almost the entire Croatian-Dalmatian episcopate. In his entourage were Lawrence, Archbishop of Split; Stephen, Bishop of Zadar; Rainier, the Croatian Bishop of Knin; Ivan, Bishop of Trogir; Drago, Bishop of Biograd; and Drago, Bishop of Osor (Cres and Lošinj). On that occasion, King Petar Krešimir granted the new Monastery of St. Mary "royal liberty" (regiam libertatem), guaranteeing it the usufruct of the possessions it already held and those it might acquire in the future within the territory of the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia. Among the first donors was the pious king, who addressed Abbess Cika as "his sister." He donated to the monastery a property near the royal city of Biograd, which had once belonged to Cika's grandfather, Madij, Prior of Zadar and Imperial Proconsul, a gift from King Krešimir III, Petar Krešimir's grandfather. Madij was Krešimir III's brother-in-law and related to the Croatian dynasty. That's why Petar Kresimir calls Cika "my sister".

Šibenik, initially a citadel and one of several royal residences (the Croatian kings of that era, like their counterparts in the West, traveled throughout their kingdom and exercised their functions in different locations without a fixed seat), gradually grew to become one of the other old cities on the Croatian Adriatic coast, particularly those belonging to the Byzantine Dalmatian kingdom (Osor, Krk, Zadar, Trogir, Split, Dubrovnik, Kotor, and some islands). These cities enjoyed such broad autonomy, especially under the successive Croatian and Croatian-Hungarian kings, that they resembled the classic model of a city-state.

In 1167, the Hungarian-Croatian king Géza granted Šibenik the privilege of being a city, placing it on equal footing with the other cities. In 1298, Pope Boniface VIII founded the Diocese of Šibenik and ordered the archbishops of Zadar and Split to elevate "the town of Šibenik" to the status of a city (villam sibenicescem nostra froti auctoritate civitatis insigniis decorantes). At that time, only episcopal sees were considered cities. Thus, Šibenik, originally a borough—there were many in the interior of the country—definitively entered the category of the emporium-type cities of Dalmatia.

How these cities were structured and what relationship they had with the Croatian kings, and later, after Croatia entered into personal union, with the Croatian-Hungarian kings, can be inferred from the famous charter granted in 1107 to the city of Trogir by the first Croatian-Hungarian king, Koloman, who had previously been crowned Croatian king at the royal Biograd near Zadar. The diploma, written in Latin, is one of the most important documents in Croatian legal and state history, and its text is memorized by law students in Croatia, as is the famous Qualiter or Pacta conventa, a supposed agreement concerning the "personal union" between the Hungarian king Koloman and the representatives of the twelve Croatian tribes, stipulated in 1102 upon the extinction of the national dynasty in Croatia.

In this diploma, following the example of the Croatian kings, Koloman promises the city of Trogir: 1) to defend it against all enemies; 2) to exempt it from direct taxes; 3) to guarantee freedom in the election of the bishop and the rector (comes); 4) to recognize its right to be governed by the ancient law (lex antiquitus constituta). 5) "of the port revenues two-thirds go to the king, one-third to the rector and one-tenth to the bishop" (this is the old "peace tribute" -tributum pacis- which, as early as the 7th century, the cities of the Byzantine theme of Dalmatia paid to the Croatian monarchs by imperial order, and later they also paid it to Venice as a right for free navigation); 6) Hungarians could not settle in the city; 7) the king renounces the right called ius descensus regii, in case of visiting the city for business of state or coronation; 8) finally, citizens are guaranteed the right to free migration (libera migratio), which means that they are not attached to the city as serfs to the land.

Similar liberties were granted to other cities in the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia. In this way, the old and peculiar dualism of the Kingdom of Dalmatia was reaffirmed within the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia. Records show that the city of Šibenik obtained such liberties in 1127 from the Croatian-Hungarian king, Stephen Árpád. It is assumed that these liberties were granted after the Venetians destroyed the Croatian royal city of Biograd in 1127, and many citizens sought refuge in Šibenik, thereby increasing its importance [235]. Thus, Šibenik became equal to the other Dalmatian cities and subsequently shared their fate.

Free Royal Cities in Croatia

The second type of Croatian city, mostly of later date, developed in the northern region, primarily between the Sava and Drava rivers, as a consequence of the feudal order. Near the towns and citadels, artisans and merchants settled, mostly foreigners (hospites) from northern Italy, the Slovenian, Austrian, and German provinces—that is, from the territory of the Holy Roman Empire. These immigrants, following the model of Western European cities, soon organized their guilds and sought to free themselves from the power of the feudal landed nobility and become directly dependent on the king. Thus, the "free royal cities" were born, primarily in the Croatian province of Slavonia at that time. Such a privilege was granted to Varadzin in 1220, Vukovar in 1231, Virovitica in 1234, Petrinja in 1240, Samobor in 1242, Gradec (present-day Zagreb, the capital of Croatia) in 1242, Krizevci in 1252, Jastrebarsko in 1257, and others.

The privilege granted to the city of Zagreb by the Croatian-Hungarian king Béla IV was preserved in its original form. Because this document bears the royal gold seal, a highly valuable document, it is called "Béla IV's golden bull to the city of Zagreb." In fact, it is a privilege granted to the "castrum in monge Grech iuxta Zagabriam" (the Greek monastic settlement next to Zagreb), since the original city of Zagreb was the episcopal city, founded in the 11th century, on the site of the former Roman colony of Andautonium. The Diocese of Zagreb was founded in 1094 [236]. The two cities were united and had a common administration only in the last century.

A peculiar type of city (16th and 17th centuries) is found in the cities of the Military Frontier, the defensive zone against the Turks who had occupied certain parts of Croatia. Karlovac closely resembles the type of Spanish colonial city. Moreover, they were founded by kings and archdukes of the House of Austria, and this is how they dressed and arranged their courts.

A specific type of urban population can be found in the regions that belonged to the Ottoman Empire for 400 years.[237]

The Period of Venetian Supreme Power

In the 14th century, Šibenik was linked to the important noble family of the Subić.[238] Gregory, one of the sons of Paul Subić of Bribir, hereditary ban of Croatia and lord of Bosnia, was the rector (comes) of the city of Šibenik.[239]

In the 15th century, Šibenik, along with the other Dalmatian cities, fell under Venetian rule. These cities, since the rise of the Republic of Venice, were extremely important for navigation to the Levant. Therefore, at first, the city of the lagoons paid the pacis tribute to the Croatian dukes and kings, and then, with varying degrees of success, fought to conquer them. These cities, originally Roman, inhabited by the Illyrian-Roman population, and later increasingly Croatianized, were not sympathetic to Venetian ambitions. Under the protection of the Croatian kings, they enjoyed considerable freedoms. The Republic of Saint Mark, on the other hand, while recognizing the administrative autonomy of these trading cities, sought to limit their commercial freedom for its own benefit. Zadar rose up against Venice nine times, and it was necessary that in 1202, to the shame of the Christian world, the crusaders, who sailed on Venetian ships during the famous Fourth Crusade, conquered Constantinople instead of the Turks.[240]

This resistance of the Dalmatian cities, by then Croatized,[241] diminished when the Ottoman conquerors, after the fall of Byzantium, approached the Dalmatian coast. Only Venice was then able to organize the defense of the remaining free territories of the eastern Mediterranean, with the help of Spain and the Papal States. The Habsburg monarchy assumed a similar role on the mainland against Ottoman penetration into Central Europe. For this purpose, the Catholic countries of the Danube basin united in a defensive alliance, counting on the support of the Holy Roman Empire, ruled by the emperors of the House of Austria.

From the 15th century until the end of the 17th century, Šibenik, along with the other Dalmatian cities, except for Dubrovnik, an independent city-republic, was under the supreme power of the Republic of Saint Mark, until the Napoleonic upheaval of 1796 brought an end to its independence. Then all of Dalmatia came under the rule of the Emperor of Austria, who since 1527 had been King of Croatia and Hungary. Later, for a short period (1806-1813), it was under French rule, and from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 until 1918, it was a province of the Habsburg Monarchy. After the First World War, along with the other Croatian provinces, it became part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Following the brief Italian occupation from 1943, it became part of the Independent State of Croatia, and in 1945, it was integrated into the Socialist Republic of Croatia within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Regarding Venetian power in Dalmatia, the historical view of Italian nationalist irredentism is entirely erroneous when it sees the Republic of San Marco as an exclusively Italian political entity and, consequently, considers all the former Venetian territory a legitimate inheritance of the current Italian nation-state. The Croatian Adriatic cities, semi-independent urban republics, were, in a sense, federated with Venice. The Republic of San Marco was not a political formation of the Italians, but rather a defensive alliance, sui generis under the direction of Venice, with the participation of Italians, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, Albanians and Greeks, more precisely parts of those peoples, located along the maritime coasts and ready to defend themselves against the Turks with substantial Venetian help[242].

When Venice obtained legal title, admittedly quite dubious, to the possession of what was then Dalmatia (some cities and islands), through an unusual and shameful transaction with Ladislaus of Naples,[243] the entire region was already almost entirely Croatized. Only small pockets of the still unassimilated Illyrian-Roman aborigines remained, speaking the distinct Dalmatian language, different from Italian, which had become completely extinct by the end of the previous century. Moreover, the Republic of Venice never attempted to Italianize the non-Italian population within its possessions.

Šibenik's Contribution to Croatian Culture

During the Venetian period, Croatian Renaissance literature developed precisely in Dalmatia and Dubrovnik—then the independent Republic of Saint Blaise—marking the beginning of modern Croatian national literature and the formation of its literary language. What Tuscany was in Italy, and Castile in Spain, Dalmatia, particularly Dubrovnik, was in Croatia.[244]

In this Croatian literary renaissance, Šibenik did not participate to the same extent as Dubrovnik, Split, Hvar, and Zadar, although it did produce a number of distinguished statesmen, humanists, and visual artists, also known in neighboring countries, particularly Italy and Hungary.

George Sigoric (born in 1442), a native of Šibenik, using the humanist name Georgius Sisgoreus, was the first among his fellow citizens to publish the Latin poetry collection Elegiarum et Carminum, libri III (printed in Venice in 1477). More important is his work De situ Illyriae et civitate Sibenici, in which he glorifies his native city and Dalmatia as the noblest province of Illyria.

This learned humanist, in contrast to the spirit of his time, did not despise but rather extolled popular literature, equating it with the Greco-Roman classics. He collected popular proverbs and adages (dicteria) which, in his opinion, were no less wise than Solomon's laws and, with his perspicacity, reached the teachings of Pythagoreanism. In his praises of the illustrious men of Šibenik, he says that they distinguished themselves in the fields of theology, philosophy, poetry, oratory, and law, "men who, by their intellect, earned the admiration of Italy itself."

Among them, Antun Vrančić (Antonius Verancius, 1505-1573), humanist and statesman, Primate and Regent of Hungary, Roman Cardinal, and nephew of the famous Croatian Ban, Bishop Petar Berišlavić, holds first place. He corresponded with Erasmus of Rotterdam and Melanchthon. He traveled extensively, including to Turkey. His selected works were published in ten volumes. Among other things, he noted that at the imperial court in Istanbul he communicated in Croatian with the Grand Vizier Mohamed Pasha Sokolovic.

He translated from Turkish into Latin. He corresponded with the Croatian ban Cardinal Draskovic and encouraged him to safeguard the past glories of the Croatian people. His nephew, Fausto Vrancic (1551-1617), in his work Machinae novae, published designs for the parachute, the aerial turbine, the tidal mill, etc. He published several works of a philosophical and theological nature. In Venice, in 1595, he published Dictionarium quinque nobilissimarum Europae linguarum, Latinae, Italicae, Germanicae, Dalmaticae et Hungaricae. In 1606, he published a hagiographic work in Rome, written in Croatian.

Also linked to Šibenik is the name of the Renaissance painter Georgius Culinović, a prominent artistic individual who honed his skills at the Squarcione workshop in Padua. In art history, he is known as Georgius Dalmaticus and Schiavone. He spent most of his life in Šibenik, where he died in 1505. His canvases, especially his depictions of the Virgin Mary, can be found in Padua, Paris, Amsterdam, Venice, Baltimore, Turin, and Bergamo.

In the 16th century, the painter and engraver Martin Kolunić-Rota, born in Šibenik, distinguished himself, particularly for his copper engravings of works by renowned painters such as Michelangelo, Dürer, Titian, and Klović (Julius Clovius). His portrait of Antun Vrančić has been preserved.

In the 17th century, a notable Croatian composer, Ivan Lukačić, served as choirmaster of the Cathedral Church. His motets (Sacrae Cantiones, Venice, 1620) constitute a valuable contribution to the Croatian cultural heritage.

The Cathedrals of the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia

One of the most celebrated artists associated with Šibenik is Georgius Matteo Dalmaticus, born near Zadar, whose masterpiece, both architectural and sculptural, is the famous Šibenik Cathedral. It is an artistic monument marking the transition from the Gothic to the Renaissance period, a work by Croatian and Italian masters that gave rise to a new school of architects and sculptors with repercussions throughout Dalmatia and the Italian Adriatic coast. It was only thanks to its magnificent cathedral that Šibenik, albeit somewhat belatedly, finally achieved its rightful place among the Dalmatian cities. This medieval cathedral is among the most important religious monuments on the Croatian Adriatic coast. These magnificent monuments reflect the vital force and the political and cultural rise of the country.

During the Croatian national monarchy, the Western European world, of which Croatia is the eastern periphery, was slowly and painstakingly forging, from the ruins of Roman civilization, the new culture of the Christian West. From the 11th century, the Croatians built small pre-Romanesque churches with original forms and linear, primitive, yet tasteful Plateresque decoration. Only when the monarchs became more closely linked to the rising Western world, and when the Benedictines of Monte Cassino built numerous monasteries in Croatia, using the vernacular in the Latin rite liturgy to counteract Greco-Byzantine influence, did the three-aisled Romanesque basilica appear in Croatia.

From the 12th to the 14th centuries, especially in the Dalmatian cities, everything flourished with life, freedom, and prosperity under the protection of the Croatian-Hungarian kings. A vigorous and distinctive Dalmatian Romanesque style developed. The finest achievements of this period include the portal of Trogir Cathedral (completed in 1240) by the Croatian master Radovan. The first Romanesque cathedral in Dalmatia was built in Kotor in honor of the city's patron saint, St. Tryphon, and completed in 1166. In the 13th century, Romanesque cathedrals were erected in Dubrovnik, Zadar, Zagreb (completed in 1217), and Trogir. The Cathedral of St. John, Bishop of Trogir, stands out for its artistic value, particularly for the vigorous and grand forms of its naves and apse. Dubrovnik Cathedral was destroyed in the great earthquake of 1667 and replaced by the present cathedral, built in the Romanesque Baroque style. However, the famous Romanesque Franciscan cloister, the work of the local master Miho of Bar, was preserved. Split Cathedral, perhaps the oldest in Europe, was originally the mausoleum of Emperor Diocletian. Beside it stands the magnificent Romanesque bell tower, while the local woodcarver, Master Buvina, crafted the beautiful double doors with their impressive wood carvings. The Rab bell tower was built in the 13th century.

The cathedrals of Senj and Korcula, and the majestic Rector's Palace in Dubrovnik, date from the Romanesque-Gothic transitional period. St. James' Cathedral in Šibenik also emerged during this same period. It was planned in the late Venetian Gothic style, introduced to Dalmatia along with Venetian power in the early 15th century, and completed under the influence of the new Florentine Renaissance style. Until then, southern Italian influences had prevailed in the architecture of the eastern Adriatic coast.

George Dalmatian, architect of Šibenik Cathedral

Construction of Šibenik Cathedral began on April 9, 1431, at the behest of Bishop Bogdan Pulšić (1402–1436), and lasted for almost a century. Three distinct periods can be identified: the first, under the guidance of Italian and local master builders (1431–1441); The second phase is in the Flamboyant Gothic style of George Dalmatian (Juraj Dalmatinac), son of Šibenik (1441-1473), and the third, in the High Renaissance style of the master Nicholas of Florence (1475-1505) and his successors until 1536 [245].

In the first period, a good part of the exterior walls, most of the interior columns, and both portals were completed, all in the late Venetian Gothic style. The new, much more important phase began with the hiring of George, son of Matteo, a native of Zadar, a vigorous artistic personality who introduced to Dalmatia the final stage of the picturesque Venetian Gothic known as "Flamboyant." This local master was rightly considered the last great Gothic artist of Dalmatia, but "in many of his sculptures," says Karaman, "executed in close relation to ancient art and real life, he was a product of the best Italian Quattrocento." The surname Orsini, which was later attributed to him, was never used. He bore his own name and that of his father: Georgius quondam Mathaei, and in the inscription in the choir of Šibenik Cathedral, he listed his name as Georgius Dalmaticus. Due to his significant contribution to Šibenik Cathedral, he became known as George of Šibenik (Juraj Šibencanin - Giorgio de Šibenico).

Master George fundamentally altered the cathedral's original plan, adding a transept, a wide transverse nave between the choir and the central space of the church. According to Karaman, he had already envisioned a dome supported by four columns, for which he did not need to seek models in Italy, as a similar dome already existed in Dubrovnik, Croatia, the beautiful Romanesque capital, later destroyed by an earthquake. It is unknown what roof Master George had designed, as the current roof and the semicylindrical profile of the main nave are the work of his successor, Nicholas Florentino. Worse is true that Master Jorge had already anticipated the unique technique applied to the ceiling by his successor and continuator.

Master Jorge fundamentally altered the cathedral's original plan, enlarging the choir. A great architect, and an even greater sculptor, he decorated the exterior cornice of these apses with seventy-four human heads, which emerge from the cornice in life-size and expressive plasticity. With this work, he far surpassed similar motifs on the capitals of the Doge's Palace in Venice. The figures are never repeated; new faces always appear. Some recall classical busts of Homer, Apollo, and Heracles, but the most beautiful figures are those that reproduce the local types that Master Jorge saw every day in the bustle of the port, in the squares and alleyways of Šibenik: sailors and captains, characteristic heads of the Dalmatian peasants, with expressive somatic features of the Dinaric (or Adriatic) racial type. They were sculpted with a few strokes of the chisel, possessing a force, plasticity, and evocative power unmatched in Croatian art until the era of the Mestrovic hero figures, drawn from popular epic poetry.

George Dalmata also designed the cathedral's baptistery, a beautiful example of Gothic architecture. His sculptures reflect more classical than Gothic models. In constructing the baptistery and later the sacristy, he employed a system of interlocking and placing finished stone blocks, thus achieving the sacristy's bold, rounded vault. His successor continued this technique, lending a special charm and distinctive form to the cathedral's ceiling.

George Dalmata's merit lies in having assembled a group of talented disciples, especially Ivan Pribislavljic, from Šibenik, and Andrei de Drac (Alessi). From all over Dalmatia and the coast, from the islands and the rear, apprentice masons and marble workers flocked to Šibenik to learn the trade under the guidance of Master George. They worked for the cathedral, extracting blocks and decorative elements; the marble workers, in the quarries of the Dalmatian islands of Brač, Korčula, Krk, and Rab, often under the direct supervision of their builder. In this way, this new style and taste spread throughout the Croatian coast. Master George's art even crossed the Adriatic and reached Ancona and other cities in the Marche Ancona. Dalmatia, once again—as on many other occasions—repaid and repaid many times over what it had received from Italy.

George Dalmatian also worked outside of Šibenik. His most beautiful works are the chapel and altar of Saint Anastasius in Split, which in their general conception harmonize with the chapel and altar of Saint Daimo, located on the opposite side, the work of Master Bonino of Milan. However, Master Giorgio's altar is more complete and more restrained in its execution, and broader in its conception. The relief of the Flagellation of Christ on this altar is of great value, and the master, through his expressive vigor, reaches the limits permissible in art in the reproduction of movement and brutal reality.

From his workshop came the sarcophagus of Blessed Arniero, Archbishop of Spala, formerly in the Benedictine church in Split and now in the parish church of Kastel Luksic, near Split. The relief figures depicting the bishop's martyrdom are striking for their expressiveness, particularly the realistic portrayal of the peasant figures. Among George Dalmatian's works in Ancona, the figure of Caritas in the Loggia dei Mercanti, executed in collaboration with his disciples, deserves special mention. In Dubrovnik, he worked on the repair of the city walls, completed the important Minceta Fortress, and the rector's palace. He died in Šibenik in October 1473.

Nicolas Florentino, successor to the master George Dalmatian

With George Dalmatian's successor, Nicolas Florentino, a pupil of Donatello according to Venturi, the forms of the Florentine High Renaissance triumphed in Dalmatia, already introduced by Michelozzo himself, who worked for a time in the rector's palace in Dubrovnik. According to Venturi, this was Nicolas, son of Giovanni Cikaro, from Florence. This Nicolas executed certain parts of the altar and façade of Saint Anthony of Padua for Donatello. However, Nicolas, based on his artistic output, belongs to Dalmatia, particularly to Trogir and Šibenik. That environment provided him with the opportunity to demonstrate his talent and greatly influenced him. In the execution of his beautiful vault in the Chapel of St. John Orsini in Trogir Cathedral, he used as a model the stone vault formed by contiguous panels in the temple of Diocletian's Palace, later transformed into a cathedral. "Faced with a task for which he lacked the formula learned in his master's workshop, he freely followed his artistic instinct and astonished art historians when, in the dome of Šibenik Cathedral, he placed, before Bramante, the octagonal drum on the quadrangular base; or when, in the ceiling of the same cathedral, he created the marvel of Dalmatian architecture: the barrel vault, visible from both inside and out" (Karaman). Master Nicholas enriched the Croatian coast with the type of facade that has a semicylindrical shape, repeated in the 16th century in churches of varying sizes. For this reason, some art historians attribute these forms, without any basis, to the influence of the Lombardi family.

The Chapel of St. John in Trogir is also a true jewel of Dalmatian art, a work of the High Renaissance.[246] The decorative sculpture is intimately connected to the architectural design, something not easily found in Italy. This work deserves a more extensive discussion, but we prefer to confine ourselves to our central theme of Šibenik and its cathedral.

Nicola Florentino executed the final works on the Šibenik Cathedral in the Renaissance style, which harmonizes perfectly with the Gothic forms, so that the viewer admires a harmonious whole. The beautiful triforiums inside, the roof, and the dome are all the work of Master Nicola. The main attraction and original form of the Šibenik Cathedral lies in the stone vaults, visible from the outside and forming the terminal line of the façade, the work of Nicola Florentino, executed using the technique already adapted by George Dalmatian.

Foreign authors of the last century, and the aforementioned Fausto Vrančić-Verancius, unanimously emphasize with admiration that the entire cathedral, from foundation to roof, inside and out, is built exclusively of stone, without a single beam or wooden structure. The semicylindrical line of the façade, which also appears in Italy but more often with decoration imposed from the outside, unrelated to the roof construction, in Šibenik is the indispensable and logical continuation of the original stone roof with its rounded forms. Precisely for this reason, like everything that is logical and rational, indispensable and carried out accordingly, it gives Šibenik Cathedral its extraordinary roundness and a unique and timeless beauty.

Nicolas Tommaseo

Before concluding our overview of Šibenik's cultural treasures, we will mention another of the city's celebrated sons, Nicolas Tomacic-Tommaseo (1802-1874), one of the most illustrious and interesting figures of the Italian Risorgimento. Croatian by birth (only one of his grandmothers was from Bergamo), but by his work he belonged to Italy, although Tommaseo never denied his origins. He even wrote and published his precious work, *The Sparks* (*Iskrice*), in Croatian and collected and translated Croatian folk poetry. His stance on the struggle for the union of Dalmatia with Croatia proper, ruled by the ban, was neither understandable nor logical. Supporting a position contrary to the desires of the overwhelming majority of the population, he aligned himself with the few Italians in Dalmatia who opposed the unification of the Croatian provinces. Despite everything, the Croatians, respectful of the ideals of the Italian Risorgimento, appreciated Tommaseo as a great writer of noble and Christian inspiration and as a prominent figure in Italian life, but also as a bridge, that typical Italo-Slavic figure, between two peoples. It was the Croats who erected the monument to him in his hometown of Šibenik, a monument that has remained respected despite all the political upheavals and despite the fact that virulent Italian irredentism abused his prestige and distorted his thinking.

With this example, the Croats provided valuable proof of political tolerance and the possibility of harmonious cooperation between the two main Adriatic peoples. It is interesting to note that Tommaseo, like his contemporary, the Croatian revolutionary Eugenio Kvaternik, also a devout Catholic, perceived the danger that the creation of a Slavic Orthodox bloc under Russian aegis would entail and called for, as a counterweight, the integration of Slavic-speaking peoples of Western culture, especially the Poles, Czechs, and Croats.[247]

* * *

After this brief overview of the salient events of Šibenik's 900-year history and traditions, it will be easier to understand why the communist authorities strive to give the celebrations a character contrary to the feelings of the city of Šibenik and the Croatian people. These feelings were faithfully reflected by Tommaseo himself when he highlighted the danger, for the Western world, of the Slavic bloc under Russian influence. Yugoslavia is included in this bloc, and within it, the Serbs, proponents of the very conceptions and realities that Tommaseo feared, set the standard.

Therefore, the current communist regime, in commemorating events intimately linked to the traditions of the Christian West, strives to distort Šibenik's past and give it an erroneous and arbitrary interpretation.[248] Thus, the official commemoration is far from authentic. The true commemoration of the 900th anniversary of the ancient city of Šibenik, the home of Croatian King Krešimir, which coincides with the 900th anniversary celebrations of the Benedictine Convent of St. Mary in Zadar and the Cathedral of St. Tryphon in Kotor, will be the one prepared by the Church in the authentic spirit of Šibenik's glorious tradition, with the massive and spontaneous participation of the population. The majestic St. James Cathedral, a masterpiece of art and the authentic and supreme expression of Croatian culture, will serve as the setting for this commemoration.

THE CATHOLIC SLAVES BETWEEN EAST AND WEST IN LIGHT OF THE THOUGHT AND WORK OF BISHOP STROSSMAYER

Ivan Vizetic, Vienna

In this work, East and West are understood in the sense of Eastern Christianity and Catholicism. It is precisely from this perspective that we wish to establish the position and the real or potential role of the Catholic Slavs in the rapprochement of the Orthodox Slavs toward the union of the Church, as this aspiration is reflected in the concepts and work of the Bishop of Djakovo, Joseph George Strossmayer (February 4, 1815–April 8, 1905).

First, we must briefly summarize the essential character traits of Strossmayer's personality. Considering people in their human condition, with all their flaws and virtues, is always appropriate and in no way diminishes their greatness; Rather, we see them in their true measure. Strossmayer, always an outstanding student, distinguished himself particularly in Latin. He demonstrated his absolute mastery of it at the Second Vatican Council (1869/70), where, with regard to language and brilliant style, he was considered one of the Council's finest orators. When he finished his studies at the Augustinianum in Vienna, the rector of that institution described him in these terms: "A very courageous and talented priest; we can expect many good things from him" [249]. When, at the age of 34, he was appointed Bishop of Djakovo (November 18, 1849), it seemed that he would climb to the highest rungs of the ecclesiastical ladder. In 1858, he was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Budapest, and the following year, he became Assistant to the Papal Throne and Count of Rome. Endowed with extraordinary intellectual capacity, his pleasing appearance and distinguished bearing captivated and fascinated people. A passionate horseman and hunter, he liked to boast of his excellent marksmanship. Moreover, his words and actions had a certain heroic air about them. He would often play cards for hours on end. [250]

On his father's side, Strossmayer came from Linz—the original form of his surname was Strossmayer—and he often said in earnest that a few drops of German blood could be very useful in the body of a good Slav. [251] Exceptionally gifted, diligent, and ambitious, he achieved remarkable successes even in his youth, which strengthened his innate self-confidence. In a letter dated August 31, 1849, to his friend Brlic, he wrote, in case he was not appointed to Djakovo: "Our Slavonia will in any case lose much in me,"[252] and in a letter sent to the ordinariate of Djakovo (August 24, 1850, a year after his appointment as bishop) he stated: "I wish to be received in the most solemn manner."[253]

He was often impulsive and irascible, which he sometimes admitted, and also rude, coarse, and vulgar in his expressions, both written and spoken. In his impulsiveness, he sometimes made unjust judgments about certain people, and in a vehement tone, but upon learning the truth, he found the inner strength to correct himself. His talent as an orator had both positive and negative effects. He was often a victim of his own rhetorical imagination. On the other hand, his convictions and the energy with which he defended his ideas made him a symbol of extraordinary attractive power.

As a bishop, especially after the Second Vatican Council, he He was keenly interested in the arts, having set as one of his life's goals the construction of Djakovo Cathedral. He loved the arts and culture in general. In view of his personal traits and his work, he was not without reason compared to a Renaissance prince of the Church. However, Strossmayer was something more, although, considering the lofty purposes he wished to serve, it would have been desirable for him to possess greater inner balance and to sublimate the peculiarities of his character.

His outstanding activity at the First Vatican Council earned him worldwide renown. His stance against papal infallibility made him popular in the liberal circles of the time. However, Seton Watson rightly states: "Strossmayer's true claim to immortality lies not in his ecclesiastical liberalism, but in his merits for the cause of the Croatian nation and culture" [254]. In his first letter to Gladstone (October 1, 1876), Strossmayer outlined The mission of the Croats in the Slavic south in the following terms: "We Croats, without presumption, in this small alliance of Slavic brothers, constitute the Tuscan element" [255]. In that spirit he had founded, ten years earlier, the Academy of Sciences and Arts (Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti) in Zagreb, a favorite work of his cultural activity.

Guided by the same spirit, he dedicated himself to founding the new National University of Zagreb and several other cultural projects.

His right-hand man was Dr. Francisco Racki, an eminent historian and later a canon of the Zagreb Cathedral Chapter. Racki and Strossmayer were inseparable. For 34 years they exchanged ideas, as evidenced by their 1,404 letters, published in four voluminous volumes under the title Korespondencija Racki-Strossmayer (Zagreb, 1929-1931). Racki understood Strossmayer's temperament, both its positive and negative aspects, and always knew when to intervene appropriately to communicate his opinions, proposals, and advice, which Strossmayer almost always accepted, as he valued Racki as a true historian and a close friend.

It is worth mentioning here Strossmayer's position and importance in Croatian national life. Despite his valuable patriotic contributions, particularly in the cultural sphere, many Croatians consider Strossmayer a negative figure as a politician and even hold him responsible for the failures experienced in the struggle for national independence and in national progress in general.

The reason for such an assessment is his so-called Yugoslavism, which Racki not only shared but also encouraged. According to this South Slavic conception, the South Slavs were a single people who should aspire to form a single culture in order to make it possible for a common South Slavic state to be established in the near future.

Such conceptions of the supposed South Slavic nation were not, by any means, borne out by historical events. On the contrary, these concepts gave rise to deep divisions, disagreements, and conflicts that, of course, Strossmayer did not desire. However, by failing to see or acknowledge the contributing factors, he used his considerable authority to help his South Slavic ideology gain some adherents and ultimately produce undesirable consequences.

Strossmayer was often called the great Croat and Slav. While studying in Budapest, where he met Jan Kollár, he became acquainted with the movement advocating solidarity among Slavic peoples. This position would become increasingly entrenched in him during the following years, and especially in the wake of the events of 1848. Strossmayer could not conceive of the future of his small Croatia separate from the fate of the other Slavs, both within and outside the Habsburg monarchy. He developed an early interest in Christian reunification, which he later emphasized at every opportunity and tirelessly strove to achieve as a bishop. His two dissertations at the Augustinianum college in Vienna dealt with this problem, approached from a historical-dogmatic point of view.

When the Minister of Worship and Education, Count Leo Thun, advised by the Ban (Viceroy) of Croatia, Count Jelacic, proposed Strossmayer to the Emperor as the first candidate to occupy the episcopal seat of Djakovo (8/IX/1849), he motivated his proposition on the grounds that, since the diocese of Djakovo was of such importance because of the contacts between Catholics and dissidents, the Bishop of Djakovo should be an example of Christian love and tolerance[256]. As early as 1851, the Holy See appointed him Apostolic Administrator of the Catholics in Serbia, a position he held until 1896. Strossmayer saw in Christian unity not only the highest ecclesiastical goal, but also the surest path and the firmest guarantee for the Slavic peoples to occupy in international life the place that belongs to them by virtue of their numbers and qualities.

This is why Ferdo Sisic, an excellent scholar of Strossmayer's life and work, could write: "The idea of the reconciliation of the Eastern Church with the Western Church was the guiding force of Strossmayer's soul and life, with which his other ideas and actions are intimately linked" [257].

Among Strossmayer's various pronouncements and actions of an ecclesiastical-political nature—inspired by the ideal of religious unity—that sought to bring the Slavic peoples closer together and increase their international significance, the memorandum sent to the Russian government on August 8, 1876, and his correspondence with the renowned English liberal statesman William Gladstone stand out.

The memorandum to the Russian government, as well as the letters exchanged with Gladstone, was prompted by the Eastern Question. Strossmayer fostered the hope that a successful solution to this question would provide better and more solid foundations for peace, freedom, authority, and stability in Europe. The aforementioned memorandum, which in Sisic's opinion constitutes "Strossmayer's most important political document" [258], contains, one might say, his entire Slavic ideology. The memorandum was delivered to State Councilor Dr. Augustine Heesen, a German by birth and a Catholic convert from Protestantism. To this day, very little is known about the fate and effect of this document, although Heesen later visited Strossmayer in Djakovo (in October 1879) and exchanged several letters with him.

Let us examine the main points of this memorandum.

"Just as with individuals, so too with nations," Strossmayer says, "fortune costs nations more than misfortune. A defeat often leads individuals and nations to be prudent and reasonable; on the other hand, successes exert a seductive power. 'There has always been a certain pagan instinct to exercise tyranny over the whole world or certain parts of the world, as is proven, for example, by the wars of Alexander the Great and Napoleon I, as well as the Roman and French empires. If this unreasonable urge were to take hold of the Germans, it would entail, despite their high level of education and caution, the ruin of all of Europe, and above all, of the Germans themselves,' Strossmayer stated verbatim."

On this matter, he wrote to Racki a few days later (September 22, 1876): "If Russia, in the event of such a war (he was thinking of the war with Turkey about to break out; author's note), could not secure the neutrality of Germany, which would keep Austria in check, then Germany would one day take the lead in Europe against Russia, and it seems that it is already preparing for such an eventuality."[259] For Strossmayer, strictly speaking, the Slavs would be "the glorious Russian people," who, on the path to achieving "the normal position" in a new European order, encounter great difficulties, and among the most important means that could lessen these difficulties or eliminate them completely is the "convention that the glorious empire should conclude with the Holy See."

There is a difficulty of a general nature and another of a specific kind. The difficulty of a general nature is "a fear not clearly defined," almost terror, as if the fuller and more active participation of the Slavs in Europe carried hidden the danger of a particular tyranny. that threatens Europe."

In Strossmayer's opinion, the main culprits behind this misguided view of Russia are the Catholics. Therefore, it is necessary to win over the French, Italians, and other Catholic peoples who, despite controversies with the Catholic Church, remain Catholic. Russia must gain their favor, and the best way to achieve this would be through an agreement with the Holy See, which would dispel the suspicions and prejudices of Catholics regarding Russia. The specific difficulties are: 1) the Poles; 2) the Hungarians; and 3) the Turks. The Poles, Strossmayer states, appear "always and everywhere, as adversaries of the Russians, as if by necessity." He calls this attitude Polonism.

An agreement with the Holy See could put an end to this Polonism, since "there is a healthier segment of the Polish population that seeks its best fortune in reconciliation with Russia." Therefore, Strossmayer concludes: "If there were no other reasons justifying such an agreement, this one alone would suffice, in my opinion." The Hungarians, "without exception, would be ready, if it were possible, to drown all the Slavs, especially the Russians, in a drop of water, as a Slavic proverb says."

Strossmayer claims to know the Hungarians well, that they possess great qualities, and that he would not say a single word against them unless it concerned important and serious matters. "Of the Hungarians, it could rightly be said: 'Vanae sunt sine viribus irae' (They are vain without wrath), since they failed, in their alliance with the Poles, to give the Austrian Empire the form it deserved, a form fraught with danger in every respect." Regarding the Hungarians as well, Strossmayer believes that a convention with the Holy See would be the most suitable instrument for neutralizing their influence. Regarding the Czechs, Strossmayer wrote that their demands are so justified and correspond to such a degree with the interests of the Monarchy and the Dynasty that it is inconceivable they have not yet been addressed and satisfied. Concerning the Turks, Strossmayer said that the Russian emperor is destined to liberate Europe "from the Turkish plague."

The Russians would more easily resolve the Eastern Question if they entered into such an agreement with the Holy See. As an illustration, he cites the example of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is clearly yielding to Serbia. Regarding Croatian-Serbian relations and Austrian policy on the matter, Strossmayer stated that "agitation against Serbia is taking place among the Croats, analogous to that practiced in Bosnia and Herzegovina." "It is an extraordinary phenomenon that Jews of the worst kind, who control the organs of public opinion in Budapest and Vienna, should appear in recent times as champions and protectors of the Catholic religion in Croatia, even though in their hearts they hate all Christian beliefs more than dogs and snakes." Strossmayer then referred to the content of the Convention and emphasized that this was the opportune moment for both the Holy See and Russia.

Finally, he stressed the importance of rapprochement between the Western and Eastern Churches. The Eastern Church today represents the Russian people in the most dignified manner. In harmony and through new acts of mutual love, both churches should be harbingers of ultimate happiness. "That is the sublime purpose," Strossmayer exclaimed, "to which the aforementioned Convention could contribute." In closing, he expressed his willingness to cooperate in the procedures for organizing the Convention, but in a highly confidential manner, and "once again" requested that his name remain secret. In the attached letter, Strossmayer notes that preparations would be accelerated if a Catholic Russian were negotiating in Rome.

Hemos citado algo in extenso los pensamientos y proposiciones del memorandum de Strossmayer, publicado en el segundo tomo de la correspondencia Racki-Strossmayer, que comprende 16 grandes páginas (pp. ). El memorándum fue redactado en latín y una copia enviada a Racki para que la guardara y no quedara rastro de ese documento en el archivo diocesano de Djakovo.

Strossmayer's memorial agrees in many points with the document that George Krizanic delivered to Cardinal Barberini, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.[260] Likewise, the fundamental points of Strossmayer coincide with those of Vladimir Soloviev, as both were able to confirm on the occasion of their first meeting in Croatia at the end of 1885. The Strossmayer-Soloviev relationship has been discussed repeatedly in the literature, and the last to address this topic a few years ago in a concise article was Vladimir Szylkarski, editor of Soloviev's complete writings in their German version.[261]

V. Szylkarski described Strossmayer's views as "Pan-Slavism in the Catholic sphere" and added that Strossmayer was more enthusiastic than Soloviev himself in propagating Russia's messianic mission, since Soloviev, who had a better understanding of the situation in Russia, opposed the misuse of Christian ideas to further Pan-Russian illusions.[262]

Strossmayer's views on Poland are particularly interesting. He appreciated Polish culture, based on Greco-Roman civilization, as well as its fidelity to Catholicism, which criticized the Poles for their "exaggerated Westernism." He would have been pleased to see the Poles also share a vision of their mission among the Slavs. He considered the Polish-Russian antagonism a tragedy for the Slavic world. His ideas and efforts found little resonance in Poland, which is not surprising, given that at the same time the legendary Slavophile Ivan Sergeyevich Aksakov was preaching that it was a moral obligation for Slavophiles to work for the disappearance of the Polish people as representatives of "corrupted" Latinity.[263]

In his letters to Gladstone, Strossmayer expressed similar ideas about the solution to the Eastern Question as in the memorandum addressed to the Russian Emperor. He considered it highly desirable that England and Russia agree on their aims regarding Turkey, and when discussing this issue, he often spoke of the harmony of humankind, which, obviously, is part of divine design. Gladstone himself inspired similar thoughts in him. Thus, for example, in his letter of December 15, 1876, Gladstone writes that apart from the political struggle, there is another, more serious and important struggle for the good of humanity, namely, the struggle between those who believe and those who do not.

Regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina, in his correspondence with Gladstone, Strossmayer maintained—in contrast to Croatian public opinion—that these provinces should be ceded to Serbian administration. When he realized this was impossible, he suggested to Gladstone that Bosnia and Herzegovina be granted autonomy under Turkish sovereignty. When events in Southeast Europe took a different course than Strossmayer had expected, he wrote on March 13, 1879, that England had not understood its role in the current events, but that Gladstone and his friends had saved England's honor.

On this occasion, Strossmayer wrote about Austria's role: "I would like, at the price of my life, to save that wonderful state. In the new situation, it must fulfill a noble mission. Austria should become a great neutral state in the great German Empire and the great Slavic Empire in order to prevent a conflict between these two great states and facilitate the peaceful resolution of the eastern upheaval" [264]. However, the reality is that Austria is growing weaker and less capable of fulfilling this mission; moreover, its policies are complicating its European position. Even before this, Strossmayer held this view of the Habsburg Monarchy and called for its internal reorganization along federal lines and the equality of all its peoples.

For this reason, he clashed particularly with Hungarian policy at the time. Already in his eighties, Strossmayer wrote in French on July 25, 1895, with a trembling hand, to Gladstone, six years his senior, an indictment against the Magyarizing administration of Ban Khuen-Héderváry in Croatia, while at the same time expressing his hope that "the cause of the Slavs in general, brought, by providential events, to its inherent destiny through the benefit of culture and universal freedom, will also deliver my own nation, which is worthy of all the favor of God and humankind" [265].

For a time, Strossmayer was actively involved in the politics of his country, and even after retiring from active political life, he remained in constant contact with public events. Seton-Watson rightly observed that Strossmayer, as a politician, lacked moderation and restraint, and that emotion always prevailed in him [266]. In this way, Strossmayer easily clashed with others, even having very damaging conflicts for himself and those he represented, such as some of his conflicts with Emperor Francis Joseph, and probably with Vatican circles, about which very little is known because the Vatican archives are still inaccessible.

Finally, it is worth turning to the area where Strossmayer hoped to achieve more tangible results in his unionist and Pan-Slavic efforts, namely in the Old Slavic liturgy, called Glagolitzia[267], the use of the Old Slavic language in the Roman rites.

This liturgy, as is well known, was preserved in the dioceses of the eastern Adriatic coast. Strossmayer was convinced that the Holy See, by extending this liturgy to all Catholic Slavs, would provide the best proof to the dissenting Orthodox Slavs that in the rapprochement with Rome and the union with the Catholic Church they should not see a threat to their Byzantine rite, their language, and their traditions.

In this way, together with the common veneration of Saints Cyril and Methodius, the ancient Slavic liturgy would firmly unite Catholic and non-Catholic Slavs and at the same time accelerate the rapprochement of the dissenting Slavs with the Holy See. As early as 1859, Strossmayer had presented Pope Pius IX with a commemorative document on this liturgy, and when he feared that all his efforts would be in vain, in 1868 he was summoned by the Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna to propose suitable individuals capable of preparing a corrected edition of the Glagolitic liturgical books.

In a letter dated March 19, 1868, to Archbishop Maupas of Zadar, Strossmayer emphasized that among the various aims of the Church was the end of the schism and the reunification of the Slavic peoples with Rome. He consistently maintained that this action should begin precisely among the South Slavic peoples. A great impetus in this direction was given by the encyclical Grande munus of Leo XIII, dated September 30, 1880, which established the feast of the Holy Sacraments as a sacred occasion. The feast of Cyril and Methodius, observed until then only among Slavic peoples, was to be celebrated throughout the entire Church.

The Pope, moreover, showed a special inclination toward the Slavic peoples. When, the following year, a joint Slavic pilgrimage under the guidance of Strossmayer was to come to Rome, the Hungarian Prime Minister, Count Kalman Tisza, wrote a letter on May 29, 1881, to the Joint Chancellor, Freiherr Heinrich von Haymerle, warning him about Strossmayer's intention to request permission from the Holy Father to introduce the Slavic liturgy in all the Slavic peoples of the Monarchy. Tisza stated that he could not fail "to point out the dangers that would arise from the success of such a plan in political relations and with regard to the development of the nationalities question."

Therefore, Tisza requested that the Austro-Hungarian ambassador to the Holy See closely monitor this issue and intervene at the opportune moment against Strossmayer's renewed efforts. When Tisza was informed that the Holy See would under no circumstances permit the liturgy in a modern Slavic language, he replied to Minister von Haymerle that it should not be permitted in Old Church Slavonic either. He argued that this would be the lesser evil and was an ecclesiastical matter; however, Tisza believed that the Old Church Slavonic liturgy "would create a bond between the Slavic Catholic nationalities, the consequences of which would be far-reaching." This, Tisza said, would constitute a grave and permanent danger not only for Hungary but also for the kingdoms and provinces represented in the Imperial Council.[268]

Thus began the bitter and at times dramatic ecclesiastical-political struggle surrounding the Old Church Slavonic liturgy, which lasted for more than two decades. This is documented in hundreds of notes and writings kept in the Vienna State Archives, dating from 1881 to 1914, and classified in four voluminous folders under the heading "The Slavic Liturgy." The Vienna chancellery, for reasons of state, opted for the dualistic conception of the Hungarian kingdom, and thus Ambassador Count Ludwig Para (1877-88) and even more so Count Friedrich Revertera-Salandra (1888-1901) energetically thwarted the attempt by Strossmayer and his supporters on this matter. Strossmayer requested permission from the Holy See for the Holy Mass to be celebrated in Old Church Slavonic on the day of the consecration of his cathedral in Djakovo, October 1, 1882.

The Pope was prepared to allow it, but the Austro-Hungarian government managed to prevent it, resorting to the intervention of Emperor Franz Joseph himself. Strossmayer, however, requested Bishop Polisovic, in whose diocese of Senj Old Church Slavonic was used in the liturgy, to celebrate a Glagolitic pontifical Mass in the newly consecrated cathedral. This so alarmed Vienna and Budapest that the Primate of Hungary, Cardinal Simor, expressed to the Pope, on behalf of the Emperor, his concern about the possible concession the Holy See might grant regarding Old Church Slavonic liturgy. On December 27, 1882, the Pope sent the Emperor a personal letter promising him that, without a proper understanding with His Majesty, nothing would be done concerning Old Church Slavonic liturgy.

The movement to spread the Old Slavic liturgy was denounced in Budapest and Vienna as a political and nationalistic movement aimed at destroying the foundations of the Monarchy. For a time, the Holy See was inclined to accept Strossmayer's proposals. This is evidenced by the report of the Austro-Hungarian ambassador to the Holy See dated September 12, 1884: "...that the Holy Father had accepted this idea, even with enthusiasm, and had there been no contrary influences, events would have followed his pious wishes" [269].

The Austro-Hungarian government and its representatives to the Holy See ensured that Strossmayer's efforts to spread the Old Slavic liturgy yielded meager results. It was, in fact, a Pyrrhic victory. Cardinal Domenico Bertolini, who was well acquainted with this matter as Prefect of the Congregation of Rites, wrote on August 1, 1886, to the Italian Barnabite Cesare Tondini: “As I once told you, Austria is making miscalculations by harassing the Slavs and in this way—without realizing it—is serving the purposes of Russia” [270]. The right to use Old Church Slavonic in the liturgy was granted to the Archdiocese of Bar in Montenegro by decree on March 28, 1887. (This decree refers to the restoration of the privileges “granted to the Supreme Pontiff by the universal Slavic peoples.”) Apart from the new edition of the Glagolitic Missal in 1893, published under this decree, this concession had no other practical consequences.

How did this struggle for Old Church Slavonic affect Slavic Catholics? Except in Croatia, and particularly in the Dalmatian and Istrian dioceses, ecclesiastical circles showed little interest. The increasingly sharp political and national divisions within the Monarchy gave Strossmayer's efforts a political character, preventing even the Holy See from taking broader and more decisive steps in this area. This political character compelled the Austro-Hungarian government, in the final stages of the struggle concerning the Old Slavic liturgy, to request the Holy See to suspend its recent decrees, which were considered unfavorable to the Old Slavic liturgy [271].

"Freedom and love will create unity," wrote Racki upon the publication of the encyclical Grande Munus. At the same time, he demanded that Western Europe renounce its policy of conquest in the East [272]. Barely 80 years have passed since he wrote those words, and the world has suffered at the hands of many oppressors of freedom and love. The Catholic Slavs also felt this, and in various places. But in this respect, they are not entirely blameless. Racki's words are no less true for that. In a concise and succinct way, they express the only path to authentic unity. By defending ourselves against the selfishness of others and combating our own, we can achieve the goal: Ut omnes unum sint.

The Polish Millennium and the Croats

J. G. Fratija, Buenos Aires

This year marked the millennium of the evangelization of Poland and, concurrently, of the Polish national monarchy, which for centuries played a significant role in Central and Eastern Europe. Thus, from the very beginning of Poland's national history, the characteristic symbiosis between religion and nationality, between Church and State, was established, a symbiosis that was only broken in the last two decades. "This symbiosis," the Polish bishops rightly emphasize in their well-known letter to the German episcopate, sent from Rome on November 18, 1965, on the eve of the closing of the Second Vatican Council, "imprinted its own distinctive character on religion, since in Poland, from the outset, the religious and national aspects developed together and were always intertwined, both positively and negatively" [273].

It is understandable, then, that the celebration of such a grand event should have a religious and national character, which would be achieved without hindrance if Poland were free and independent. However, in the current situation, "while power in Poland is in the hands of those who do not frequent the Church" [274], and ideologically and politically, despite the much-emphasized "national communism," they depend on the Soviet Union, the power that in 1939 liquidated Poland's independence by mutual agreement with the Third Reich, it was inevitable that the main actor in the jubilee celebrations would be the Catholic Church.

Hence a series of coercive measures by the communist regime to prevent the participation of foreign bishops and even the Pope himself. The Polish government even accused the bishops of treason for having invited German bishops to the celebrations, advocating for German-Polish reconciliation [275].

It is clear that the Polish communist government, for ideological and political reasons, wanted to prevent the whole world from seeing once again that it is the bishops who faithfully interpret the feelings of their people, not the communist regime. This was magnificently expressed by Bishop Chromanski, secretary of the Polish bishopric, in his Christmas Eve sermon:

"All this noise, all this irritation, all this hatred surrounding the message are necessary to humiliate the Church, to degrade her, to diminish and destroy the achievements of the Council, and to overshadow the millennium of the establishment of Christianity in Poland, which is to be celebrated next year. But the Church will not express herself in Marxist language, a language of lies and hatred. The Church will express herself in Christian language, which is the language of reconciliation and forgiveness" [276].

The communist government in Warsaw is striving to distance the Polish people from the community of Western cultural peoples to which they belong by virtue of their traditions. This is a continuation of the Soviet Union's policy, which annexed almost half of Poland's territory and, as a Greek gift, ceded vast regions to Poland, previously inhabited by Germans. If Moscow cannot win Polish sympathies, then it must create new and permanent causes of German-Polish hostility between these two Western cultural peoples who, by their geographical location, constitute the main barrier to Soviet westward expansion.

Along with ideological motives, this would be the fundamental reason why the communists reacted so violently to the reconciling efforts of the Polish and German bishops, motivated by the ecumenical spirit of the Second Vatican Council. On the other hand, these same communists never cease to speak of world peace, of the brotherhood and unity of all peoples. With its name, the Polish episcopate, unwittingly, aroused unprecedented interest in the Jubilee in the free world and won unanimous sympathy for the captive Polish nation.[277]

Nor could the Croats be absent from this glorious Jubilee, a people closely related to the Poles by their geographical position, origin, and the role they played on the very border of our Western society.

Glas Koncila, a widely circulated fortnightly publication edited in Zagreb by Cardinal Francis Šeper, Metropolitan Archbishop of Croatia, announced last March that Cardinal Šeper would preside over a Croatian pilgrimage to Częstochowa. At that time, it was not known that the Polish government had banned entry to all guests of the Polish episcopate.

But what the people in their captive homeland cannot do, the refugees who wholeheartedly embrace the Polish national and religious millennium can. In this regard, we will refer to Queen Jadwiga, whom the Polish bishops invoke in their message to the French episcopate. In the separate messages the bishops sent to their colleagues in other countries, inviting them to enhance the planned celebrations with their presence, they explained the scope of this jubilee and its historical implications. We know the text of the messages addressed to the French and German episcopates, respectively.[278]

We do not know the text of the invitation addressed to the Croatian and Slovenian bishops. The fact that the Polish bishops emphasized the merits of Queen Jadwiga, daughter of the Hungarian-Croatian king Louis I of the Angevin dynasty and Jelisava of the Bosnian Kotromanic dynasty, whose memory we evoke in this journal (Studia Croatica, "Remembrance of two queens in Rome and Zadar", Nos. 16-16, pp. 144-152, 1965), prompts us to recall her Croatian origin on her mother's side, to bring up several moments in Polish-Croatian relations, as well as to point out evident analogies in the historical process of both nations.

Poland and Croatia are borderland countries. Paul VI emphasized this borderland character of Poland in his message to the Polish episcopate on the occasion of the millennium jubilee:

"Poland feels honored, and with good reason, by its title of bulwark of Christendom, because it preserved its spiritual heritage at a time when certain nations of Europe experienced the lamentable rupture of the unity of the Catholic faith, and because in times of danger it stood tall with magnanimous courage to defend Christendom. It is also true that it was the Church, in the first place, that upheld and maintained these ideals whenever adversity—which you remember with sorrow—endangered the very existence of your country" [279].

The affinities between Poland and Croatia were manifested in a unique way even before the Turkish invasions, during the time when Louis I of Anjou (1342-1382) was simultaneously King of Croatia, Hungary, and Poland. That is to say, his kingdom encompassed all the territory stretching from the Adriatic to the Baltic.

Even after the Second World War, when the Soviet empire of satellites reached the heart of Europe, this same area constituted a spiritual defensive belt, as evidenced by the letter that Pius XII addressed in 1955 to the spiritual leaders of Poland, Hungary, and Croatia—Cardinals Wyshynski, Mindszenty, and Stepinac, then confined—following the fifth centenary of the defense of Belgrade, at that time a Hungarian stronghold on the border of the Ottoman Empire. In that letter, Pius XII emphasized the historical role of these three nations, which, individually, deserved the title Antemurale Christianitatis [280].

The Polish bishops referred to this Angevin era when, in their message to the French episcopate, they highlighted the merits of Queen Jadwiga. The following paragraphs are relevant:

"Queen Jadwiga of Anjou, a descendant of Saint Louis and the Piast dynasty, has been compared to Joan of Arc. As a child, she once held the fate of Poland and Lithuania in her fragile hands. Queen at the age of 13, dying at 25, she possessed remarkable beauty and intelligence, and she successfully traversed the steep mountain of sacrifice to reach the summit of sainthood.

Reasons of state demanded that she renounce her marriage to William of Austria, her childhood companion whom she loved dearly, in order to marry the 'barbarian' Jagello, Duke of Lithuania. During a long night of agony spent before the Crucifix kept in Wawel Cathedral, Jadwiga accepted, not for political reasons, but for the good of all her people, whose fate was at stake. Jagello promised not only to unite his Lithuanian and Ruthenian lands with the Polish crown, but also to convert his dynasty and all his people to Catholicism." He kept his word.

The peaceful evangelization of Lithuania exposed the aggressive aims of the Teutonic Order, which was forging an empire in the Eastern countries under the pretext of missionary incursions. Soon, at the Council of Constance (1414-1418), a group of Polish theologians and bishops obtained the solemn ratification of the first charter of tolerance and religious freedom, condemning all attempts to convert pagans "by fire and sword." This was the famous treatise by Paul Włodkowięc, *De potestate Papae et Imperatoris respectu infidelium* (On the Power of the Pope and Emperor Regarding the Infidels). This stance, duly proven, was made possible thanks to the sacrifice of Queen Jadwiga.

"Her all-too-brief life was a blessing for Poland. Historians are astonished by the variety and success of her peaceful interventions. To avert armed conflict, she was undeterred by long and arduous journeys on horseback, and such was the influence of her sanctity that her mere presence was enough to reconcile sworn enemies.

Let us recall one more feature that reminds us of Queen Jadwiga's French origins. The University of Krakow, founded by her grandfather Casimir the Great, was in decline. Jadwiga appealed to the University of the Sorbonne to restore it and, to that end, bequeathed all her royal jewels. From that time onward, exchanges between France and Poland increased significantly." "Jadwiga did not attend the inauguration of the university, which took place a year after her death. She did not see the increasingly fruitful results of her sacrifice and her reign.

The miracles that occurred at her tomb helped her contemporaries better understand the wonder of her historical work. The union of Poland and Lithuania, concluded in Horodius in 1413, evokes her memory, beginning with the great love letter of Saint Paul in the famous chapter 13 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. We find nothing similar in the history of Christian Europe, nothing that proves more clearly the indelible influence of holiness on public affairs. For the reign of Jadwiga of Anjou opened a new era for Poland and Lithuania, one that is unanimously considered to have begun its decline from the moment the testament of love, peace, and union bequeathed by the granddaughter of Saint Louis of France fell into oblivion.

Forgive us, dear brothers and sisters in Christ, for having insisted so much on the In remembrance of Queen Jadwiga. In the friendship that unites us, nothing could compare to the bonds of sanctity that simultaneously bind our two peoples. For Jadwiga is also yours by the blood in her veins that links her to the House of Anjou, and it is also in your interest to see her one day raised to sainthood. Her cause, introduced immediately after her death, delayed by the cause of the Duchess of Silesia, her namesake, whose feast day we celebrate on October 16, still awaits, like so many others, after the partitions of Poland.”

Here the Polish bishops emphasize Jadwiga’s French paternal lineage, without mentioning her Croatian maternal lineage or the political ties between Poland, Croatia, and Hungary. On her mother’s side, Jadwiga was the granddaughter of the Bans of Bosnia and Croatia, descendants of two illustrious Croatian dynasties: the Kotromanic and the Subic. These family links between the descendants of Saint Louis and the Croatian nobles were established when the Angevins ascended the Croatian-Hungarian throne, reigning then over the Two Sicilies with their seat in Naples.

They came to the throne of Croatia and Hungary at the beginning of the 14th century upon the extinction of the Árpád dynasty, founders of the Hungarian national monarchy, which also reigned in Croatia from the 15th century. In the 12th century, following the extinction of the Croatian national dynasty of the Trpimirovic, which had reigned from the 8th to the 11th centuries, the Croats and Hungarians, both Catholic peoples, had agreed to a political union under the common kings of the Árpád dynasty.

Due to the kinship between the two dynasties during the time of Gregory VII, and because of the need to defend themselves against Byzantine influence at the time of the definitive schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, they had agreed to a political union under the common kings of the Árpád dynasty. When that dynasty died out two centuries later, through the intervention of Pope Boniface VIII—whose very name evokes the aspirations and conceptions of that era—the Neapolitan Angevins, protected by the Pope, ascended to the throne, first of Croatia, then of Hungary, and finally of Poland. In this way, and with the support of the Holy See, a powerful monarchy was formed between the Adriatic and the Baltic, acting in accordance with papal policy, which would later be called "the Angevin line." In our time, there will certainly be attempts to revive it. in new forms and with imperialist purposes, Count Ciano before fascist Italy allied itself with the Third Reich.

The first king of the House of Angevin to the throne of Croatia and Hungary was Charles Robert (reigned 1300–1342). He was brought from Naples by the Croatian grandees, among them the most powerful, Paul I Subic, "hereditary ban of Croatia and lord of Bosnia" (reigned 1273–1312). In 1300, he was crowned in Zagreb. He was crowned a second time in Budapest with an improvised crown and a third time with the Crown of Saint Stephen in Alba Regia (Székesfehévár)[281].

Charles Robert married Princess Elizabeth, sister of the Polish king Casimir, who had no children. In 1339, Casimir and Charles Robert agreed that the Polish throne would be inherited by the eldest son of Elizabeth and Charles Robert, namely Louis I, known as the Great, Hungarian-Croatian king (reigned 1342–1382).

Upon Casimir's death, Poland was ruled in Louis's place by the queen mother, the last scion of the Polish Piast dynasty. After her death, Louis I reigned for twelve years. He left no male heirs but two daughters from his second marriage to Jelisava Kotromanic, daughter of Ban Stephen Kotromanic I, related to the Subic princes of ancient aristocratic lineage. The Subic family ruled for three generations as hereditary banes of Croatia, and, as mentioned earlier, Paul I Subic was also "Lord of Bosnia." This family later became known as the Zrinski family, after the town of Zrin in northern Croatia. The Zrinski family gave Croatia and Hungary a number of illustrious military leaders, statesmen, and writers.

Among them was the "Leonidas of Christendom," the Croatian ban Nicholas Subic Zrinski, who fell four hundred years ago defending Szigetvár (Siget in Croatian) in southern Hungary against the vastly superior army of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, who in 1566 was marching on Vienna, the seat of the Holy Roman Emperors of the Austrian House of Habsburg. Zrinski died, but the enormous army was halted before the fortress, and when Sultan Suleiman II died during the long siege, his grand vizier, Mohammad Pasha Sokolović, of Croatian origin,[282] had to return to Istanbul as winter approached, without having reached Vienna.

Louis I desired that his successor in Poland be the heir apparent to the Croatian-Hungarian throne, betrothed to his youngest daughter Maria (his eldest, Catherine, betrothed to the Dauphin, died very young), Sigismund of Luxembourg and Brandenburg, second son of Emperor Charles IV and later King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor. To this end, Louis I presented Sigismund to the Polish Diet of Zolion, but the Poles did not want a king of German origin nor a union with Hungary. They demanded that their queen be one of Louis's daughters who would reside in Poland.

Since Maria was already betrothed to Sigismund, they then turned to Princess Jadwiga, the youngest daughter of Louis of Anjou and Elisabeth Kotromanic. Jadwiga, as we saw earlier, was betrothed to William, Duke of Austria, but she sacrificed her feelings and married, at the request of the Poles, the Lithuanian Duke Jagello. In this way, Lithuania became Christianized, united with Poland, and thus the new Lithuanian-Polish Jagiellonian dynasty was founded. This dynasty gave several kings to Poland, and after the death of Sigismund I (who reigned from 1387 to 1437), kings of this house reigned in Croatia-Hungary: Władysław I (1440-44), Władysław II (1490-1516), and Louis II (1516-1526).

There are many other historical Polish-Croatian links. These ties date back to the early Middle Ages. When, at the beginning of the seventh century, during the migrations of the peoples, seven militarily organized Croatian tribes settled in the territory of Roman-Byzantine Dalmatia and Lower Pannonia, they left many of their kin in their former homeland north of the Carpathians, that is, in present-day Poland.

There, until the tenth century, existed White Croatia, which comprised the regions surrounding the future Polish capital, Kraków.[283] These Croats, over time, merged with the Czechs and Poles and undoubtedly constituted an important element in the ethnogenesis of the Polish people. In the South, the Croats mixed with the indigenous Illyrian, Celtic, and Roman populations. They were the first among the Slavic peoples to establish their own national monarchy and to embrace Christianity. Nevertheless, in Croatia, the memory of their former home beyond the Carpathians is still alive.

The greatest Croatian poet of the 17th century and one of the most illustrious writers of the Catholic Reformation era, John Francis Gundulic (1588-1638), in his principal work, the poem Osman, dedicated to the Polish Prince Ladislaus, victor over the Turks near Hodin in 1621, was convinced that the Poles would liberate the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe from Ottoman rule. His hope was not fulfilled, but half a century later, in 1683, the Polish King John Sobieski saved Vienna from the Turks. One of Vienna's principal defenders was none other than the son of our poet, Francis Gundulic, who became an imperial general and later a vice-marshal.

The millennium of the baptism of Poland is especially linked to Częstochowa, where the miraculous image of Our Lady is kept in the Church of St. Paul the Hermit (Pauline Fathers). It is the most famous convent of the Pauline Order, founded in Hungary and widespread primarily in Croatia and Poland. The most celebrated Pauline convents in Croatia, suppressed during the enlightened absolutism of Joseph II (1780-90), were located in Remete, Lepoglava. It is called Advocata Croatiae-Mater fidelissima (Most Faithful Mother of Croatia). On the same altar is a statue of Saint Jadwiga. The great Pauline monastery of Lepoglava, one of the most beautiful artistic monuments, already had a gymnasium (secondary school) in 1502, which was soon converted into an institute of higher learning with the right to grant doctoral degrees.

The illustrious Croatian George Utjesinovic Martinusic (Utiesenovich Martinuzzi) was prior of Czestochova during the reign of the last Jagiellonian king of Croatia. He was born in 1482 in Kamicak, Dalmatia, in the heart of the medieval Croatian kingdom. His father was Gregory and his mother Anna Martinusic. After the tragic defeat of the Christian forces at Mohács (1527), where the Hungarian-Croatian king Louis II Jagiello fell, Utjesinovic had to leave Częstochova and assume an important political mission.

In those difficult times of the Turkish advance, civil war broke out in Croatia and Hungary between the supporters of Ferdinand of Austria and the local candidate, Ivan Zapolya. Utjesinovic, always recorded by foreign historians as Martinuzzi, held the highest political offices in Hungary (palatine and commander of the army). Zapolya appointed him tutor to his son Ivan Sigismund. Utjesinovic strove to reconcile the two warring factions and, ultimately, succeeded. Ferdinand of Austria united under his rule all the regions of Hungary not under Ottoman control. At his request, Utjesinovic was appointed Primate of Hungary and cardinal.

Following the third partition of Poland, its province of Galicia became part of the Habsburg Monarchy. Within this context, Polish-Croatian relations were very cordial, particularly in the Imperial Council of Vienna, within the Austrian half of the Monarchy, which also included Galicia and the Croatian provinces of Dalmatia and Istria. The Poles, in the dualistic system of Austria-Hungary, played a relatively important role.

At the end of the First World War, Croatia followed the Polish resistance to the Soviet invasion with open sympathy. When, in 1939, under the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, Germany and Russia partitioned Poland for the fourth time, the Croats welcomed Polish refugees with open hearts and fraternal embrace. These refugees, traveling through Romania, sought to reach France and England to continue fighting until the end of the Second World War. Unfortunately, both Poland and Croatia, territorially amputated, were imported into the Soviet empire of satellites. After the war, Stepinac fell victim to communism, as did the courageous Cardinal Wyszynski. For several years, he lived in the Lepoglava Monastery, confiscated by Joseph II and converted into a prison.

The Croats were unable to attend Poland's millennium celebrations, nor could captive Croatia freely express its feelings and open allegiance to the Polish nation. These are the sentiments of two peoples with shared destinies, two peoples situated on the border of civilizations. The Poles feel the pressure of Russia, and the Croats that of Serbia, two countries with distinct traditions. The tenacious Polish resistance to Russian-Soviet dominance, like the Croatian resistance to Serbian-communism, represents both a defense of the traditional values of Western society on its still-threatened eastern border.

THE RESTORATION OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE HOLY SEE AND YUGOSLAVIA

Ivo Bogdan

On June 25, the protocol on "the regulation of relations between the Catholic Church and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was signed in Belgrade. Political commentators described the new situation as semi-diplomatic relations. Diplomatic relations between the Holy See and communist Yugoslavia existed from 1945 to 1952, until Belgrade unilaterally broke them off on December 16 in protest against the elevation of Archbishop Aloysus Stepinac, Metropolitan of Croatia, who had been sentenced to 16 years in prison, to the cardinalate. Until then, the Apostolic Nunciature, headed by Archbishop Hurley, now Archbishop of Florida, USA, was located in Belgrade.

The protocol was signed by Archbishop Hurley. Agustín Casaroli, Undersecretary of the Sacred Commission for Ecclesiastical Affairs, and Milutin Moraca, President of the Federal Commission for Ecclesiastical Questions.

Contents of the Protocol

The protocol consists of a preamble and four articles, two of which are further subdivided into two points.

The preamble states that the protocol was signed to establish regulations governing relations between the Catholic Church and the RSFY, which, according to the unofficial Vatican interpretation, would be the first step toward further agreements. Article I, in its first point, clarifies the position of the Yugoslav government, according to which the status of religious communities is determined by the Constitution and relevant laws. In the second point, the Yugoslav government guarantees the Catholic Church the free exercise of worship and recognizes the competence of the Holy See in the exercise of its jurisdiction, guaranteeing bishops contact with the Holy See.

In Article II, the Holy See, for its part, reaffirms its principled position, according to which the clergy must limit their activities to ecclesiastical functions without using them for political ends. The Holy See condemns all acts of political terrorism and political violence. Article III provides for future consultations "whenever they deem it necessary," and Article IV stipulates that they "proceed with the designation of their respective representatives with the title of Envoys.

This is not a resumption of diplomatic relations.

Regarding Articles III and IV, L'Osservatore Romano clarified the nature of these "Envoys" as follows:

An exchange of letters between His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia, on the same date as the signing of the protocol, specifies that, according to the established agreements, these envoys have the status of unofficial representatives, but that the norms established by international law, and especially the Vienna Convention of April 18, 1961, concerning the person and functions of diplomatic agents and the premises of their respective missions, will be fully applied to them.

Therefore, one cannot speak precisely of the resumption of diplomatic relations severed in 1952, as this is a different form of relations, which—at least in the practice of the Holy See—constitutes something new, but which seems appropriate to the special circumstances.

The Holy See's envoy in Belgrade will jointly (or rather, according to Article IV of the protocol, primarily) hold the title and functions of apostolic delegate: a title and functions well known, both from the provisions of the Code of Canon Law and from long-established practice in various countries.[284]

In the Holy See's communiqué on the signing of the protocol of June 25 regarding the exchange of envoys, the following was stated: “With the aim of continuing and making more structured the contacts thus initiated, the Holy See and the Government of the RSFY have decided to proceed with the exchange of unofficial representatives, to whom the privileges and immunities proper to diplomatic agents are guaranteed, in the conviction that this will contribute to the improvement of mutual relations and to useful cooperation in the international arena. The Holy See will therefore appoint an apostolic delegate, based in Belgrade, who will also have the functions of envoy to the Yugoslav government; This, in turn, will appoint its own envoy to the Holy See.[285]

Furthermore, the communiqué emphasizes the purpose of international collaboration in favor of peace and assistance among nations, which the Vatican body identifies as areas where "the presence and action of the Holy See have become increasingly assertive in recent times, arousing general hopes and approval."

Regarding Church-State relations in communist Yugoslavia (included in Articles I and II), L'Osservatore Romano highlights the legal guarantee given to the Church in Yugoslavia, since: "with its inclusion in the protocol, it is also given bilateral value in relation to the Holy See. Therefore, the Holy See may make to the Government any recommendations it deems necessary regarding the full application of the principles and guarantees stated therein, recommendations which the Government declares itself willing to consider."

The Political Activities of the Clergy

Regarding the Holy See's obligation (Art. II of the protocol) concerning the political activities of the clergy, unusual in their form and content, L'Osservatore Romano offers a lengthy commentary which, given its political implications, we transcribe in full:

The Holy See has deemed it possible, for now, to grant two of the requests made by the Yugoslav government, referring—in Art. II—to certain general principles whose validity is already guaranteed for Yugoslavia, as for any other country, by the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church, and which are hereby confirmed.

Thus, firstly, "the Holy See confirms the principled assertion that the activity of Catholic clergy, in the exercise of their priestly functions, must be carried out within the religious and ecclesiastical sphere"; in this way, any abuse of these functions "for purposes that are truly political in nature" would be illegitimate.

The principles of the Catholic Church in this matter are clear and well known, even if in their concrete application they may frequently clash with various, and not infrequently entirely unacceptable, concepts of what is encompassed "within the religious and ecclesiastical sphere," of what is truly "political in nature," and of what constitutes actual "abuse" of priestly functions. For the Catholic Church, those who dedicate themselves to the service of religion in the ecclesiastical state are not permitted, in the exercise of their sacred service, to act for ends that—however legitimate and laudable they may be in themselves—belong to a sphere other than that of the Church; that is to say, the sphere that includes, in particular, the exercise of worship and the administration of the sacraments, the teaching of the dogmatic and moral doctrine of the Church, pastoral care, and the guidance of the Catholic faithful toward a life consistent with their Christian faith.

Should any transgression occur in this area, the Church would be the first to seek a remedy.

For this reason, the Holy See—analogous to what the government does in Article I, "As far as it is concerned"—declares itself "ready to examine the cases that the government of the RSFY deems it necessary to bring to its attention for this purpose." Clearly, this does not mean that the Holy See has reason to fear that such cases will occur; it merely does not exclude—nor does it see how it could exclude—their possibility.

A startling declaration on terrorism

The same can be said about the second "position" expressed by the Holy See in response to the explicit request of the government, in which it, "in accordance with the principles of Catholic morality, disapproves of and condemns every act, committed by whomever, of terrorism and analogous criminal forms of political violence."

It may seem surprising, L'Osservatore Romano continues, that this declaration is made in relation to the not excluded possibility that some Catholic clergy may be accused or suspected of participating in such actions. But the reason why the Holy See does not reject—"should the Yugoslav government judge that Catholic clergy have participated in any such actions to the detriment of the RSFY and deem it necessary to bring these cases to the attention of the Holy See"—the possibility of declaring itself prepared to examine these allegations, to judge and eventually provide for them in the ways "prescribed for such cases by canon law."

At the end of the signing ceremony, Archbishop Casaroli declared:

"This act opens a new chapter in the relations between the Holy See and Yugoslavia and, consequently, we hope, in the relations between the Yugoslav State and the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia." He offered prayers for those who work "for peace, justice, and freedom."

Only one step

The previous day, June 24, the feast day of St. John Lateran, Pope Paul VI, speaking to the cardinals and members of the Roman clergy, indicated that from the beginning of his pontificate his attention had been directed especially "with very particular affection" toward the problems of the Church in Yugoslavia. He noted that in this regard he "gave his approval and instructions for the talks that the civil authorities have expressed a desire to hold with the Holy See with a view to honestly seeking a solution, even if incomplete, to the relations between the Catholic Church and the Yugoslav State."

"In this area, a positive step will be taken," the Holy Father said, "and we entrust this outcome to Providence so that it may bear fruit for the Church and the peoples of this nation."

"Modus vivendi" could not be signed due to Serbian opposition

In our brief analysis, we must point out that in its aforementioned commentary, L'Osservatore Romano emphasized that from the beginning of the negotiations "the possibility of reaching a concordat or a 'Modus vivendi' in the sense of a legal regulation, even a partial one, of the relations between the Catholic Church and the Yugoslav State was not taken into consideration."

This was opposed, L'Osservatore Romano clarifies, by the consideration, made present from the outset, that the Yugoslav state could not, based on its own Constitution, grant any of the various religious denominations present in the country a special legal status.

Thus, in the document (Art. I, 1), the Yugoslav government merely sets forth "the principles upon which, in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the legal status of religious communities is founded and which are guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws."

Knowing the political relations in Yugoslavia, where the influence of the Serbs and their national Orthodox Church prevails, it can be concluded that the Yugoslav government's invocation of the Constitution, which supposedly prevents a special status for the Catholic Church, is a mere pretext. It is simply a fear of provoking a violent reaction from the Orthodox Serbs, who are generally averse to any influence from the Holy See. It suffices to recall the analogous case in monarchical Yugoslavia. The concordat was signed in the Vatican on July 25, 1935, and ratified by the Belgrade Parliament on July 23, 1937, but the government did not dare promulgate it for fear of the Orthodox Church. The Serbian Holy Synod stirred public opinion and excommunicated the Orthodox deputies who voted for the ratification of the concordat.

The communist government's insistence on avoiding anything that might recall the concordat, or even a modus vivendi, stemmed from political, not legal, considerations. A few days after the protocol was signed, it emerged that Rankovic, Yugoslavia's second-in-command, was preparing a palace coup with the support of the Serbian communists. Tito, who knew all this, evidently had ample reason not to offend the political sensibilities of the Serbs who dominated the party and administrative apparatus.

The Belgrade government, in its negotiations with the Holy See, sought not only political gains in Western countries but also an impact on Croatian and Slovenian Catholics. However, fearing Serbian reactions, the negotiations were repeatedly postponed and dragged on for two years, as the protocol itself clarifies. The communist regime, dependent on economic aid from Western countries, had expressed a desire to reach an agreement with the Vatican during the pontificate of John XXIII, but subsequently erected all manner of obstacles[286] before finally reaching a rather incomplete agreement.

The greatest obstacle in the negotiations was the regime's evident desire to achieve maximum political gains with minimal concessions. Therefore, for the communist leaders, the pastoral letter from the Episcopate (full text under Documents) of the previous year constituted a serious impediment. In this pastoral letter, the bishops invited their parishioners to free themselves from fear and demand the rights to religious freedom guaranteed by the letter of the law.

It is well known that similar provisions on freedom of worship exist in the legislation of other "people's democracies," but it is highly debatable to what extent they are respected in practice. The pastoral letter pointed out precisely this difference between theory and practice, thus preemptively reducing the political impact abroad that the communist government in Belgrade sought to achieve in its negotiations with the Holy See. The communist government was postponing the final phase of the negotiations and, in the meantime, was pressuring the bishops to at least revoke the part of their pastoral letter concerning liberation from fear. The bishops, however, remained firm.[287]

Insistence on the Unusual Declaration Against Terrorism

Furthermore, the communist negotiators demanded that the Holy See, in a document with the force of a diplomatic agreement, repudiate not only the clergy's interference in political life, but also the alleged acts of the clergy related to political terrorism, which was the cause of the understandable delays.

Given that the communist regime justified its relentless persecution of Catholics, especially in Croatia, by the alleged political, terrorist, and criminal activity of the clergy (all these charges were leveled against Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac himself), the Vatican negotiators resisted this unusual demand[288] from a regime that imposed itself and exists by practicing territorial control as part of its system of government. The Yugoslav dictator himself insisted on this point. The respective declaration was a conditio sine qua non for the signing of the agreement. Consequently, a formula was found that allowed L'Osservatore Romano to interpret it as referring to highly hypothetical and future scenarios.

As for the declarations concerning world peace and peace, justice, and freedom in the relations of the peoples comprising Yugoslavia, it turns out there was no resistance from the Vatican. It is well known what all of this means in the terminology and thought of the Church and how much it differs from communist concepts.

However, from the very day the protocol was signed, the Yugoslav communist press commented on the agreement in a way that does not exactly align with the interpretations of the Vatican's unofficial mouthpiece. Politica, a major Belgrade daily, while acknowledging that the protocol constitutes the basis for further dialogue, considers it necessary to emphasize that this must be solely within the framework of state regulations concerning religious communities and that no exceptions in favor of the Catholic Church should be expected.

Vjesnik, Zagreb's main daily newspaper, commenting on the Holy See's declaration regarding the political activities of the clergy and its condemnation of any criminal acts, does not fail to link it to the "anti-communist and anti-Yugoslav hostile activities" of the exiled Croatian clergy living and working in democratic countries. This brings to mind the previous demands of the communist government, which deemed inadmissible the denunciations by the exiled clergy of the Yugoslav regime's religious and national repression of freedoms (See S.C. Year V, pp. 30-32, 164-166).

Consequently, we cannot rule out further attempts to curtail the freedom of expression of the exiled Catholic clergy by invoking the protocol of June 25. Of course, the totalitarian communist government of Yugoslav will have to learn that denouncing communist crimes and invoking the right of Croatian and Slovenian Catholics to national self-determination cannot be considered improper activities, much less criminal ones, but rather a fundamental right of every free human being. It is true, unfortunately, that the Yugoslav communists are free to trample on human rights within their own jurisdiction, but they have no right to demand that the Holy See itself become their accomplice.

An Attempt to Regularize Relations Between the Church and Communist States

The content of the protocol was described by the world press as an important step toward "the resumption of ties between the Holy See" and the communist regimes of Eastern Europe. To this end, the Holy See, after 14 years of severed relations with Yugoslavia, agreed to a meager accord. Paul VI himself, in his speech of June 24, called it incomplete and stated that it had been requested by the Yugoslav government, emphasizing his sincere desire to reach an honest solution. Relations between the Vatican and Yugoslavia constitute "something new... which seems appropriate to the special circumstances" and represent a step backward compared to the situation up to 1952, when the Apostolic Nunciature existed in Belgrade.

As for freedom of worship, guaranteed by the protocol, it already existed in Yugoslav legislation—on paper, of course. Moreover, freedom of worship in communist countries is not equivalent to religious freedom. The only new element is that now the Freedom of worship is also recognized in a diplomatic protocol, which stipulates that the representative of the Holy See may make any necessary claims against the Yugoslav government. In theory, the possibility of further negotiations "for the complete regulation of relations" is admitted, and Paul VI considers the signing of the Protocol an incomplete solution and an initial step in the regularization of relations between the Church and the Yugoslav State. A similar agreement had already been signed with the Hungarian government. In the current situation, the Church is determined to reach agreements, even limited ones, with communist states, despite the risk that the stipulations may not be respected. In such an event, responsibilities will be determined.

Fear of Croatian and Slovenian national resistance

Regarding the clergy's participation in political life and alleged terrorist and criminal activities, it suffices to note that in Croatia, even before the war, the Catholic hierarchy had prohibited the clergy from intervening in political activities. The same applies to the war period, when Archbishop A. Stepinac It had forbidden priests, previously elected as national deputies, from taking part in parliament (Sabor) when invited by the government of the Independent State of Croatia. Moreover, the Catholic clergy does not participate in partisan political life in the countries of the free West.

The insistence on prohibiting the clergy's terrorist and criminal activity is undoubtedly motivated by fear of Croatian and Slovenian national resistance to Serbian hegemony and, in reality, is counterproductive. The communist leaders, it seems, are psychologically incapable of correctly assessing the reactions of the free world to their obsessive fear of the hypothetical terrorist and criminal activities of the Catholic clergy. The Catholic Episcopate alluded to this state of mind when, in its protest addressed to Tito on September 25, 1952, noting that more than two hundred priests were still imprisoned for alleged criminal acts, it ironically asked: "Isn't it strange, by the way, that the clergy who in all “Civilized peoples do not come into contact with the penal code; in our country, it becomes so incorrigibly criminal?” [289].

The only thing that well-informed foreign observers can conclude from this “astonishing” (L’Osservatore Romano’s expression) declaration is that the Yugoslav communist regime: 1) continues to consider the resistance of Croatian Catholics to both communism and the imposed state union, which violates their right to self-determination, as dangerous, and 2) treats the demand for this universally recognized right as a criminal act, as long as its realization is advocated by Croats and Slovenes, almost the only Catholics in Yugoslavia. The aspiration for individual and national freedoms is so deeply rooted in Croatia and Slovenia that the Catholic clergy should not encourage it. On the contrary, the limited freedom of worship, processions, and other religious acts serve to allow the people to express their national consciousness, so the clergy is obliged to ask for moderation from their parishioners in view of of possible communist reprisals.

Lately, and repeatedly in Croatia, religious celebrations have also taken on the character of patriotic anti-communist demonstrations. This is inevitable in an environment where religious and national traditions are intimately intertwined. Thus, last year, on the Feast of the Assumption of Mary, the 250th anniversary of the defense of Sinj, Dalmatia, through the intercession of the highly venerated Virgin of Sinj, was commemorated. The official ceremony, presided over by Tito himself, was attended by barely 10,000 people, while the religious commemoration eight days later, with the attendance of Cardinal Francis Šeper, Metropolitan of Croatia, drew more than 40,000 faithful, enthusiastically singing religious hymns to the "Queen of the Croats" and cheering the "Croatian cardinal." Similar demonstrations took place in Zagreb, Split, Šibenik, and more recently in Dubrovnik, on the occasion of the celebrations of Saint Blaise, patron saint of the diocese and of the former Croatian republic of Dubrovnik.

Foreign observers, whose impartiality is beyond question, emphasize that in Croatia "the national sentiment is stronger than communism" and that young Croatians are persecuted if they criticize communism, but are cruelly punished when they demand the right to self-determination for the Croatian people.[290] The international press reported that in Croatia, 400 students and workers were arrested on "Yugoslav national holiday" for distributing leaflets demanding the right to self-determination. Many were tortured by the political police, and others were imprisoned in the notorious Goli Island prison, while forty were tried behind closed doors and sentenced last February to prison terms of two to eight years.

The New York Times[291] commented that this is a young generation, completely detached from the political exiles, and that "even in official circles in Croatia there is great resentment toward Belgrade... and Serbia, Croatia's traditional adversary." It is obvious, then, that in Belgrade they do not fear the Church's "political influence" so much because of its intrinsic opposition to materialistic and atheistic communism, but rather because in Croatia and Slovenia there is a natural solidarity between national and ecclesiastical interests in the struggle against communist dictatorship and Serbian domination.

The foregoing must be taken into account if one is to properly appreciate the circumstances surrounding the negotiations on relations between Belgrade and the Vatican and how sensitive the terrain is in which these relations unfold.

DOCUMENTS

The Protest of the Episcopal Conference of Yugoslavia Against the Restriction of Religious Freedoms

(The archbishops and bishops of Yugoslavia held plenary sessions of the Episcopal Conferences in May 1965 in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, under the presidency of the Metropolitan of Croatia, His Eminence Cardinal Francis Šeper. On May 21, they addressed to the faithful "The Joint Message of the Bishops of Yugoslavia" under no. 40-BK-1965, asserting the right to religious education for young people, repudiating abortions and divorces, and affirming the right to religious freedom.

The pastoral letter of the Catholic bishops constitutes valuable testimony to the pastoral situation of the Church in Croatia and Slovenia, western regions of Yugoslavia where Catholics live, while the eastern regions—Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia—are mostly inhabited by Orthodox Christians. This latter pastoral letter of the Catholic bishops, although moderated by Its style and tone, intended to reach the faithful, contain passages that prove that in communist Yugoslavia, international laws and obligations inherent to human rights and freedoms were not respected, and that even now, legal provisions and pronouncements on religious freedom are a flagrant example of the "legal hypocrisy" mentioned by Pope Paul VI in his Good Friday homily of 1964.

Below, we transcribe the complete text of this document in Spanish, as published by the Episcopal Ordinariate of Zadar and reproduced on a mimeograph under the responsibility of Archbishop Mateo Grkovic.

Beloved faithful:

"Grace to you and peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the will of God our Father, gave himself for our sins to rescue us from this present evil age. To God be glory forever and ever. Amen." (Gal. 1:3-5) Christ, the Master and Shepherd of souls, entrusted us with a sacred and responsible duty: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” (Matt. 28:19). St. Paul, aware of this great duty and responsibility, exclaims: “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Cor. 9:16). Deeply moved by this apostolic duty, he writes to his disciple Timothy: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, exhort, and rebuke, with complete patience and without ceasing to teach” (2 Tim. 4:1-2). We, your bishops, are successors to these apostolic rights and duties. Christ's words "Teach all nations..." compel and encourage us to teach you the Gospel doctrine and, according to it, guide our lives toward earthly blessing and blessed eternity.

We love you in the Lord and wish you every good, and for this reason we address this joint message to you, in which we must speak with utmost seriousness about some important issues in the Christian life, namely:

1) The religious education of our children and young people; 2) The protection of human life in the family; and 3) The freedom of Christians.

I. The Religious Education of Children and Young People

Beloved faithful, our hearts as pastors are filled with concern regarding the religious instruction and education of children and young people. This is a fundamental issue, for it concerns the Catholic guidance and teaching of our youth, the bearers of our future. These are hearts and souls that will never be fully guided if we do not help them together. It is difficult to find the right path among so many opposing opinions and systems that seek to give young people their vision of life.

Our youth have found themselves at a fatal crossroads without the necessary knowledge and experience. How many things are offered to them as solutions to life's problems and as paths to happiness? Unfortunately, young hearts, yearning for truth and happiness, are often captivated by what cannot satisfy their noble aspirations and youthful ideals. Therefore, we must all—bishops, priests, and you parents—come to their aid in a timely and sincere manner, speaking with love and sincerity. This is the last opportunity to approach children and young people with greater sincerity and resolve, offering them the ideal and nourishment of Christ's life.

Christian parents, before your child experiences their first conscious contact with the Church, they experience it with you. They came into this world through your collaboration with God, who inspired in them an immortal soul. Know well that your child, precisely because of divine collaboration in their existence, is destined by their very nature to be eternal. Just as you are the first and immediate collaborators in their birth, you must also be collaborators in their consecration, for God created this child for himself.

The natural bond between parents and child offers you the best opportunity to draw your child's soul and life closer to God, even from a very young age. Do not be misled into thinking that preschool-aged children are too immature for religious instruction and education. This period of early childhood and puberty is precisely the most important and decisive time in the formation of the human person. Your child depends entirely on you. Every word and deed of yours reveals an unknown world to them. They see everything around them as you see it and judge it as you judge it. By divine and natural law, you are the child's primary authority and their first link to life.

Do you understand how great your responsibility is? It is all the greater because the child was born not only for this world but also for the next. It is precisely through you that the little one must experience their first encounter with God and the Church. On your knees, they must learn to join their hands and pray. You are your child's first teacher, the first messengers of the Gospel, of the joyful news of the Kingdom and the grace of God, which, by virtue of baptism, resides in the child's soul. Your child must learn from you the blessed truth that God loves him and the sweet duty of responding with love to his Creator. In your hands lies the eternity of your children. The Church offers you instructions and advice so that you may fulfill this duty properly. She offers you the prayer book, the catechism, and religious publications. No home should lack these educational tools.

When your child reaches school age and you entrust him to teachers to broaden his knowledge, do not forget, beloved children, to take him immediately to the priest so that he may continue, as your assistant and collaborator, your child's religious formation. You, with paternal love, have begun this sacred task, and the priest, as spiritual director and friend, will continue and complete this blessed work.

If parents neglect this paramount duty, they err gravely and are responsible for this fatal omission before God and their own children. Remain in close contact with the priest and vigilantly follow your child's religious development. Every sacrifice in this regard will be richly rewarded, for God will bless you from the depths of your child's soul. Do not deceive yourselves into thinking you have fulfilled your duty if you ensure your child receives First Communion and Confirmation after only a brief and superficial instruction.

You know well that these sacraments are divine institutions, by which your children's souls must live, and they should not be considered merely beautiful customs that will later fade into memory. On the contrary, adequate preparation for receiving these sacraments must be the beginning of the child's true religious life, a life in which they must grow in wisdom, grace, and virtue. This is why we wholeheartedly condemn the sad practice of many parents who, after First Communion and Confirmation, no longer send their children to religious instruction. Know well that after receiving these sacraments, your duty remains to send your children to religious instruction until they finish school. As your children's general knowledge expands, it is necessary to deepen their religious understanding. The religious knowledge acquired in childhood is not enough for the adult, for they face problems that can only be solved with the help of sound and mature religious instruction.

We know that, regrettably, even now, despite legal provisions and constitutional guarantees, there are attempts to restrict religious instruction in various ways and to prevent it. We declare that such attempts violate your rights as parents. Whenever anything like this occurs, turn to us, and we—in accordance with our pastoral duty—will stand up for your sacred rights, for these rights are guaranteed by the positive laws of the State.

Especially, Christian parents, we urge you to take care of your children during their formative years. It is a period full of storms and crises, a stage that causes much concern to your children, to you, and to your priests and bishops. Therefore, you must not leave your children to chance. Turn to the priests, who will be their spiritual directors, their confessors, and their teachers. Your child will trust the servants of the Church if you trust them. During this period, youth often undergoes spiritual crises, becomes self-aware, overcomes feelings of subordination, and seeks originality to express its vibrant and spirited vitality. It is therefore very important that your children rationally and volitionally accept what they experienced emotionally in their childhood. Do not forget that a young person consciously entering life needs guidance. You will offer this guidance in collaboration with the Church.

Beloved Christian parents, your home should be a warm and sacred place. It will be so if the parents lead exemplary lives. Love, honesty, and peace should always reign in the family so that children can grow up normally, respecting moral values. Unrestrained behavior, quarrels, blasphemy, and insults must be kept far away, for otherwise the sacred flame of family happiness will be extinguished.

How scandalized little souls are even in their parents' home, hearing indecent conversations and insults! With the deepest sadness and disappointment, we must say that blasphemy and insults against what is most sacred are deeply rooted in many families in our community. To offend God, the Saviour, the Mother of God, and the saints—whether in word or writing—is to attack divine honor. The blasphemer strips himself of his own dignity and spreads destructive scandal, dishonoring the gift of speech, for the Lord said: “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! ... woe to the person through whom they stumble!” (Matthew 18:7).

Beloved sons and daughters, may no blasphemer dwell in your homes, for every blasphemer is a traitor to sacred things.

For the family to foster the proper Christian education of its children, it must be a home of prayer, for through prayer one is united with God, the source of all goodness, joy, and harmony. We warmly recommend that you practice family prayer together, which will have a special character of mutual unity and surrender to God. Through this prayer, great works will come to fruition for the flourishing and salvation of the family community, the basic cell of human society.

II. On the Protection of Human Life in the Family

Dear parents, we have spoken to you about the religious, supernatural life of your children, and now we consider it our duty to address another matter of paramount importance.

First and foremost, we must emphasize that God is the Creator of the world, and that all beings are subject to His laws. The origin of atoms, the movement of the stars, the blossoming of flowers, aquatic, terrestrial, and space life—all unfold according to the design of the eternal Creator.

As the crown of all His creation, God made humankind and imprinted upon our being the law of life, which does not imprison us but protects us from dishonor, humiliation, and temporal and eternal ruin.

Divine laws are immutable and sacred, and cannot be violated without grave and sorrowful consequences, even in earthly life. The human will must submit to the divine will in order to remain within the bounds of order, honor, and human dignity. The family, too, is an institution of divine origin and, as such, is subject to divine laws that give it meaning, preserve its sanctity, and determine its fruitfulness. We explained earlier that the family is a school of holiness, and now we must emphasize that the family is the sanctuary of the origin of human life.

Therefore, on this occasion, we consider it our greatest duty and right to rise up in the name of immutable divine laws, in defense of the lives still hidden in the sanctuary of the maternal womb. The greatness of woman and the dignity of man consist in their selfless service to life. Catholics must possess a profound understanding of the sublimity of the sacrament of marriage. The Catholic bride and groom are united before the altar with indissoluble bonds and are enriched with the gifts of grace. Through the sacrament of marriage, they are consecrated and authorized to be stewards of the sacred secrets of life.

For this reason, marriage, as a sanctuary of life, must not be violated in any way. How it pains us that so many married couples have become executors of death rather than bearers of life. They have distorted their primary and fundamental purpose. From the first moment of conception, the child is the blessed fruit of the mother's womb and entitled to all natural rights in human society.

Because it is not yet born, and due to its complete helplessness and dependence on the mother, it should enjoy the greatest protection and love even for a born child. Today, many homes are stained with the blood of the unborn, and there are so many that we are reminded of the words of Holy Scripture: "Their blood flows like water..." (Psalm 78:3). God will demand justice for every innocent person, as He asked the first murderer, Cain: "What have you done? Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground" (1 Moses 4:10).

Human life is sacred, and an innocent being always has the right to life. God is divinely consistent with Himself, and when He inscribed on the human conscience the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," He then intended to protect all human life: that of the young and the old, of the child and the mother, of the healthy and the dying, of the sane and the mentally ill, of children and adults. A mother gives life only to humankind; therefore, that tiny being she carries within her heart is a human being. And that unborn human being has the inalienable right to be loved, protected, and nourished by his mother, to be brought into the world with maternal tenderness, and then raised for the light of eternity.

Through motherhood, woman fulfills the designs of Providence, since the Creator placed within her the possibility and the desire for motherhood. By her nature, she is the mother of life, and by her deepest inclination, she desires to serve life. Woman is called to the extreme altruism of giving herself and living for others. Thus, the murder of the unborn child constitutes an attack on the very nature of woman, on humanity in general, and on the Church and the Mystical Body of Christ, to which, through baptism, that little human being should also have been united. No one has the right, for any reason whatsoever, to directly take the life of an innocent person, and even less so to make their life more carefree and easy. Human conscience condemns the crimes perpetrated during the last war, and now, where is that conscience? Why is it silent when similar crimes are committed against a much greater number of human beings?

The statistics on abortions in our country astound us. Some regions consistently register more deaths than births year after year. They prefer death to life and are also rushing headlong into their biological ruin.

Christian parents, without sacrifice and magnanimity, marriage cannot be lived with dignity. The true meaning of sacrifice and selfless love can only be achieved in the light of supernatural and eternal reality.

We, the undersigned archbishops and bishops, solemnly declare that every intentional and directly performed abortion is a grave sin before God, and for all the faithful who participate in it, it entails the ecclesiastical punishment of excommunication (CCC, k 2350-1). Awakened consciences and Christian conscience must restore respect for human life in public opinion.

III. On the Freedom of Christianity

"Brothers and sisters, it is time for you to wake up from your slumber" (Rom. 13:11). We find ourselves at the crossroads of a great era and at the heart of decisive times. It is our duty to contribute to the progress of the human community by living according to the Gospel. The Church renders the greatest service to human society by guiding human consciences and lives toward spiritual and eternal values.

In the life of a nation, it is not a matter of indifference if young people lose sight of the honor and dignity of the human person and set as their goal only fleeting pleasures, sinking to the depths of sexual promiscuity.

It is very important for the life of a nation if statistics record an increasing number of divorces each year, especially if they affect thousands of children who lose the warmth and protection of their families.

It is not a matter of indifference for the life of a nation if men give themselves over to drunkenness, theft, hatred, and violence.

The Church considers it its divine mission to turn humanity away from evil and educate it for goodness and justice in the truth. In doing so, it becomes the most sincere collaborator with all people of goodwill in building a peaceful and dignified human life.

Although its primary mission is to lead humanity to the eternal homeland, it cannot remain indifferent to what happens in this world.

The Church advocates for harmony and love among people of all colors and races, of all convictions and social classes. She strives to contribute to building a world of peace, justice, and genuine solidarity among all people, yet she encounters opposition and misunderstanding. But she continues to preach love for all: for those who accept the Gospel as their life's conviction and for those who declare themselves atheists. We must hate or despise no one. In every person, we must respect their human dignity.

No one's convictions should be violated. Religion cannot be imposed on anyone by force, nor can atheism. In the name of human dignity, we solemnly declare that the faithful have the right to be respected. The Church cannot preach any humanism other than that of love and peace. She blesses every effort for the good and peace of the world, not only universal peace among nations, but also the individual peace of each human being: so that they may pray in peace, so that they may live a life worthy of humanity in peace.

We are troubled by a strange psychosis of a certain fear and circumspection in professing their faith and fulfilling their Christian duties. Because of this, many do not want to baptize their children, do not marry in the Church, and do not receive the other sacraments. They do not go to church or send their children, even though they are convinced that this is their duty, and they commit these omissions with remorse of conscience and discontent in their souls.

We solemnly declare that in every system, man must be considered in his entirety. He is not merely the body. He possesses reason, the immortal soul that aspires to spiritual values. Therefore, to feel content and at peace, man has the right to complete freedom to live his life according to his religion and conscience. This right is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This right is also enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, signed by all member states. Article 1 of the Law on the Legal Status of Religious Communities states: "Citizens of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are guaranteed freedom of conscience and freedom of religion."

Article 6 of the same law states: "No one may prohibit a citizen from participating in religious rites and other manifestations of a religious nature. No one may compel a member of a religious community to relinquish the rights to which he or she is entitled as a citizen under the Constitution and the laws."

In every forum around the world, human rights are discussed, and it is considered barbaric to persecute a person because of the color of their skin. But if a grave injustice is inflicted on a person when they are marginalized and despised because of a physical characteristic, then an even greater injustice is committed when their spiritual reality is attacked and they are humiliated because of their religious convictions.

The law guarantees freedom of conscience and religious freedom, but certain individuals with unacceptable practices abuse their position and, in various ways, exert pressure on consciences, thus creating a climate of fear, which is contrary to the law. Such abuses occur particularly in schools, businesses, and institutions.

From those in positions of authority, we loyally and solemnly demand the protection of the law, and from the faithful, courage and resolve in professing their faith. Jesus Christ speaks to all generations: “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God” (Luke 12:8).

Beloved faithful, do not allow yourselves to be overcome by feelings of inferiority, and take note of your rights. We do not wish to offend anyone, and we do not deserve to be offended by anyone. By the very nature of human dignity, every citizen has the inviolable and inalienable right to raise their children according to their conscience, to marry according to their conscience, and to fulfill their religious duties according to their conscience, to do good, and to live honorably.

Do not forget that every decision creates a new possibility for action, and reproaches, mockery, and intimidation should not weaken you. If you are conscious of following the truth, then you must never deviate from it. Having character is endearing, even to an adversary. "Do not let your hearts be troubled," says the Lord (John 14:19). Beloved faithful, do not be empty, but be proud and consistent in your faith. Jesus Christ lives forever in his Church. “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). In these words with which the Savior encouraged his apostles, we too find strength and help.

“Do not throw away your confidence, which has a rich reward. For you need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what he has promised,” says St. Paul (Heb. 10:35-36).

Beloved faithful, we address these paternal words to you, moved by concern and love for your souls, and pray that "the God of all grace" (Peter 5:10) may continually strengthen your faith so that it may confirm your hope and multiply your love, so that "you may not grow in your steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen" (2 Peter 3:17-19).

May the blessing of the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—descend upon you all and remain with you now and forever.

In Zagreb, May 21, 1965, issued by the Plenary Conferences of Bishops.

The government requested that the bishops withdraw the pastoral letter. Its Diplomatic Implications

"After the arrival (in Belgrade), in January 1945, of Msgr. Casaroli, Undersecretary of the Congregation for Extraordinary Affairs of the Holy See, the imminent signing of an agreement was expected in the Yugoslav capital. Then Msgr. Casaroli returned to Belgrade last August. It was such a discreet visit that the journalists didn't even notice..."

"Contrary to what the press reported, it seems that this is not an 'agreement' as in the case of Hungary, but rather a protocol by which diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Yugoslavia would be established. A Vatican representative, who necessarily would not have the rank of nuncio, could continue negotiations there in Belgrade to find a solution to the problems that have arisen."

If this protocol was not signed then, it was because the government used the pretext of a pastoral letter from the Yugoslav episcopate. This letter, drafted on May 21, 1965, during a plenary conference, was made public in early September and was published in the Glas Koncila period (September 5).

"The Yugoslav embassy in Rome asked the bishops present at the Council to unequivocally deny it. But, despite certain pressures, more or less veiled threats, and even a flood of 'spontaneous letters' sent from the country by lay people, priests, and, in some cases, vicars general, the bishops' solidarity remained unbroken: they refused to deny it. For the moment, the matter stands."

"The letter from the Yugoslav episcopate simply demanded respect for religious freedom, guaranteed, in principle, by the Constitution." It is true, however, that compared to other Eastern European countries, believers in Yugoslavia enjoy much greater freedom.

"Religion is free, but there are numerous restrictive laws," a bishop told me. "They are applied subtly, which gives the impression of tolerance. In fact, the regime's policy is now more skillful. Before, they attacked religion head-on. It was open persecution. It provoked resistance that threatened to destroy the hard-won gains of socialism. Now, the range of methods used is broad: it ranges from persecution to tolerance." "It is with the keys of tolerance that the government is playing lately."

(Cf. "Nous construirons des ponts...," by Vladimir Hawryluk, Informations Catholiques Internationales, Paris, No. 15, February 1966, p. 19).

NOTES AND COMMENTS

Croatian Catholics and Ecumenism

Ivo Bogdan, Buenos Aires

Informations Catholiques Internationales (Paris, No. 256, February 15, 1966, pp. 17-26) publishes a "Survey in Yugoslavia" conducted by its special correspondent Vladimir Hawryluk to explore the possibilities of the ecumenical movement.

The need for rapprochement between peoples, religions, and civilizations is the most urgent in the current phase of human history. Only closed-minded people, obstinate in their prejudices, can oppose this trend, so with great sympathy and keen interest we follow the ecumenical commitment of this French fortnightly publication.

Such a principled stance does not preclude us from raising certain fundamental objections to this highly interesting and useful survey, convinced that ignoring the difficulties that arise in such a crucial sector could have a counterproductive effect.

The author himself acknowledges that Yugoslavia is a complex and heterogeneous terrain: "Two scripts, Cyrillic and Latin; three religions: Orthodox, Catholic, and Islamic; four languages: Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, and Macedonian; five nationalities: Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Montenegrin, and Slovenian; six republics: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Montenegro, to which must be added two autonomous provinces: Vojvodina and Kosovo-Metohija... Bridges were needed to forge a state from this human mosaic, divided by history and geography."

The image of bridges to consolidate Yugoslavia appears in the title itself ("We will build the bridges...") and is taken from Ivo Andric's novel, The Bridge on the Drina River. The sad thing is that the author did not grasp the full extent of the Greater Serbian tendency of that phrase, which constitutes a challenge to all non-Serb peoples of Yugoslavia. It is worth noting that with this phrase, Andric declared himself in favor of annexing to Serbia those territories that, due to their ethnic composition, national consciousness, geographical location, and cultural and political traditions, are not Serbian.

When Mr. Hawryluk mentions the autonomous territories of Vojvodina and Kosovo-Metohija within the Socialist Republic of Serbia, he evokes in the minds of those concerned and informed that Serbs constitute a minority there and that attempts were made to make them a majority through violent means, including the mass killing of the Muslims of Kosovo and the Catholics and Protestants of Vojvodina, where the German minority of 500,000 people was exterminated or expelled.

Vladimir Hawryluk is so influenced by Serbian anti-Croatian propaganda that, when referring to the conflicts between Serbian Orthodox and Croatian Catholics, he cites only the figure of 200,000 Orthodox Christians, allegedly killed during the last war by the Ustaša regime. He readily accepts this figure as justifiable grounds for Serbian opposition to ecumenism, without mentioning that these were the victims of a bloody war between two peoples. He doesn't even mention the hundreds of thousands of Catholics, victims of both Serbian nationalists and communists.

Responding in line with the guiding principle of Informations Catholiques Internationales, which tends toward "openness" to the "socialists" of Central and Eastern Europe, Hawryluk mentions that "three writers (without specifying them) at the beginning of the 19th century dreamed" of a Yugoslav state, created in 1918. That state, he adds, "was abolished in 1941 by the Germans, who imposed puppet governments in its divided parts." "It was precisely in the resistance led by the Communist Party and its leader, Tito, that new bridges were forged and built. Their foundation was the socialist revolution." If we add that the author then speaks of the "original" Yugoslav socialism that could serve as a bridge between the "collectivism" of the East and the "capitalism" of the West, we have the basic assumptions that determined this survey in its political aspect.

It is no surprise that in Croatia and Slovenia no one dared tell Mr. Hawryluk that Tito's communists were not building any new bridges and that, in fact, no old bridges existed. The "three" unidentified writers—whom Hawryluk mentions—certainly did not want what was created in 1918, if indeed they ever, deluded by the Pan-Slavic movement, dreamed of a South Slavic political community (not forgetting the Bulgarians, whom Hawryluk does not consider). In 1918, Croatia and Slovenia were annexed to the Kingdom of Serbia. Between the two world wars, the Croatian people—as Cardinal Stepinac stated—repeatedly declared themselves, in a plebiscite, against this forced and unnatural community.

During that period of precarious peace, the non-Serb peoples and national minorities of Yugoslavia, under the protection of the French Third Republic, were deprived of their individual, political, national, and religious rights and freedoms, especially during the dictatorship of King Alexander, established in 1929. This ruthless dictatorship was determined to perpetuate Serbian dominance, allied with Orthodox proselytism. The explosion of 1941 was inevitable. Hitler was not needed for the reestablishment of the Independent State of Croatia.

Documents from the Reich Chancellery clearly show that Hitler's program did not include the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the restoration of the Croatian state. The Croats had voted repeatedly in elections for the Croatian Peasant Party, a distinctly democratic, pacifist, and socially progressive party. Its leader, Stefan Radić, was assassinated in the Belgrade parliament building. Hitler merely exploited the chain of nationalist uprisings; he did not create them.

Stalin and Tito employed the same tactic when they used Serbian nationalism to restore Yugoslavia to its role as Greater Serbia. In the guerrilla war in Yugoslavia during the last conflict, which captivates certain Western circles, massacres were committed against Serbs, and especially against hundreds of thousands of Croats, Slovenes, and members of the German, Albanian, and Hungarian minorities, indiscriminately, without regard for their Catholic, Islamic, or Protestant faith. The tragic toll thus heavily favored the Serbs. The recriminations regarding these massacres, unleashed by Serbian nationalists, repaid by the Ustaše, and intensified by the communists, are in no way conducive to building "new bridges" for ecumenical dialogue.

The communists did not persecute only the Catholic clergy. In Zagreb, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Croatia, Germogeno, the Evangelical Bishop Dr. Popp, and the Mufti of Zagreb, Muftic, were killed. Orthodox Chetniks—sometimes armed and protected by the Italians—killed tens of thousands of Muslims, and the communist government transformed the Zagreb mosque into a partisan museum.

Nor can the persecution of Archbishop Stepinac, of whom Hawryluk speaks in ambiguous terms, constitute a "new bridge," and of whose "most sorrowful trial" (an expression of Pius XII) he speaks in an ambiguous sense, maintaining that "the passion of the accusers seemed to be stronger than their legal arguments." Pope John XXIII spoke of Cardinal Stepinac differently, considering him "a faithful reflection of the Good Shepherd, faithful and edifying," and asking after his death for "his protection over the entire Sacred College, of which he remains a shining example..."

The communists could not wield any legal argument against the Catholic Church, and even less so against the brave and just defender of divine and human rights such as Stepinac, perhaps the Catholic prelate with the clearest ecumenical sentiment, who with courage and clarity condemned the doctrine and excesses of National Socialism during the last war, and that at a time when German tanks were stationed in front of his residence for many months, and defended the Orthodox and Jews in open defiance of the all-powerful of the time.

The fighting and mutual massacres that took place in Yugoslavia during the last war were not religious in nature, but national. Even the communist rulers themselves have recently acknowledged that Yugoslavia remains torn apart by national conflicts. Especially concerning the Croats during the last war, one cannot speak of a religious war, but a national one. If it were a new Crusade, how could one explain the fact that nothing happened to the Muslims and Protestants in Croatia, while they, like their Catholic brethren, suffered greatly at the hands of the Serbian Chetniks and the communists? The Orthodox in Croatia, established there for centuries, instead of uniting with the Croats, became, under the influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church, an instrument of nationalist agitation, subversion, and oppression in Serbia. This agitation did not begin in 1941: one of its tragic consequences was the assassination in Sarajevo. In Croatia, no Orthodox Christian loyal to their homeland was persecuted; moreover, several Orthodox Christians served in the government and the high command of the Croatian army.

Yugoslav "original socialism" resulted, among other things, in the ruthless exploitation of Croatia and Slovenia for the benefit of eastern Yugoslavia, and primarily Serbia. Victor Meier, a Swiss writer, established that Slovenia contributes 34% of the revenue of the Yugoslav federal government, and of that sum, only 7% is returned to Slovenia. It is logical that all this occurs in a nationally and culturally heterogeneous state, where the domination of Serbia, a country with a specific mentality opposed not only to the Western traditions of Croatia and Slovenia, but also to the national identity of the Bulgarians, Macedonians, and Albanians of Kosovo-Metohija, who are Orthodox and Muslim, is being imposed by force.

All people of goodwill wish to smooth over the antagonisms between peoples and civilizations, but experience teaches us that, to achieve this end, the domination of one people over another is the least suitable path. We know that the powerful colonial powers of Western Europe, despite their high culture and advanced economic development, could not maintain their domination over much weaker African peoples as soon as these began their national awakening. How can it be assumed, then, that Serbia, a small Balkan country, representing barely a quarter of the territory and total population of Yugoslavia, and relatively backward economically and culturally, will be able to continue dominating Croatia and Slovenia, countries with Western traditions? If it is permissible to compose a large thing, who can reasonably expect that the incorporation of Poland into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could contribute to a rapprochement between Russian and Polish, and between Catholic and Orthodox cultures? Isn't it obvious that behind the controversy between the Polish communist government and the Catholic episcopate lies the fear of the failure of the Soviet policy of distancing Poland from the Western world, to which it has belonged for a millennium through its traditions and sentiments?

No one has as much experience with the "opening" of Western Christendom to the Orthodox East as the Croats (see Bonifacio Perovic: Krizanic - Strossmayer - Mandic, "S.C.", 1962, vol. 1 (6), pp. 31-42). The Slavic aspirations of Krizanic and Strossmayer proved to be an illusion when confronted with reality. This does not mean, however, that we Croats will renounce our ecumenical traditions, which are, moreover, determined by geography and the Slavic linguistic community. In Croatia, besides the Orthodox minority, nearly a million Muslims live in the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina—Croats by nationality, but linked to the Islamic East by religion and not-so-distant memories. Ancient Croatia, once free and independent by virtue of the same right granted to young African nations, can and should be the country where ecumenism is practiced, but Yugoslavia, created and maintained by force, cannot be, where, of course, there is neither political nor religious freedom: Without freedom, only proselytizing can be practiced, but never ecumenism.

Croats and Serbs, masters of their own house, can engage in a positive dialogue in an ecumenical spirit. Authentic dialogue between oppressor and oppressed is impossible. What holds true on a universal level regarding dialogue between communist rulers and persecuted, barely tolerated Catholics also applies to Croats and Serbs as two distinct nations. The relationship between oppressor and oppressed is unworthy of humankind, born to be free.

Serbian domination in Croatia harms not only Catholics and Muslims but also Orthodox Christians. Serbs, devoted to Yugoslav unitarianism, will strive to maintain political continuity by force, contrary to the legitimate rights of the peoples involved, and refuse to acknowledge that the peoples and minorities concerned (for example, there are almost as many Albanians in Yugoslavia as in Albania) have the right to freely decide on their preferred citizenship. For this reason, the Serbs sought to secure Yugoslavia (Greater Serbia) first by resorting to a monarchical dictatorship under the protection of the French Third Republic and then to a communist dictatorship under the protection of Soviet Russia.

To the inevitable resistance to their hegemony, the Serbs respond with a rigid attitude, making dialogue impossible. Hawryluk had to record, with regret, the reactions of the Orthodox Serbs, who make no secret of the fact that this is not a propitious moment for practicing ecumenism. They tirelessly demand that the persecuted Catholic Church express its condolences for the suffering of the Serbs in Croatia during the last war.

They act as if it were not common knowledge that the Catholic hierarchy, and especially Archbishop Stepinac, condemned all violence during the war and did everything possible to prevent the excesses committed by the Croats instigated by the Serbs. All the Serbs Hawryluk spoke with demanded that the Croatian bishops condemn the Croatian state as proof of their goodwill. "Such a gesture from the Church, and not a pastoral letter from one bishop or another separately, will automatically contribute to the thawing of our relations." Not a single word about the Croats' right to national freedom and their obligation to forgive the Serbs. Not a word about the proven fact that the Croats' excesses were a response to the violence and virulence of Greater Serbian nationalism, which had ruled Croatia for twenty years.

The pastoral letter in question refers to the 1964 Christmas message addressed to his parishioners by Bishop A. Pichler of Banjaluka (Bosnia). In his message of peace and goodwill, Bishop Pichler condemned the excesses committed against Orthodox Christians during the last world war by those who call themselves Catholic. The bishop went so far as to not even mention that there were serious excesses on both sides and that, in reality, the Orthodox had started the killing of the Catholics.

It is not our intention to justify anyone's excesses, but it is necessary to establish the truth: there was no religious war, but rather the repression of the rebellion of the Serbian Orthodox minority in Croatia. This does not mean, however, that such subversion justifies indiscriminate repression.

There is another fact that must be emphasized in the pursuit of truth and justice. The Croats did not cross the borders of Serbia; on the contrary, the Serbs did, moving from Serbia into Croatia, and, to top it all off, under the protection of the army of Catholic Italy. The fascist government wanted to divide Croatia between Italy and Serbia. It aided the Serbian minority in committing massacres against Catholics and Muslims in Croatia. Reports on this matter exist in the Vatican from the Apostolic Delegate to Croatia (1941-1945), Abbot Ramiro Marcone, and from Archbishop Stepinac.

On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the Serbs carried out horrific reprisals against the Croats not only during the war, but also afterward, when they murdered at least 200,000 Croats, including civilians and unarmed soldiers, in the criminal act known as the Bleiburg Tragedy.

Nevertheless, it is right and proper for Catholic Croats to lament the harm inflicted on Serbian Orthodox Christians. It would be logical to expect an identical gesture from the Serbs in response to Bishop Pichler's message. Moreover, approaching this issue from a purely political perspective, and considering that the Croats were provoked and that it would be prudent to appease them given their confinement to the same state as the Serbs and under their hegemony, the Serbian Orthodox Church should be the first to extend a conciliatory hand and recognize the Croats' right to national freedom. Ultimately, a united front in the struggle for religious freedom would be mutually beneficial.

It is reasonable to assume that Bishop Pichler acted deliberately as a representative of the Church, free from all political implications. Motivated by the spirit of Christian ecumenism, he disregarded the political considerations, extremely important for the Croats given their subordination within Yugoslavia, and asked forgiveness of his Orthodox Christian brothers without alluding to the need for reciprocal forgiveness. He may have done so in the conviction that his noble gesture would be reciprocated by the Serbian Orthodox Church, and in the same spirit. This is all the more likely given that shortly before, German Catholics (and not the Holy See, as V. Hawryluk erroneously claims) had contributed to the reconstruction of the Orthodox church in Banjaluka, damaged by German bombing and subsequently destroyed. The Orthodox Serbs demand that the Catholic hierarchy officially condemn Catholic excesses, but they don't even mention their own excesses, while the Serbian Patriarch German, very cautious in his statements, speaks only of forgiveness but not of repentance. The attitude of the Polish episcopate in its message to the German bishops is entirely different. Although the Polish people were undeniably victims of German aggression, the Polish bishops speak of both forgiveness and repentance, thus exposing themselves to arbitrary attacks from the communist regime, intent on perpetuating and encouraging nationalist antagonisms and passions.

Bishop Pichler went further than the Polish episcopate. On behalf of the Catholic Church in Croatia, he found only the repentance of Catholics. The absence of a similar declaration from the Orthodox prelates deeply affected the Croatians. To clarify the situation, it suffices to note that the number of Catholics in the Banja Luka region, Bishop Pichler's diocese, was halved during the war.

Nevertheless, Hawryluk's report, apart from its misguided political perspective, contains several valuable facts and constitutes a commendable ecumenical effort. In our commentary, we limit ourselves to the political aspect, which escaped the author's attention. It is worth noting an important fact related to the position of Muslims toward the Christian Churches, with its lesser-known political implications. Hadji Sulejman ef. Kemura, the supreme head of the Muslim religious community (Reis-ul-ulema), while maintaining very good relations with the communist regime, declared that he saw no possibility of theological cooperation with Christians, but showed keen interest in the Vatican Secretariat for Relations with Non-Christians. "If Cardinal Seper extends a hand to us, we will accept it." Hawryluk rightly suggests that ecumenical collaboration between Catholics and Muslims could eventually become viable. "Perhaps, for reasons rooted in history, this openness would be received more favorably than if it came from the Serbian side... But there is a problem that must not be forgotten in that case: the State." Here the author touched on political reality. The Belgrade government is trying to separate Muslims from Catholics, not only because of the regime's anti-religious nature. The Communist Party, which, in the name of "brotherhood and unity," forces non-Serb peoples to coexist in the undesirable supranational community under Serbian hegemony, treats Muslims in a peculiar way.

Of the six "socialist republics" that make up "the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia," five were constituted roughly according to national criteria. Only Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to official theory, forms a nationally heterogeneous Serbian-Muslim-Croatian federal unit. If Muslims could declare themselves Croats, which they are, then Bosnia and Herzegovina should be incorporated into the Socialist Republic of Croatia, to which they belong by virtue of their ethnic composition, geography, transportation routes, economic interdependence, and historical-constitutional right.

Under the official theory that Muslims are not Croats, but rather a "nationally undefined" group, Bosnia and Herzegovina are separated from Croatia and governed by Serbs, who constitute an ethnic minority in those provinces. Furthermore, Orthodoxy is mistakenly equated with Serbian nationality in Croatia. For example, General Georgy Grujic, commander-in-chief of the Croatian state army, was condemned after the war as a "traitor" for having served his country, despite being Orthodox. Grujic defended himself before the communist tribunal by stating that he was a Croat of the Orthodox faith and that his religious affiliation does not determine nationality.

Yugoslavia, evidently, is not building bridges, as the author suggests in the very title of his survey, taken from the novel by Ivo Andrić, considered a renegade by many Croats for the political leanings of his masterpiece. His conception of a Greater Serbian-oriented Yugoslav union is rejected today even by the few Croatian intellectuals who once believed in the possibility of a Yugoslav state community, where the vital interests of each people would harmonize with the interests of the whole.

Andrić, however, insists on this conception, even though it has been proven that a political transaction between two peoples of different cultures is not feasible and that Yugoslavia cannot become a community of peoples with equal rights. Croatia and Serbia are such culturally and politically antagonistic countries that President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to convince Sir Anthony Eden during the last war that it is absurd to force Serbs and Croats to live together under a common government.

The antagonism did not disappear even after the war, when Yugoslavia was restored after the democratic countries yielded to Soviet pressure. Therefore, Hawryluk's conclusion that, over time, national rivalries between Serbs and Croats would be smoothed out, religious relations would normalize, and Yugoslavia could become fertile ground for fruitful ecumenical cooperation is mistaken. On the contrary, national tensions, unmitigated by the communist regime, hinder ecumenical dialogue. It is true that the Catholic hierarchy strives, despite everything, to achieve a tolerant situation, at least in Croatia. To this end, it tries to strip the ecumenical idea of all political implications. Valuable commentaries and articles in this regard were published in the Croatian religious press (Glas Koncila). The task is not easy, not so much because of the old conflicts and Croatia's subordinate status to Serbia, but because dialogue requires two parties.

Unfortunately, the Serbian national church, deeply politicized, interprets the idea of Christian unity as an action in favor of Greater Serbian political conceptions. This is clearly inferred from the seemingly conciliatory statement of Serbian Patriarch German to Mr. Hawryluk. For the head of the Serbian Church, the "special reason" for rapprochement between Orthodox and Catholics would be "the interest of the common homeland," that is to say, Yugoslavia, which for Croats is not "the homeland" but rather an aggrandized Serbia, an oppressive state that deprives the Croatian people as a whole and Croats as individuals of their fundamental rights and freedoms.

While the Serbian national Church, which has subjected all Orthodox Christians to its jurisdiction regardless of nationality (namely, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and members of the Romanian and Albanian minorities), wants the ecumenical movement to serve the ends of Serbian imperialism, the sincere ecumenical efforts of Croatian Catholics, as Mr. Hawryluk has noted with satisfaction, can only be useful on an interfaith level within Croatian national territory, particularly in bringing the Catholic majority closer to the Orthodox and Muslim minorities. This will only be possible when Croatian Orthodox Christians recognize Croatia, and not neighboring Serbia, as their true homeland.

Given that the Communist Party seized power by exploiting national antagonisms, it is highly doubtful that the communist leaders will tolerate the ecumenical efforts they applaud in theory. In practice, like their counterparts in Poland and Czechoslovakia, they do everything possible to prevent old wounds from healing, to ensure that nationalist excesses are not forgotten, and to create new reasons for hostility and animosity between Croats and the Serbian minority in Croatia.

To this end, they offer a biased interpretation of the scope and nature of the conflict between Serbian and Croatian nationalism. Since the ruling regime relies on Serbian nationalism and considers it the guardian of the Yugoslav state in its role as an expanded Serbia, Croats and Catholics inevitably come out looking bad. Therefore, Catholic authors, who are distrustful, in their good faith, of anything that could be interpreted as Catholic "fundamentalism" and, conversely, are very open to the views of non-Catholics, even communists, risk doing an injustice to a nation with deep-rooted Catholic tradition.

We do not wish to discuss here whether Croatian Catholicism is partly "fundamentalist," as Mr. Hawryluk seemed to think. One would have to consider the precedents of the First Vatican Council, where Bishop Strossmayer held positions that only triumphed at the Second Vatican Council. Strossmayer was not only the head of a vast diocese, but also the prestigious architect of modern Croatian culture and the bearer of the political ideas for which the circumspect and restrained Emperor Franz Joseph I censured him in the presence of high dignitaries, expressing doubt that he was abnormal. John XXIII often praised the Catholicism of "that fervent and devout Croatia," which he personally encountered during his travels as nuncio to Constantinople.

Archbishop Stepinac, by virtue of his spiritual formation and inclinations, was not an "integrist." His colleagues at the Germanicum can attest to this. Before entering the major seminary, Stepinac, an agronomy student, belonged to a circle of intellectuals sympathetic to Christian social movements. Later, as Metropolitan of Croatia, he always relied on the collaboration of Catholic intellectuals from that group. Glas Koncila (The Council's Spokesperson), the most widely circulated newspaper in Croatia, which successfully presents "the new face of the Church" and is praised by Mr. Hawryluk, is not an isolated incident unrelated to the earlier Catholic movement in Croatia. Although the strong current of social Catholicism, very intense among intellectuals, did not yield good results in the political sphere because of the Croatian-Serbian national conflict, it nevertheless contributed considerably to the maturity of Catholicism in Croatia.

When Austria-Hungary disintegrated in 1918, many Croats did not lament it. The Croatian Parliament (Sabor) unanimously decided on October 29, 1918, to sever all state ties with Austria and Hungary. While the majority of the people opposed Croatia's integration into the Kingdom of Serbia, Bishop Mahnic, founder of the Croatian Catholic movement (then interned by the Italian government, which had occupied his diocese), consoled himself with the belief that the creation of the new state community opened up great possibilities for ecumenical dialogue with Orthodox Serbs. Catholic intellectuals were then "open" to the ecumenical idea, certainly not as much as the Slovenes, who, due to their specific situation and lack of direct territorial contact with the Serbs, were more inclined to see in the new state formation an excellent opportunity to build bridges between Christian West and East.

Only after the tragic experience with the Serbs, and when the Croatian people ceased to politically support the Christian Democratic-inspired politicians who were "open" to the Serbs, did the conviction that Yugoslavia did not favor Catholicism prevail among Croatian Catholic activists. Archbishop Stepinac expressed this when he testified before the communist tribunal, stating that the Croatian people "in the former Yugoslavia (1918-1941) were slaves (...). Croats could not advance in the military or enter the diplomatic corps unless they changed their religion or married an Orthodox woman." (The full text of the speech is available in S.C. 1960, no. 1, pp. 40-44.)

Therefore, it was not necessary to wait for the Pavelić regime during the war, as Hawryluk claims, for "relations between Catholics and Orthodox Christians to become poisoned." These relations, unfortunately, were poisoned before the war, and what happened during the conflict were the consequences of Greater Serbia's oppressive policies, echoed by Croatian nationalism in the only language that, sadly, Serbian nationalism understands.

Archbishop Stepinac didn't have to wait for John XXIII to ascend the papal throne or for the Second Vatican Council to present the "new face of the Church" to emphasize twice before his alleged communist judges: "Let no one think I want war. Let the current authorities enter into dialogue with the Holy See. The Church does not recognize dictatorship, but it is not opposed to an honest understanding with whomever. The bishops will know what to expect in fulfilling their duties, and there will no longer be a need to seek out priests to point the finger at the bishops, as has been done here... If there is goodwill, an understanding can be reached, and the initiative lies with the current authorities. Neither I nor the other members of the episcopate are the ones who will enter into these fundamental negotiations. This is a matter between the State and the Holy See."

In other words, he said more or less the same thing that Archbishop Bukatko of Belgrade said to Mr. Hawryluk. If the communist regime—which today, according to Hawryluk, hopes for the "extinction" of religion while simultaneously wishing to re-establish diplomatic relations with the Holy See—did not want to understand that language then, the Catholics were not to blame. At that time, the communists believed they could force Croatian Catholics to separate from Rome; that is, they believed that the Catholic Church in Croatia would suffer the same fate as the Uniates in Romania and Ukraine. Moreover, the communist leaders, during the most brutal persecutions of Catholicism, felt supported by the Russians. Only with the outbreak of the Tito-Stalin conflict did the balance of power between Catholicism and Communism in Croatia change. Tito then initiated a rapprochement by declaring that he could not release Stepinac due to Serbian opposition. The communists, for example, had condemned and executed Draza Mihailovic, a Serbian nationalist leader, and demanded a similar victim in Croatia. Furthermore, the backbone of the Croatians had to be broken for having dared to separate from Serbia in 1941, to become independent by exercising their right to national self-determination. As Djilas said, the unarmed Croatian army had to be exterminated at the end of the war "so that Yugoslavia could survive."

All of the above is said without hatred and with the profound conviction that rapprochement between peoples, civilizations, and religions, for the greater good of humankind, is necessary. But it can only be viable if all men and peoples are recognized as having the rights and freedoms that belong to them—as Archbishop Stepinac declared—according to divine and human laws. We believe we are not straying from the ecumenical spirit if we caution foreign observers concerned with the Croatian issue that, in their noble ecumenical zeal, they should not overlook the legitimate rights of a subjugated people who embraced Christianity 1,300 years ago and fought tenaciously for bitter centuries on the western fringe of our Western society.

Who can take offense if we say that ecumenism is not being promoted if, out of love for our separated brethren, the millennia-old Catholic fidelity of several peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, situated on the frontier of civilizations, is considered an aggravating circumstance? We ask no one, not even "open" Catholics, to be lenient with us. But where are we headed if we record and exaggerate the sins of Catholic peoples without even mentioning the faults of Orthodox peoples; if we confuse effect with cause by accusing Croatian Catholics of "poisoned relations" with Orthodox Serbs?

We Croats never cease to emphasize that we deeply deplore the fact that the Croatian response to Serbian provocations has been, in part, contrary to our age-old traditions of ethics and law. We lament every crime committed against Serbs just as we lament Serbian injustices against us. This sentiment and the need for repentance were expressed by our bishops before Croatia and Serbia fell into communist slavery, which some non-communist publications still call "liberation." What we sincerely regret is that we have not seen a similar gesture from the Serbs.

All Serbs, without exception, whether communists or nationalists (sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between them when dealing with Catholics), even the Orthodox Church hierarchy, are only aware of the suffering of Serbs during the war, ignoring the persecutions and provocations that occurred earlier in peacetime, which brought tremendous calamities exclusively upon the Croats. Furthermore, after the war, the Serbs, under communist rule, exacted terrible revenge on Croats, Slovenes, Germans, Hungarians, and Albanians for daring to separate from oppressive Serbia. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were murdered after the war had ended. Hawryluk's Croatian interlocutors could not speak to him of these crimes. His Serbian interlocutors also remained silent, either considering it a just act or feeling no need to deplore them.

In turn, the Croatian Catholics with whom Hawryluk spoke surely remained silent about all these crimes because they want to forget everything that needs to be forgiven and do not want the bloody chain of revenge and mutual accusations to continue indefinitely. We are certain that our compatriots in Croatia think and feel the same way. Knowing the situation from within, we can declare that even the Croatian exiles, targets of communist attacks, do not harbor feelings of revenge against those responsible for the monarchical and communist dictatorships and Serbian domination in Croatia.

The only thing we seek is liberation from the communist dictatorship, from Serbian domination, and from blatant economic exploitation. We believe that we can achieve freedom only through the re-establishment of the Croatian state, thus following the ancient tradition, interrupted by the creation of the Yugoslav state in 1918. This will be our only "revenge" against communism and Serbia's petty imperialism.

Statement of the Croatian National Council on US Aid to Dictator Tito

This statement expresses the view of the Croatian National Council in Exile (New York) regarding the recent decision by the State Department to grant communist Yugoslavia additional economic assistance.

On December 14, 1965, the New York Times reported that the US government had granted communist Yugoslavia $576 million in new loans and an extension on debt payments. This is in addition to the $46 million in long-term loans granted in November for the purchase of wheat. With this, the total aid given by the United States to the Tito regime since World War II amounts to more than $3.5 billion. The Committee is of the opinion that this aid does not promote the best interests of the United States nor does it constitute assistance to the people of Yugoslavia in their legitimate struggle for political democracy and a decent standard of living.

The $3.5 billion investment failed.

There is no doubt that the United States, by encouraging Tito's defiance of Stalin after the 1948 schism, contributed to the fragmentation of the communist world. But Stalin died in 1953, and Yugoslavia subsequently made peace with Moscow. As for the periodic deviations between Moscow and Belgrade, these were due to internal conflicts among the Soviet leadership and the demands of Soviet relations with communist China, not to any lack of goodwill on Tito's part. More recently, the growing Sino-Soviet antagonism overshadowed all internal tensions within the communist sphere. In such changing circumstances, Tito's particular heresy lost its impetus and divisive effect, so that the original reason for aiding Yugoslavia no longer exists.

C Aware of this, the American proponents of perpetual aid to Tito somewhat modified their arguments. They now contend that Tito's global ambitions contribute to undermining both Soviet and Chinese influence in the underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa. But this argument contradicts the facts. Dr. Victor Meier, historian and veteran correspondent for the leading Swiss newspaper, the Neue Züricher Zeitung, demonstrated in his analysis of Yugoslav communism in the book Communism in Europe (MIT Press, 1964), edited by Professor William E. Griffith, that Yugoslav diplomacy has worked diligently in underdeveloped nations to weaken Western positions. “The Yugoslavs,” writes Dr. Meier, “proved extremely detrimental to Western policy. The nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956 was preceded by lengthy talks between Nasser and Tito in Brioni. Nehru’s position regarding the events in Hungary in 1957 (which lent support to the communists)... was heavily influenced by Tito.”

During the meeting of non-committal countries in Belgrade in 1961, Meier continues, “the Yugoslav purpose was obviously to exploit every opportunity to impose on the participants and the conference as a whole the greatest possible degree of pro-Soviet and anti-Western attitude.” There are numerous analogous examples. It must be admitted that Tito never concealed his devotion to the cause of the communist world. He proclaimed its aims publicly and repeatedly, and acted accordingly. For example, in May 1963, Tito declared: “We must take a special interest in the development of the international revolutionary movement. We must bear in mind that we are part of that movement.”

Even as the Washington government announced new aid to Yugoslavia, Tito’s propagandists denounced the American intervention in Vietnam, accusing Washington of unbridled imperialism and mass killings. Victor Riesel, in his regular column of February 3, quoted the official organ of the communist-dominated Yugoslav trade unions, which accused the United States of using “poison gas and other means of mass destruction” to murder the Vietnamese people. Moreover, there are indications that Tito’s Yugoslavia is sending aid to the communist government in Hanoi. We would like the State Department to tell American taxpayers and the families of the G.I. who are fighting for freedom in Vietnam, if the aid that Tito sends to the North Vietnamese communists is being paid for by the American people.

American aid cannot solve Yugoslavia's chronic economic crisis.

Despite massive injections of American aid, Yugoslavia was mired in an economic crisis in 1965 that was more severe than any it had been before. It is reasonable to think that if the $3.5 billion in American aid was insufficient to prevent the current collapse, $100 million or even $200 million will not set the Yugoslav economy right. Providing further aid to Tito would mean wasting money. In such circumstances, common sense dictates cutting the losses.

A few years ago, the United States, together with the International Monetary Fund and some Western European countries, gave Tito almost $300 million in aid and loans to help "liberalize and reform" the Yugoslav economy. Of course, Tito took the money, squandered it, but did not carry out the promised reforms, so that Yugoslavia finds itself today in an economic crisis of unprecedented magnitude. Some time ago, Marko Nikezic, then Yugoslav ambassador to Washington and now foreign minister, observed that only completely dysfunctional countries had failed to improve their economies in recent years. The current economic chaos in Yugoslavia shows that it is one of those completely mismanaged countries.

As early as 1961, Dr. Joseph Bombelles, professor of economics at John Carroll University in Cleveland, emphasized in the Journal of Croatian Studies that the Yugoslav economy was "on the verge of bankruptcy" and that only "ample loans and donations... mainly from the United States, saved the Yugoslav economy from collapse. We might even say that throughout the period after 1950, the Yugoslav economy was able to function thanks to foreign loans."

The new economic "reform," or one of many such "reforms," launched in July 1965, which prompted Yugoslavia to receive new loans and aid from the United States, will undoubtedly fail like its predecessors. The reason is that this "reform" is not aimed at correcting the underlying conditions that caused the current crisis, but rather at perpetuating the existing flawed economic system—at least for a long time—by obtaining new American aid with the false promise of liberalizing the economy. As Commonwealth wrote on December 17, "It seems the reform is already encountering difficulties...

The dinar (devalued in two stages from 750 to 1,250 per dollar) on the free market in Trieste and Switzerland has already fallen to 1,500 and 2,000 dinars per dollar. To cope with the growing economic chaos, the government had to intervene again by fixing prices and wages and granting subsidies, thereby negating the main purpose of the reform, which is to establish a market economy in which prices are largely determined by supply and demand, and wages by productivity. Of course, the communist rulers of Yugoslavia blame everyone but themselves for the prevailing chaos. Dr. Meier places the blame where it belongs: 'Tito himself is primarily responsible for the current situation.'"

The Growing Struggle Within the Communist Party

To resolve the endemic crisis, a drastic change in the system of governance and economic management would be necessary. Tito opposes this because it requires dismantling the communist dictatorship. Yugoslavia is in crisis because the majority of the national income is consumed by the army, the communist bureaucracy, and the numerous secret police. Tito himself is one of the most extravagant spendthrifts since the Mongol emperors; he maintains fifteen to twenty palaces, private airplanes, a luxury train, a fleet of cars, a private zoo, a lavish yacht, and thousands of servants, gardeners, and guards.

The annual cost of maintaining all these establishments exceeds 50 million dollars. To establish the Yugoslav economy on a solid foundation, it would be necessary to remove communist officials from all key positions in economic planning and factory management. The communists occupy these positions out of political loyalty, but they are incompetent and dishonest. The Yugoslav press is full of news about scams, embezzlement, and misappropriation committed in companies by their communist directors and managers.

But perhaps the most important reason for the economic collapse that led to a 100% increase in the cost of living in the last 12 months and soaring unemployment, now reaching half a million, is the discriminatory and short-sighted way in which investment funds are used. For example, the central government in Belgrade squandered hundreds of millions of dollars on the still-unfinished railway line that is supposed to connect Belgrade with the town of Bar on the Montenegrin coast.

The primary objective of this railway is to ensure Serbia's own access to the Adriatic Sea should the western republics of Yugoslavia (Croatia and Slovenia) secede. Furthermore, Belgrade denied funding for the development of Croatia's far more economically important ports and for the improvement of the old railway line that connects these vital ports to the interior, thus hindering Croatia's economic growth.

Perhaps more than any other country, Slovenia, the westernmost republic of Yugoslavia and economically the most advanced, was exploited. Although it had only 8.6% of Yugoslavia's total population, Slovenia had to pay 38% of federal taxes without receiving almost any federal investment funds to establish its industries. According to Dr. Meier, "In all of postwar history, there is no other case, apart from the Soviet colonial areas, of a people being so exploited and deprived of the fruits of their labor as the Slovenians were."

This short-sighted and discriminatory economic policy provoked opposition from Croatian and Slovenian communists. Dr. Vladimir Bakaric, the leading communist figure in Croatia, admitted that a new kind of communist nationalism—"our nationalism," he called it—had emerged as a result of the central government's economic exploitation of certain regions. The growing national antagonism has led to riots in recent months in the cities of Split, Sarajevo, and Osijek, and to the arrest of more than 600 Croatian communists by the secret police. In Dr. Meier's opinion, the conflict between nationalities contains "future dynamite for the regime," along with the question of Tito's succession. Tito, now nearing 74, is ill and becoming senile.

Last February, thirteen young Croatian workers and students were tried in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, accused of trying to establish the State of Croatia, which is the desire of the overwhelming majority of the Croatian people. This trial, like so many previous persecutions of Croatian workers and intellectuals, proves that the Croatian people are being deprived of their legitimate right to national self-determination, a right recognized in the Atlantic Charter and the United Nations Charter.

It is clear that under similar conditions, the new American aid, like the billions Tito received before, will not resolve Yugoslavia's endemic political and economic crisis. On the contrary, it will allow Tito to continue down the same path for a while longer. To resolve the crisis corroding the Yugoslav economy, drastic changes must be undertaken and implemented in the overall economic and political structure of the Yugoslav state.

First and foremost, political democracy must be established, along with the dismantling of the communist bureaucratic and police apparatus that stifles the economy and the people. Given past experience, it is unlikely that these goals will be achieved simply by giving Tito more aid. "Western policy," says Dr. Meier, "which gave Yugoslavia $3.5 billion in aid from the end of the war until 1941, apparently found no way to influence Yugoslavia's political and economic course."

Monument to Cardinal Stepinac in Melbourne

On April 4, 1965, a monument to Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, the work of the recently deceased Croatian sculptor Ivan Mestrovic, was inaugurated in Melbourne with solemn ceremonies. This monument is the only work by the celebrated sculptor in Australia, whose creations are featured in all the major centers of the Western world. A Moses by Mestrovic is in the Museum of Fine Arts in Buenos Aires, and his daughter, who lives in the Argentine capital, owns several valuable works by her father. The monument to Cardinal Stepinac stands in front of the Croatian parish church, dedicated to Blessed Nicholas Tavelic, a martyr of Croatian origin (Cf. Studia Croatica, 1961, nos. 2-3, pp. 229-32). Monsignor Beran, representing the ailing Archbishop Simonds, blessed and inaugurated the monument in the presence of a large crowd, especially a significant number of Croatian immigrants, who number around 10,000 in Australia and have several organizations and parishes.

The presence at the ceremony of prestigious representatives of the Church, government, and Australian political life takes on greater significance given that communist Yugoslavia, in recent years, attempted to slander Croatian immigrants who were demanding their homeland's right to national self-determination. The attitude of the official representatives of Yugoslavia, where Croatia is one of the people's republics, is therefore strange and paradoxical. Their duty should be to protect the interests of immigrants (almost exclusively of Croatian origin) and not to organize denigrating campaigns and even physical attacks against them.

The height of absurdity is that the representatives of the totalitarian communist regime try to present themselves as champions and defenders of democratic and national rights. However, Australian public opinion soon understood this double game played by communist Yugoslavia, which on the international stage advocates for the so-called national liberation movements of African and South American peoples, while within the Yugoslav conglomerate it violates and subjugates the national and democratic rights of its subjects with violent means.

German Courts Deem Croatian Resistance Justified

We previously reported in detail on the demonstration by a group of young Croatian exiles against the Yugoslav trade delegation in Mehlem, near Bonn, West Germany (see Studia Croatica, Year III, No. 4 (9), 251-271, 379-355). On that occasion, the delegation's headquarters were partially destroyed, and a Yugoslav official, a known agent of the communist political police and one of the perpetrators of the executions of numerous Croatians and German prisoners at the end of World War II, died from his injuries.

Since the demonstrators had violated German law, they were brought before the Bonn court. They knew they would be tried and did not shy away from the verdict of justice, hoping to expose during the trial the plight of the Croatian people in communist Yugoslavia and thus draw the attention of the German public and nation to the oppression of their compatriots. Both communist and monarchical Yugoslavia pursued Greater Serbian objectives and curtailed the national rights and freedoms of Croats and other oppressed peoples within the multinational Yugoslav conglomerate.

Belgrade, in response to this demonstration, unleashed an intense diplomatic and propaganda campaign to intensify the communist campaign against the Federal Republic of Germany and cast a false light on the actions of young Croatian patriots. They resorted to all means and attempted to pressure the Bonn government, demanding a ban on all political activity by Croatian exiles. Facing this vast police, diplomatic, and propaganda apparatus was a small group of destitute Croatian refugees, branded as war criminals, even though almost all of them had been children during World War II.

As expected, harsh sentences were handed down against those involved in the incident. The prosecutor and the presiding judge, driven by political opportunism, tried to prevent the trial from becoming a political affair (the German press referred to it as "the Croatian trial" - kroatenprozess). Consequently, the prosecutor, according to widespread opinion, exaggerated his charges and failed to properly frame the issue of Croatian resistance, influenced in part by official Yugoslav informants. Nevertheless, the true nature of the demonstration was emphasized in the judgment's reasoning. In the preamble, published on February 8, 1965, and consisting of 151 pages, page 31 reads:

"The nationally conscious Croatian emigrants, opposed to the communist Yugoslav state leadership, wished to warn world public opinion of the injustice suffered by Croatians in Yugoslavia."

On page 141, the following is stated:

"It is evident that the defendants did not commit this act for selfish reasons, but rather, as committed political actors, their aim was to draw the attention of world public opinion to the injustice perpetrated against the Croatian people in Yugoslavia. It must also be taken into account that the unfortunate fate of the defendants and their relatives had a substantial influence on their political attitude toward the Yugoslav state leadership."

The defense was able to prove that the defendants, either personally or through their families, were persecuted by the Yugoslav communist authorities, who, as is well known, perpetrated countless acts of political terrorism in Croatia, culminating in the organization and execution of mass killings and genocide.

The court dismissed the charge of the alleged secret association of Croats in Germany for terrorist purposes. The request from the Yugoslav communist leaders, based on a distorted and totalitarian interpretation of the international convention on refugees, to prohibit all political activity by Croatian exiles in Germany, also failed. They argued that the Croatians' demand for the right to national self-determination harmed the integrity of the Yugoslav state.

It is obvious that the Croats, residing in the free world—the only ones who can express themselves freely—demand that the realization of the right to national self-determination be facilitated in Croatia as well. This is a democratic right, guaranteed by the Charter of the United Nations, which was also signed by communist Yugoslavia. The communists maintain that the Yugoslav constitution recognizes the principle of national self-determination and the right to secession, but this is undermined in practice by arguing that the Croats and the other oppressed peoples of Yugoslavia exercised this right by freely declaring their support for union with Serbia during the communists' violent seizure of power.

Belgrade is trying to confuse public opinion regarding the national rights of the peoples that make up Yugoslavia and wants exiles who invoke those rights to be prosecuted as violators of the international convention on refugees. A segment of German public opinion partly sympathized with Yugoslavia's charges against some Croatian refugees. This would be the negative aspect of the demonstration in Bad Godesberg, and Croats in Germany should take into account the difficult situation of a divided Germany and avoid any action or statement that might facilitate the efforts of the communists to equate the Croatian nation's just claim to national freedom and its justified and understandable opposition to communist totalitarianism with an anti-democratic policy.

The law on foreigners, enacted by the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) in Bonn on February 12, 1965, guarantees foreign immigrants, including political exiles, broad democratic rights, regardless of religion, race, language, or origin, just as German citizens do (Art. 3). Those who live in Germany for five years without violating the law automatically acquire the right to political asylum in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention on Exiles. No exile may be repatriated against their will to a country with a totalitarian regime, even if they have violated the applicable laws.

With this law, the Federal Republic of Germany leads the free countries in recognizing the rights of refugees from communist countries. Germany, also a victim of communist violence and blackmail, had to shelter millions of its citizens expelled by the communists and understands the anxiety and precarious situation of the anti-communist Croatian exiles, who find themselves in a far more difficult situation than German refugees who find refuge and protection in their homeland, while exiles from other countries, including the Croatians, must seek hospitality and refuge in foreign countries.

It is worth emphasizing that the German authorities, prior to the enactment of the aforementioned law, conducted a thorough survey, including among representatives of all the exiles. With the new law on foreigners, the biased interpretations of the Yugoslav communists, who sought to impose the criteria of a totalitarian ideology and regime on the democratic authorities of Germany, accusing them of undemocratic tendencies simply because they did not share their totalitarian views, have been put to an end.

Under this law, tens of thousands of Croatian exiles living in Germany are able to engage in political activity, denouncing the tyranny imposed on their country. This is especially significant considering that more than 70,000 Croatian workers, who arrive in Germany with Yugoslav passports and return home after a certain period, are currently employed there.

Of course, the communists are well aware that this massive movement of workers poses a great threat to them, as these workers witness firsthand the political and economic realities of free countries and connect with their compatriots residing in Germany—political émigrés and consistent critics of Yugoslavia, whether communist or otherwise. Thus, they return to Croatia even more convinced that the regime and the Yugoslav state are unsustainable and that it is essential for the Croats and other oppressed peoples and national minorities in Yugoslavia to regain their freedom as soon as possible.

The Yugoslav communists allow workers to seek employment in "capitalist" countries not for reasons of supposed "liberalization" of the regime, but out of an urgent and compelling need for foreign currency. Yugoslavia's exports barely cover 50% of its imports. Despite growing revenues from international tourism, almost entirely confined to the Croatian Adriatic coast, Yugoslavia's balance of payments shows a large deficit. Belgrade must pay not only for imports but also for substantial debt payments. Now, after successive reductions and suspensions of foreign aid, Tito resorts to the mass export of labor and tourism. Therefore, the new German law on foreigners, which does not prohibit the political activity of political exiles, greatly worries the Yugoslav communist leaders and has influenced the closer relationship between Belgrade and Moscow.

Political and Economic Resistance in Croatia as Seen by the "New York Times"

Following the trial and arrest of a large number of Croatian students and workers who were demanding the right to self-determination for Croatia, the "New York Times" correspondent, in his dispatch from Zagreb on February 18 of this year, wrote:

"The government accused some forty young Croatians, mostly university students, of chauvinism. This group, calling itself the 'Croatian Liberation Movement,' resurfaced last May during the European victory celebrations, when some of its members threw nationalist leaflets from a hotel. According to reliable sources, 400 young people were arrested and subjected to rigorous interrogation by the secret police.

Apparently, forty were detained, suspected of chauvinistic activities. Some were confined to the island of Goli in the Adriatic, and others were imprisoned in the concentration camp on the island of Sveti." Grgur. It is said that the interrogations were accompanied by torture. Thirty people, ten of whom were students, faced trial last month and were sentenced to prison terms of two to nine years.

Nine students were sentenced last Saturday to prison terms of 10 to 12 months. Another nine students will appear in court next Tuesday, and another eight or nine will be tried on March 5. The public was allowed to attend the first two trials, but only the first was reported in the Yugoslav press. What most intrigues the people of Zagreb is that these young people, who were children during the war when the separatist movement flourished in Croatia, have expressed such sentiments after more than two decades of communist rule. Some Croats claim that this movement stems from the fact that young people feel frustrated at not being able to participate in Yugoslav public life without joining the communist party. When asked why they don't join, some young people reply that It would seem like a kind of 'collaboration,' or they say that their parents have already 'betrayed' the ideals of the revolution. Officially, it reflects resentment against Belgrade, not only for being the federal capital but also the capital of Serbia, Croatia's traditional opponent.

Regarding the economic crisis, the correspondent reports: "Croatian nationalist sentiment was stirred by the Yugoslav economic reforms and a climate of greater freedom of public discourse than usual. Local economists suggest that the only way for relatively developed republics like Croatia and Slovenia to avoid the tremendous financial burden resulting from the reforms is to attract investment from the West, even though this is not authorized by the Belgrade government. The argument being put forward in Zagreb is that the Serb-dominated federal government has manipulated the current economic reforms to favor Serbia by increasing commodity prices in that republic, thus discriminating against Croatian industries. It is alleged that certain industries are on the verge of bankruptcy due to the new high commodity prices."

More serious is the allegation that Belgrade restructured the new investment banking system last month to Serbia's benefit. The Croats point out that in the amendment to the banking law, adopted on January 19 by a mere eight votes, the Federal Assembly stipulated that funds originally earmarked for nationwide investments be returned to the federal government for central spending.

The main beneficiaries, they add, will be the Belgrade-Bar railway line, the massive Iron Gate dam on the Danube, the Smederevo steelworks, and the Panchevo fertilizer plant—all essentially Serbian projects. Some Croats are calling this procedure "Serbian megalomania." For the relatively well-developed republics of Croatia and Slovenia to break free from stagnation, "extensive dividend-based Western industrial investment" is needed as soon as possible, officials in Zagreb and Ljubljana assert. 'Our hope lies solely abroad,' a local government official recently declared. 'We will get nothing from Belgrade.' Observers said the idea is to attract foreign investment, even though the federal government has not yet passed laws regulating it, and thus force Belgrade to accept the fait accompli.

BOOK REVIEW

Dr. Dominic Mandic: Studies and Contributions of Old Croatian History

(Studies and Contributions of Old Croatian History)

By Ivo Bogdan, Buenos Aires

Ed. Hrvatski Povijesni Institut (The Croatian Historical Institute), Rome, 1963, pp. XLIV-632.

Our journal has already referred to the personality and work of Dr. Mandic on two occasions (See "Bosnia and Herzegovina - Critical-Historical Inquiries, Volume I", Studia Croatica No. 2-3 (7-8), 1962, pp. 241-242 and in No. 1-4 (16-19), 1965, in the note on the contributors on the occasion of the publication of his masterful study "Bosnia and Herzegovina - Croatian Provinces"). The second volume of Mandic's work on Bosnia and Herzegovina has already been published, and with the third volume soon to follow, a monumental work dedicated to these provinces, intimately linked to the European political crisis that culminated in the First World War, will soon be available. Locally, this area gave rise to tense relations and conflicts between Serbs and Croats, which ultimately facilitated the communist takeover.

In the work mentioned above, Mandic's historical research covers the entire Croatian national territory. In twenty-four monographs, the author addresses the important issues in the medieval history of Croatia, from the beginning of the 7th century, when Croats settled in Dalmatia, Lower Pannonia, and Illyricum, then provinces of the Byzantine Roman Empire; he tackles the problem of their Christianization and studies the historical process up to the extinction of the Croatian national dynasty at the beginning of the 12th century.

In a brief prologue, signed by the Franciscans D. Lasic and B. Pandzic on behalf of the Croatian Historical Institute in Rome, which published the work, we learn that the published studies are preparatory works for a systematic work on the history of the Croatian national monarchy, which Mandic plans to publish shortly.

Since the memories related to the independent Kingdom of Croatia in the early Middle Ages constituted an important factor in the formation of national consciousness and influenced the Croatian national movement in the modern era, Mandic's historical opus has far-reaching implications. This prolific scholar, already renowned for his work on Bosnia and Herzegovina—proving that they are two Croatian provinces—is among the most prominent historians of his nation. When he completes his announced work, he will undoubtedly be considered the most distinguished and meritorious Croatian historian of his generation, though he certainly cannot occupy the seat that is rightfully his in the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Zagreb, founded exactly 100 years ago by Bishop Joseph J. Strossmayer.

Mandic's new comprehensive work on the period of the Croatian national monarchy, both for its historical value and its patriotic implications, will satisfy a pressing and urgent need. The last critical and scholarly work dealing with this period is Ferdo Sisic's "History of the Croats in the Period of the National Rulers" (Zagreb, 1925). Since then, numerous studies and documents on the same era have been published in Croatian and other languages; some corroborate Sisic's conclusions, while others expand upon, modify, correct, or refute them. Hence the urgency of a new work that takes into account the latest findings and results of historical research.

Dr. D. Mandic possesses all the necessary qualifications to undertake this crucial and much-needed task. He is familiar with the historical sources and literature, is himself a perceptive researcher by vocation, and has even clarified many obscure points and drawn convincing conclusions. Although his methodology follows in the footsteps of Sisic and his contemporaries, Mandic's approach is broader, closer to Croatian reality, and his style is clearer and more convincing. Avoiding any literary flourishes, Mandic writes in a vigorous and appropriate style, mastering Croatian by virtue of being from Herzegovina, which linguistically is to Castile what Castile is to Spanish.

Furthermore, Mandic shed all the prejudices characteristic of most Slavic philologists. Under the influence of linguistic racism, many of these scholars deduce a supposed commonality of origin and culture from the linguistic similarity of Slavic-speaking peoples. This criterion inevitably leads to sympathy with theories that interpret Croatian religious, cultural, and political ties with Western cultures in a biased way. The Pan-Slavic conception, for example, entails the idea that the sole and authentic custodians of the Slavic spirit and genuine patriotism are the heirs of the Byzantine tradition, with the Russians being its principal protagonists in the modern era.

Mandic, as an objective researcher, a good patriot, and a prominent ecclesiastical figure (for years he held high-ranking positions in the General Curia of the Franciscan Order -O.F.M.- in Rome), is more than qualified to offer an authentic view of the historical process of the Croatian nation, consistent with its Western traditions. This does not prevent him from rigorously highlighting, with scholarly rigor, the participation of the Roman-Byzantine Empire in the migration of the Croats and in the organization of their national monarchy. Nor does he draw exaggerated conclusions from these facts.

On pp. 210-213, he points out that Christian unity still existed in the early Middle Ages and that subsequently two different civilizations formed within Christendom, which until then had been united. Croatia's location in the western part of the Roman Empire, its Christianization from Rome, and its enduring ties with the papacy substantially influenced the cultural formation of the Croatian people. The language used by Croatians in their communication with foreigners, including representatives of the Byzantine Empire, was Latin, which remained the diplomatic language of Croatia until 1848. Many public documents were written in Latin.

Along with Glagolitic, the Croatian national script, the vast majority of inscriptions in churches and other public monuments were written in Latin. Croatian customary and national law was enriched very early on by the institutions and norms of Roman law. From the end of the 7th century, that is, from the adoption of the Old Croatian liturgy in religious services, Glagolitic literature developed based on the Vulgate, Roman rites, hagiography, and the literature of the Western Church.

The socio-political process of the Croats also unfolded under Western influence, particularly that of the Frankish kings' court and European feudalism. During Frankish rule, Benedictines arrived in Croatia and, there as elsewhere, contributed significantly to the preservation and promotion of Western Roman culture. Even crafts and trade originated in the West. In short, by embracing Christianity, the Croats built their national and state life and shaped their culture under the powerful and almost exclusive influence of the Western Christian Church and the peoples of Western Europe. They maintained ties with Byzantium insofar as the Byzantine-Roman Empire in the early Middle Ages was the successor to the Roman Empire.

"Byzantine priests and monks never worked among the Croats; the Croats did not know Greek nor did they directly benefit from the achievements of Byzantine civilization. With the fall of Bosnia and other Croatian regions to the Turks, many Croats embraced Islam and were strongly influenced by Islamic-Arab culture, distinct from Byzantine civilization. Croats had brief and superficial contact with Byzantium, mostly through their rulers and a few provincial leaders. The people as a whole never experienced any significant influence from Byzantine civilization. Therefore," Mandic concludes, "it can and must be said that the Croats, from their arrival on the Adriatic, developed and remained a Western people."

Such a view of Croatian history displeases proponents of the Pan-Slavic and Yugoslav conception, which exerted a great influence on the interpretation of the Croatian past. The current communist regime in Yugoslavia, in particular, emphasizes the anti-Western tendencies of Pan-Slavism, since, now as before in monarchical Yugoslavia, the dominant country is Serbia, with its distinctly Byzantine traditions, and because communism, despite the Moscow-Belgrade dispute, is essentially the Russian interpretation of Marxism, its version adapted to the autocratic and Caesaropapist tradition of Byzantium, the first totalitarian state in Europe.

All of this means that contemporary Croatian historiography, given the unavoidable state ideological interference, cannot produce a fundamental work on Croatia's past that is consistent with historical truth. Mandic pointed out that even the recent critical edition of the cartulary of the Benedictine monastery of St. Peter of Gumai, a very important document for the history of Croatia in the High Middle Ages, was not without its anti-ecclesiastical bias (pp. 423-442). Furthermore, the totalitarian, unitarist-leaning Yugoslav communist regime labels it dangerous chauvinism when Croats affirm the values of their history, and especially when they maintain that Bosnia and Herzegovina are Croatian provinces. These provinces now form the only socialist republic "among the six that make up the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" that is not recognized as a nation. The communists deviated from their established position in this case due to Serbian opposition to the incorporation of these provinces into the Socialist Republic of Croatia.

The pretext would be the Orthodox minority, officially considered Serbian, and the Muslims, of Croat nationality, classified as "nationally undefined." While this treatment is given to Croats on the one hand, on the other, the Socialist Republic of Serbia includes the autonomous province of Vojvodina, which does not have an ethnic Serbian majority even after the massacre and expulsion of 500,000 members of the ethnic German minority, and the autonomous territory of Kosmet (Kosovo and Metohija), with a predominantly Albanian majority. If these Albanians were not reintegrated into Albania, their nation-state, they would, by virtue of being Muslim, be more willing to join Bosnia and Herzegovina, along with the Muslims of the Novi Pazar sandalak, than Serbia. But in this way, in the nationally undefined Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the number of Muslims would exceed that of Serbs, something no Yugoslav government can tolerate.

All of this underscores the urgency and enduring value of Mandic's historical research. Living in the United States, he can dedicate himself to this study free from the pressures of a totalitarian, anti-Croatian, and anti-religious regime.

Mandic's recent work proves that he is precisely the author best suited to provide a illuminating account of the contentious and ambiguous points in the historiography of medieval Croatia. His monographs adhere to rigorous scientific criteria. The author draws on all available sources and employs a comprehensive bibliography (pp. XVII-XLII). Each chapter contains valuable data, background information, clarifications, and corrections to previously held theses. He presents new evidence with scientific rigor and without any intention of engaging in polemics.

Even with the best intentions, we cannot summarize each chapter, since the titles and subtitles of the Table of Contents span more than six pages (IX-XV). We will therefore limit ourselves to highlighting a few key points. Thus, in the first chapter (pp. 1-18), Mandic clarifies the question surrounding the first bishop of Salona, the capital of Roman Dalmatia. According to ancient tradition, this would have been Saint Daimo, a disciple of Saint Peter.

The renowned Croatian archaeologist Francisco Bulic, working diligently on the excavations of Salona, which had been destroyed by the Avars, demonstrated that Saint Daimo died a martyr in 304 as a result of the persecutions of Emperor Diocletian. Bulic also maintained that Saint Daimo was not the first bishop of Salona, but rather Saint Venantius, and that the latter's tomb is located in Rome.

To reinforce his thesis, among other evidence, he also relied on the mosaic of the Dalmatian-Istrian martyrs, Saint Venantius and others, placed by Pope John IV in the Baptistery of Saint John Lateran. There is abundant literature on this issue and the Salona findings. Mandic establishes that the first bishop was not Saint Venantius but Saint Daimo; that his tomb is not in Rome but in the cathedral of Split, formerly the mausoleum of Emperor Diocletian; that Saint Venantius was not bishop of Salona but of Duvno (Delminium), in present-day Bosnia, that he died in 257, and that his relics were transferred to Rome in 641. Addressing the arrival of the Croats in the Adriatic during the Migration of Peoples, Mandic refutes (pp. 51-76) the prevailing theories about a diffuse and gradual migration of Slavs of undefined ethnicity and the gradual formation of the Croatian national monarchy.

Mandic establishes that the Croats migrated from Croatia south of the Carpathians as politically organized tribes. By the first half of the 7th century, they had already organized their state in the central area of the eastern Adriatic coast, upon which depended the Croats settled between the Sava and Drava rivers and those of Rubra Croatia, which encompassed the present-day territory of Albania and Montenegro.

Contrary to L. Duchesne's theory, accepted by many researchers, Mandic states (pp. 109-144) that the majority of Croats were baptized as early as the 7th century. Furthermore, he sheds new light on the genealogy and chronology of the princes and kings of the Croatian national dynasty from the 7th to the 11th centuries; he offers valuable clarification regarding the title of the Croatian king; the period of the founding of the Kingdom of Croatia; the organization of the court chancery; and King Tomislav's victory over the army of the Bulgarian Emperor Simon in 927. on the ethnic composition of the territory of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, correcting certain assertions of Constantine Porphyrogenitus; on early literacy in Croatia, etc.

Of particular note is Mandic's interpretation of the so-called Chronicle of the priest Dukljanin. The author establishes that this Chronicle is a valuable historical source, composed of several documents that explain many important episodes from the first centuries of the Croatian national monarchy. With great rigor, he addresses the important issues in Church history, intimately linked to national life in Croatia, as in other European countries.

One of the chapters is dedicated to the Croatian character of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which the author had written especially for our journal (Studia Croatica, Nos. 16-19, 1965, pp. 153-223). His work on the origin of the Balkan Vlachs is also extremely interesting.

The book includes a subject index and an alphabetical index. The printing is impeccable, although the use of several alphabets is noticeable. The book also contains illustrations and a portrait of the author, as the edition was published in honor of Reverend Mandic on the occasion of his golden jubilee as a priest.

It is worth noting that the printing costs were covered by Ivan Tuskan and his wife, Maria Tuskan, both physicians in Cincinnati, USA. This is further proof of the patriotism of the Croatian exiles. Not only do Croatian intellectuals in exile contribute to many publications without receiving any payment, but the expenses required for literary and scientific publications are covered by voluntary contributions from exiles. This fact speaks volumes. It proves that the Croatian people, currently subjected to the double yoke—Great Serbian and communist—are mature and deserve to exercise the right to self-determination, as so many young African countries, some still undefined nationally, have done.

Francis H. Eterovic and Christopher Spalatin (editors) Croatia: Land, People, Culture

By Branko Anzulovic, Chicago, USA

(Vol. 1, University of Toronto Press, Canada, 1964. XXIII-408 pp. Foreword by Ivan Mestrovic).

This book, published at the end of 1964, is the first of several volumes that will cover, in an encyclopedic manner, various aspects of the life of the Croatian people, past and present. The complete work will represent an extremely important bibliographical contribution; foreign readers will have, for the first time, the opportunity to learn about Croatian history and culture in the most widely spoken language in the contemporary West. The need for such a comprehensive work has been felt all the more keenly because, due to special political circumstances, much of the available information is biased, erroneous, or at least superficial.

For all these reasons, as well as because of the difficulties involved in publishing a work of such scope, the appearance of the first volume should be hailed as a great success. However, given the very importance of the work, it is essential to highlight not only its strengths but, even more so, its weaknesses, so that the latter can be more easily addressed in subsequent volumes.

The ten chapters of the first volume deal respectively with geographical and demographic statistics, archaeology, political history up to 1526, military history, economic development, traditional ethical values, folk art and crafts, the history of literature from 1835 to 1895, music, and conclude with a chapter on architecture, sculpture, and painting. The remaining topics are therefore not systematically grouped, but the possibility is foreseen, once all the volumes have been published, of a new edition in which all the chapters would be arranged by subject and chronologically.

The first chapter, "Geographical and Demographic Statistics of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina," presents, in 17 pages, a series of data on the population and territory of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, two of the five constituent republics of Yugoslavia. It is unfortunate that no data has been presented on Croats living in other republics, especially since the Republic of Serbia—in the so-called Autonomous District of Vojvodina—and the Republic of Montenegro contain territories that for centuries were part of Croatia. The author of this introductory chapter is not an expert on the subject, and therefore has not addressed the delicate issue of the geographical definition of Croatia, nor the interpretation of census data, which would have been a very interesting introduction to the book. Instead, he has limited himself to conveying the essential data for the two aforementioned units of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In the second chapter, the archaeologist Vladimir Markotic presents the results of archaeological investigations in the territory of the present-day republics of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. His presentation covers not only prehistory but also some monuments from the historical era.

The author begins his presentation with the famous "Krapina Man" of the Neanderthal species. One of the strengths of this well-documented and well-written study is the author's effort to connect the abundant archaeological discoveries from the Paleolithic, Neolithic, and more recent prehistoric periods in the land now inhabited by Croatians with the cultures to which the objects belonged. Dr. Markotic has refrained from categorical statements and cites divergent theories in cases where there is no consensus on interpretation.

The archaeologist is justified in extending his analysis to the historical period, that is, the period after the Roman occupation of present-day Croatian territory, because, due to the scarcity of written documents until the end of the Middle Ages, archaeological methods can shed more light on this period. For example, not a single inscription in the Illyrian language has been found. Very little is also known about Slavic culture in the first centuries after their arrival in Illyrian territory, before their conversion to Christianity. The author points out that some archaeological discoveries suggest that Christianity was introduced to the Croats before the commonly accepted date of 800.

It is impossible to summarize here the highly interesting analysis of Croatian churches built before the establishment of the Romanesque and Gothic styles. In this early period of ecclesiastical architecture, the influences of local conditions and traditions were much more pronounced, resulting in a highly original architecture and a variety of styles.

Another original creation of medieval Croatian art was the tombstones of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the "Stecak." In the author's opinion, the vast majority of these monuments belong to the Manichean sect of the Bogomils. The Bogomils did not use the sign of the cross, while the cross appears on many of the stones, and based on this, several authors claim that these monoliths belong to both heretical and non-heretical Christians. However, Dr. Markotic says that what appears to be a cross is actually a stylized human figure, since the Manicheans of Bosnia depicted Christ with outstretched arms.

This is the last topic addressed by Dr. Markotic, and here too he offers, along with a clear and concise description, an extensive bibliography for those who wish to study the subject further.

The chapter on political history up to 1526 was written by Dr. Stanko Guldescu, author of the book *History of Medieval Croatia*, The Hague, 1964.

This chapter begins with the problem of the ethnic origin of the Croats, that is, the tribes that imposed their name and political organization on a predominantly Slavic population. The author was not very successful in this part of his exposition, because he has not managed to demarcate the different theories he presents, so the reader is left confused among so many successive Iranian-Sarmatian-Gothic-Slavic amalgamations. With this exception, Dr. Guldescu offers the reader a clear and fairly complete presentation of the events up to 1526. The chronological table and bibliographic guide that Dr. Guldescu has added to his chapter are very useful for the reader.

It must be noted, however, that his observations on Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts on page 92 are erroneous and conflict not only with Dr. Mandic's opinion but also with that of almost all experts on the subject. Saint Cyril adapted Glagolitic script, based on certain models already existing in Croatia, while Cyrillic script was invented somewhat later in Bulgaria. A minor error is the omission of the source of the dramatic dialogue between Ban Derencin and the Frakopan family, before the tragic battle on the Krbava plain (p. 113). As for the allusions to 20th-century political events (pp. 113-114), they are out of place, apart from the question of their relevance.

The year 1526, the year of the Battle of Mohács, is very fitting as the end of the first phase of Croatian history, because at the beginning of the following year the Croatians elected Ferdinand, brother of Charles V, as their king, thus beginning the union of Croatia with the Habsburg monarchy, which would last until 1918. When military history is part of a compendium that also contains political history, special precautions must be taken to ensure that both histories do not repeat the same events, much less contradict each other. This danger has not always been avoided in the present case; thus, for example, while on page 103 we can read that the document called Pacta Conventa "appears to be a forgery dating from the 14th century rather than the beginning of the 12th," Babic mentions the same treaty in his military history as a certain fact consummated in 1102 (page 134).

Babic wrote the pages on military history during his time in Venezuela, which explains the lack of a proper bibliography evident in the text. This deficiency particularly affects the earlier periods, while the author possesses abundant data regarding Croatian participation in the two world wars. Consequently, the period from 1918 to 1945 occupies as many pages as the entire preceding history. Aside from this problem of proportion, the exposition is very interesting, especially for the more recent period, with the only reservation being its controversial political implications. Regarding the connection between the heroic conduct of the Croatians during the time of Jurisic and Zrinski and the decline of Turkish offensive power (pp. 138-9), one should avoid suggesting too direct a causal link between the two series of events.

The author of the chapter on economic development, Drago Markovic, did not lack bibliography or data. However, his pages are probably the weakest in the entire book. The material is poorly organized, the analysis of economic development is often superficial, and the style is poor.

Dr. Eterovich, the editor, wrote the pages on the ethical aspects of national character, limiting himself to Catholic Croats. This is a very delicate subject, since "national character" is a difficult abstraction to grasp amidst individual differences as well as the characterological differences of various provinces or social groups.

Moreover, as the author points out, this aspect of national life has been very little studied. Despite these difficulties, Dr. Eterovich has written very interesting pages full of insightful observations. Among the national virtues, he highlights hospitality, a sense of justice, and a desire for order and peace, understandable in a people who have enjoyed very few of these benefits. Among the defects, he cites, first and foremost, a lack of political realism and discord. In his opinion, the regrettable fact that a superior individual does not always find the support he deserves, due to envy, is a result of centuries of struggle against aggressors, since in that struggle Croats have become overly suspicious of potential dangers. He also highlights the differences between various Croatian provinces as one of the factors hindering consensus in political life. To this we might add that the civic virtues necessary for achieving order in the political life of a society are, at the same time, largely a product of life in a well-ordered society. This is a paradox that makes the problems in the political life of many nations so serious.

Tomo Markovic's chapter on crafts deals with folk art in wood, clay, stone, metal, and woven fabrics, as well as the coloring of gourds and eggs, and tattooing. The material in this chapter is extremely interesting, which is not surprising, since the different Croatian provinces, with their distinct traditions, offer an extraordinary wealth of motifs developed by farmers and artisans over the centuries. For the same reason, it is regrettable that only sixteen pages are devoted to this topic. This brevity certainly has something to do with the fact that the author resides in South America, where libraries cannot provide the necessary material for a systematic study of Croatian folklore. Therefore, when selecting contributors, their access to information sources should be taken into account.

Dr. Ante Kadic, writing under the initials K.B.K., is the author of the chapter on literature from 1835 to 1895. This period saw the development of the modern Croatian literary language, the emergence of several novelists, and the culmination of poetry's maturity with the work of S. S. Kranjcevic. Dr. Kadic's exposition is clear and concise, successfully presenting the essential characteristics of the authors of this period and relating them to the political and social context of their time.

Fedor Kabalin writes about Croatian art music from the Renaissance period onward, as no musical texts from before this time have survived. Until the 19th century, there were several Croatian composers and musicians of European renown, but the lack of a royal court and wealthy aristocrats hindered the establishment of significant musical centers in the country.

Only in the 19th century, when the bourgeoisie became the main supporter of cultural life, were the institutions and audiences that allowed for the cultivation of music on an ever-increasing scale acquired, primarily in Zagreb, making it a world-renowned musical center in the 20th century. Kabalin explains the flourishing of musical life after the First World War as a result of liberation from Austro-Hungarian rule. But how, then, would he explain the phenomenon of Dvořák and Smetana in Bohemia under the Habsburg "yoke"? Or is it simply that Czech music flourished earlier, and on a larger scale, because urban culture developed earlier and had deeper roots in that Slavic country?

The characterization of Kuhac as a late Illyrian is not very convincing. Regarding Kuhac's attempts to "make Haydn a Croat," as the author ironically puts it, it is true that Haydn cannot be characterized as a Croatian composer, but the possibility that Haydn was ethnically Croatian has strong arguments in its favor.

Kabalin would have been better off ignoring this issue, highlighting instead the motifs of Croatian folk music in Haydn's work. It must be noted, however, that the main part of the chapter, the account of the development of music and musicians, is satisfactory, with the exception of the overestimation of Josip Slavneski. The appendices—the bibliography, the list of musicians, and the discography—are also very useful.

In the chapter on architecture, sculpture, and painting, Professor Ruza Bajurin presents the reader with the most representative figures and works in these three artistic fields from their beginnings to the present. She does so clearly, though at times rhetorically. It is a shame that the author did not make the final effort to tweak some details that diminish the quality of her study.

The comparison of the "mysterious" gravestones of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the sculptures of Easter Island is very superficial, and the same can be said of comparing the "pioneer city" in Zagreb with Disneyland. Furthermore, it is not true that these stones belong exclusively to the Manichean heretics, and the explanation of the open hand symbol on these stones also does not align with the opinion of experts in the field. The author has relied here on a false popular interpretation. As for the sculptor Augustincic's ideas on non-figurative art, they certainly did not deserve to be cited.

The author mentions that the minarets were added to Mestrovic's pavilion in Zagreb without the artist's consent, but overlooks the fact that he later accepted this modification, and that the demolition of the minarets—which was certainly not driven by artistic motives—also lacked his consent.

We have discussed the book's shortcomings more extensively than its strengths for the reason stated at the beginning. However, the book's positive aspects far outweigh the negative ones. Furthermore, most of the shortcomings could be eliminated with minimal effort from the contributors. It is hoped that the experience gained with the first volume will be reflected in the second, which is now ready for printing.

George J. Prpic, French Rule in Croatia: 1806-1813

By Milan Blazekovic, Buenos Aires

(offprint from Balkan Studies, 5, 1964, pp. 221-276)

A portion of Croatian national territory, due to its geopolitical location and the interplay of imperial politics among European powers, became part of the vast Empire of Napoleon I. This occurred indirectly, first, when in 1806 the provincial government of Dalmatia, based in Zadar and headed by Vicko Dandolo as its governor, was indirectly subject to Eugène Beauharnais in his capacity as Viceroy of Italy and to Napoleon, who held the title of King of Italy.

Later, it became direct when Napoleon formed a union with the Austrian provinces, and with Dalmatia and Croatia up to the Sava River, acquired under the Treaty of Schönbrunn. (October 14, 1809), the Illyrian Provinces, which—separated from the Kingdom of Italy—were part of the French Empire. The governors-general of the Illyrian Provinces were successively Marshal Auguste Marmont (until January 1811), General Bertrand (until March 1813), Marshal Junot (until July 1813), and Fouché (until the end of August 1813). The seat of government was Ljubljana, now the capital of Slovenia.

Therefore, French rule in Croatia encompasses two periods: the first, from the beginning of 1806 until October 1809, which included only Dalmatia, and the second, from October 1809 until the end of 1813, when Croatia proper, up to the Sava River, was also part of the Illyrian Provinces.

This forms the general framework of George J. Prpic's interesting historical study, based on exhaustive historical documentation. The author consulted French, English, and Croatian historical sources. Prpic addresses the historical, socioeconomic, administrative, and cultural aspects of French rule in the following chapters: Dalmatia and the Fall of Venice; The French Conquest of Dalmatia; France and Montenegro; The Beginning of French Administration in Dalmatia; The People's Reaction; The Creation of the Illyrian Provinces; Marshal Marmont and His Reforms in Illyria; Illyria After Marmont's Departure; The End of Illyria. Napoleon and the Croats and The Significance of French Administration - A Critical Approach.

While French administration in Croatia accomplished a great deal during its brief existence in the fields of education, the judiciary, agriculture, mining, and commerce, the popular reaction was unfavorable. Later, with the re-establishment of feudalism and the policy of denationalization, a kind of legend arose surrounding the Napoleonic era. Writers have analyzed the scope and influence of French administration on the subsequent political development of the peoples of Illyria. Although the consequences of French administration are more evident in the economic and social spheres than in the political one, some scholars exaggerated its political repercussions while others downplayed them, thus raising the question: Did French administration contribute to the rise of South Slavic nationalism and the idea of South Slavic unity?

The author cites the opinions of several historians, namely: the Frenchman H. Desprez and the Americans Oscar Halecki and L.S. Stavrians and Hans Kohn agree that the French administration and the creation of Illyria stimulated the South Slavic community, meaning they had a vigorous impact on the South Slavic movement and the Illyrian Movement of Louis Gaj. In contrast, R. A. Kann concludes that the French did not seek to awaken the national consciousness of the Illyrian peoples, but rather exploited existing national aspirations. For Pivec-Stelé, it is mere presumption to claim that Napoleon intended to create a South Slavic state, while Yugoslav propagandists Bogumil Vsnjak and Louis Adamic think otherwise. Eduardo Kardelj, the leading Slovenian communist, is one of the authors who minimize and misinterpret the achievements of the French administration, seeing in Illyria only Napoleon's imperialist designs.

Prpic then reviews Croatian historiography on this issue and argues that Vj. Klaic, T. Smiciklas, Rudolf and Josip Horvat, Mihovil Kombol, R. P. Lopasic, F. Sisic, Petar Skok, Grga Novak, A. Dabinovic, J. Sidak, and Vaso Bogdanov (Serbian) acknowledge the beneficial effects of the French administration, especially in the economic and cultural spheres, but disagree on the extent of its political influence in Croatia, Slovenia, and Serbia. He emphasizes that Ferdo Sisic, "one of the many Croats who sincerely believed in the idea of South Slavic unity," projected his ideals into the future and concluded that the French administration contributed to the birth of the South Slavic unity movement within the framework of the ideas of J. J. Strossmayer and F. Racki. There is no doubt that F. Sisic and some South Slavic historians who shared his views influenced, to some extent, many contemporary French, German, and some British writers.

Here we can cite the names of Emil Hausmant, Gustave Horn, and Louis Léger. Among the Germans, the author mentions Alfred Fischel and H. Wendel, who shared the widespread opinion regarding the influence of the French administration on the formation of the South Slavic movement. Of the Croatian authors who did not agree with Sisic, Prpic cites M. Kombol, who maintains that Dandolo practiced a policy of denationalization in Dalmatia and that Austria, from 1814 onward, tried to erase all traces of Croatian nationalism, transferring thousands of Italian and German employees to Dalmatia for this purpose. In Kombol's opinion, the result of French rule was more the denationalization of Dalmatia than its national awakening. Prpic then quotes the Marxist historian Vasa Bogdanov, who—like non-Marxist authors in the current context—emphasizes class struggle and historical determinism.

Prpic also stresses that historians have given little weight to the testimonies of thousands upon thousands of veterans of the Napoleonic Wars, both Croatian and Slovenian, who lived through the glory and fall of the French Empire. South Slavic historians, Prpic states, have made very little effort to investigate whether and to what extent these thousands of soldiers and officers influenced their communities. What became of the 200,000 young men whom the French Illyrian authorities sent to France for training? Until now, the testimonies of the numerous middle-class citizens who sympathized with the French have received little attention. Until all these problems are thoroughly investigated, the history of French administration in the Slavic South will remain incomplete, the author concludes.

In opposition to the aforementioned theses, Prpic presents the opinion of the Croatian historical researcher Francisco Fancev, who, in his numerous studies, demonstrated that the Illyrian Movement was an indigenous movement of the Croatian people. For its leader, Gaj, and for other earlier writers, including Vitezovic, the name "Illyrian" was synonymous with both Croat and Slovene. Considering Fancev's revisionism, the question arises as to whether the Illyrian Movement aimed at the unification of the South Slavic peoples or was a purely Croatian national movement. Ante Starcevic belonged to the Illyrian Movement in his youth. The Serbs and Slovenes rejected this movement in the 1830s and 1840s. Foreign authors have thus far disregarded Fancev's discoveries and revisionist theories, so their judgments regarding the Illyrian Movement appear untenable and outdated. Therefore, Prpic cautions that future work should proceed with greater care and objectivity, taking new findings into consideration.

Prpic concludes his insightful study by quoting the text on the plaque, discovered on October 28, 1956, at the Dôme des Invalides in Paris, which reads: "In memory of the Croatian regiments who, under the French flag, shared the glory of the French army." However, the Croatians also fought against Napoleon. F. Bourienne (Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte, London, 1903) writes that near Arcole (November 15, 1796), A.F.I. Marmont saved Napoleon himself, who was in great danger of being taken prisoner by a Croatian unit.

Prpic also cites P. Sagnac, who noted (La Révolution Française 1789-1792, Paris, 1920) that the French Revolution erupted on July 14, 1789, at its peak with the storming of the Bastille, triggered by false rumors that German and Croatian troops, loyal to the king, were attacking the Place du Trône and the suburb of Saint-Antoine. Such interesting details abound in Prpic's meticulous work.

When discussing the influence of French revolutionary ideas in Croatia, Prpic mentions, among known "Jacobins," Abbot Ignatius Martinovic, a Serb from Vojvodina (p. 222). Sisic states that Martinovic, head of a secret society founded in Budapest, descended from a Serbian family that had settled in Hungary in 1690, and that his father had converted to Catholicism as an Austrian officer.

According to Sisic, Martinovic was born on July 20, 1755, in Budapest, not in southern Hungary as Prpic writes (see F. Sisic, Hrvatska Povijest, Part III, p. 115). Imbro Tkalac, on the other hand, speaks of "the conspiracy of the Croat Martinovic (Martinuzzi)," which culminated in his beheading in Budapest. Tkalac used this example to explain why Croats distanced themselves from Masonic lodges, those secret organizations that first appeared in Croatia alongside brothels upon the arrival of the French (I. v. Tkalac, Jugenderrinerungen aus Kroatien, Leipzig 1894, p. 34).

Prpic writes on page 23: "In 1797, Dalmatia, the old cradle of the medieval Croatian state, was still under Venetian administration, which had obtained it from Hungary in 1420." The Republic of Saint Mark acquired Dalmatia—more precisely, that part of Dalmatia that until then belonged to the Croatian-Hungarian kingdom—in the Second Venetian War (1418–1420), during the reign of Sigismund of Luxembourg, common king of the electoral kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia. Erroneously, in historiography and cartography, both kingdoms are sometimes referred to as Hungary, as it seems the Magyars imposed their view that Dalmatia and Croatia were partes adnexae (associated kingdoms) and not regna socia (associated kingdoms), a position always held and defended by the Croats. Therefore, it is never too late to rectify inaccurate historical notions and theses in light of objective truth, as George J. Prpic did in his valuable study concerning the influence of the Napoleonic administration on the ideological and political process in Croatia.

Ladislau Hory - Martin Broszats: Der Kroatische Ustacha - Staat 1941-1945 (The Croatian Ustaše State, 1941-1945)

By Franjo Nevistic, Buenos Aires

Published by Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt GmbH, Stuttgart, 1964, pp.

This reference book, with its scientific and historical pretensions, has two authors. L. Hory is Hungarian and lived in Belgrade during the last war, from where the war against Croatia was directed. Martin Broszat is German and one of the editors and contributors to the publishing institute that produced the book.

Hory wrote his part based on Serbian, Hungarian, and German intelligence, as well as his own observations and notes, while Broszat relied on German sources: reports from the German ambassador in Zagreb, S. Kasche, from Glaise von Horstenau, a German general (who lived in Croatia from 1941 to 1944), and from various reports and dispatches from the German Foreign Office's intelligence services and from official or secret delegations of the National Socialist Party sent to Croatia. Consequently, the work constitutes a kind of synthesis of personal observations and commentaries, often subjective and impassioned, on the one hand, and official and semi-official German reports, on the other.

The authors emphasize their purpose of establishing objective truth. It is regrettable that their judgments, taken impartially, turn out to be entirely contrary to their claims of objectivity. The book, in the part that belongs to them, in fact constitutes an indictment of the Croatian state, re-established between 1941 and 1945. The very title, "The Ustaše State," reveals the authors' malicious intent, since the Croatian state of that period was called the Independent State of Croatia.

Their main desire was to show, through their chosen title, that the re-established Croatian state was the work of the Ustaše minority; that the majority of the Croatian people were indifferent to it; that the Ustaše and their state were a creation of Hitler and Mussolini; and, finally, that the Ustaše minority was so fanatical, incompetent, and violent that it deserved utter failure and an inglorious end. In the authors' opinion, any Yugoslav solution, even the current communist one, is better for the Croatians than national independence. According to the authors, the Ustaše Movement was a pro-fascist phenomenon that they supposedly used to study fascism outside of Italy and Germany. This makes it easier for them to link the Croatian people's right to self-determination with a strange and fleeting socio-political phenomenon, one considered outlawed within the sphere of the free world. By linking it in this way, the authors attempt to deny the right to self-determination and thus seal Croatia's fate in Yugoslavia, disregarding the human conditions, the legal order, and the political situation that prevailed in the artificial political conglomerate that was Yugoslavia.

However, a careful reading of the book refutes all the authors' theses and hypotheses. The Ustaše Movement and its leader, Dr. A. Pavelić, were not creations of Mussolini or Hitler. The authors themselves acknowledge that widespread discontent among Croatians prevailed in Yugoslavia. Pavelić led the most determined among them and demanded Croatia's liberation and independence. Of course, according to political rules and historical experience, he had to have someone's support.

This support came from the revisionist powers—Germany and Italy. Both powers, in reality, with an eye toward the future war, had more faith in Yugoslavia, but given its ambiguity and uncertainty, they exploited the well-known and acknowledged Croatian discontent, as did Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. Dr. Pavelić, for his part, saw that the moment was opportune to proclaim Croatian state independence, which "the Croatian people unanimously accepted" (Stepinac). In this way, the multinational Yugoslav state, governed by the Serbian hegemons, disintegrated.

Furthermore, it is clear from the book that Pavelić had not entered into any prior territorial or other obligations with Italy or Germany. On the contrary, the published documents confirm that Fascist Italy sought the destruction of Croatia and the annexation of its territories. The Italian fascists attempted to carry out this plan, allying themselves and actively collaborating with the Serbian Orthodox minority in Croatia. Italian fascism had no qualms about allying itself with the adversaries of Catholicism against the predominantly Catholic Croats, who for centuries had bled in defense of the Catholic Church, Western civilization, and Italy itself.

The authors blame the Ustaše and, generally, the Croats for the violence against the Serbian-Orthodox population, but they acknowledge the subversion and crimes of this minority, "which are no less serious than the Ustaše crimes" (Here, a legal and moral clarification is necessary; that is, our authors should be reminded that betraying one's homeland, as the Serbian minority did in Croatia, is not the same as defending it, as the Ustaše and the Croatian people in general did, fighting against subversion and rebellion directed against the very existence of Croatia as a nation). Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian, and other Orthodox Christians were friends and enjoyed full civil rights in Croatia. Consequently, the authors err in characterizing this struggle as a religious conflict between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, which would signify a return to the Middle Ages and religious wars.

The Serbian minority in Croatia refused to recognize Croatia as its homeland, allied itself against it with the Italian fascists, and provided the main support for the communist movement, which was directed from Serbia. It was therefore perfectly natural to treat this minority as an enemy, in accordance with universal historical experience. There were several generals, high-ranking administrative officials, and politicians in Croatia who were Orthodox Christians.

How, then, is it possible to maintain the thesis that Croatia waged war against the Orthodox Christians? The Serbian Orthodox minority tried by all means to re-establish Serbian hegemony in Croatia, and from this arose all the evils. If Americans, for example, of English origin, were to rise up in arms today, while the U.S. is at war with communist China, with the aim of abolishing the government in Washington and proclaiming North America as New England under the rule of London, what would President Johnson do? Would he guide the rebels toward reason, organizing pacifist marches and prayers, or would he use weapons against them?

The negative reports about Croatia, originating from the German military in Belgrade or from the Nazi Party's secret services, do not correspond to the facts. They are entirely biased, since Belgrade was leading the war against Croatia, and the Germans, influenced by one-sided Serbian intelligence, submitted false or exaggerated reports. The reports of the Nazi Party's secret agents lose credibility, as the authors themselves state that the Nazis hated the Ustaše because of their Catholic beliefs.

Finally, in the reports published by the authors from the German ambassador to Croatia, Siegfried Kasche, and from General Glaise von Horstenau, who knew the people and the prevailing circumstances in Croatia very well, the Croatians are recognized for their patriotism, spirit of sacrifice, and loyalty to their word. While criminal excesses were sometimes committed, in similar circumstances, where weren't they?

Thus, we believe the "scientific" foundations of our authors are destroyed. The struggle for Croatian national self-determination under the banner of the fundamental values of European civilization cannot be labeled fascist, even if the Croatian people momentarily took advantage of the fascist whirlwind that swept across Europe. Particularly, this should not be done by those who claim to be historians and scholars of political and sociological topics. They even admit that Pavelić, in the document with which he established his first contact with Nazi Germany, for tactical reasons emphasized the similarity between the Ustaše and the National Socialists without any internal ideological basis that could justify such an affinity.

When the authors argue, in order to deny democratic foundations to the renewed Croatian state, that only the tiny Ustaše minority wanted Croatian national independence, they reveal their weaknesses as incomplete sociologists and historians. It is one of the indisputable findings of political sociology as a science that revolutionaries always constitute a minority, everywhere in the world. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that at that time the Croatian people unanimously desired the restoration of their national sovereignty (Mestrovic, Stepinac).

It is worth emphasizing here that the authors, from the outset, point to the hostile attitude of Fascist Italy toward Croatia, as well as the negative attitude of the Germans in the final phase of the war, when improvisation prevailed and when Himmler acted as a charlatan on all fronts, especially in the case of the Croatian Muslims.

The hostile and senseless policy of Fascist Italy toward Croatia is clearly, firmly, and definitively proven in the book we are reviewing. No objective and impartial Italian could claim that this policy provided any advantage to the people of St. Francis or to the homeland of John XXIII, the Good. Moreover, everyone knows that this policy caused the Croatian people incalculable damage of every kind. The authors, despite their intentions, deserve our sincere appreciation in this respect. With a little more objectivity and a little less opportunism and passionate bias, their book would serve historical truth much better.

Vinko Nikolic: Dúga nad porusenim mostovima (The Rainbow Over the Destroyed Bridges); Pred vratima domovine (On the Threshold of the Homeland)

By Branko Kadic, Buenos Aires

Dúga nad porusenim mostovima (The Rainbow Over the Destroyed Bridges). Buenos Aires, 1964; Pred vratima domovine (On the Threshold of the Homeland), Buenos Aires, 1966, pp. 416.

The problem of political exiles dates back to the dawn of human society. When the exile is a writer, a poet (let us recall only the prophet Jeremiah, Ovid, Dante Alighieri, and Unamuno), their fate becomes even more tragic, and their anguish intensifies. Much has been written about the poetry of the exiled. Albert Thibaudet, analyzing the plight of exiles during the French Revolution, emphasizes: "The exiled elites live tragically. They are condemned to a harsh life, a life of isolation and humiliation. Under the pressure of being abroad and facing various trials, they must modify their previous views, learn others, or create new ones."

Among the tens of thousands of Croatian refugees at the end of World War II—when Croatia was subjected to the oppressive communist regime and incorporated into the Yugoslav multinational conglomerate, plunged into terror and bloodshed following the massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians and unarmed soldiers, known as the Bleiburg Massacre—there were also several poets who settled in various European and New World countries. Among those who arrived on the Argentine coast was Professor Vinko Nikolic, a man of many talents, whose poetic work and literary, cultural, and publishing activities we wish to summarize here on the occasion of his recent move to Paris.

Vinko Nikolic was born in Šibenik, an old city on the Adriatic coast. He graduated with a degree in philosophy and literature from the National University of Zagreb and in 1947, fleeing communist persecution, settled in Buenos Aires. In Croatia, he had published three books of poetry (Spring Dawns, The Luminous Paths, and My City, the latter in the dialect of his hometown). In Rome, in 1947, his book The Lost Homeland was published, and in Buenos Aires, The Violated Spring (1947) and Prayer for My Croatia (1949). His later poems appeared in various refugee magazines and newspapers.

In 1964, his anthology Dúga nad porusenim mostovima (The Rainbow Over the Destroyed Bridges) was published. The selection was made by the Croatian poet and literary critic Raimundo Kupareo, currently Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters at the Catholic University of Santiago, Chile. This anthology encompasses the poetic output of three decades, from 1934 to 1964. Nikolic is, par excellence, a lyric poet, belonging to the pre-war Croatian literary tradition, possessing a supple versatility, capable of capturing and conveying, in an apt manner, his own experiences and the anguish of an entire nation. His preferred themes are the figure of his sweet and distant mother, his captive homeland, the sufferings of his compatriots, and the specter of death.

Far from any premeditated hermeticism or abstraction, his verse is clear and fluid, and his inspiration, moreover, sincere and spontaneous. Nikolic wrote highly accomplished sonnets. His poetic world is populated by tender amorous reminiscences, horrifying scenes of human barbarity, and, without vengeful desires, conveys the all-consuming nostalgia of an exile and a man uprooted. Painful accents prevail; The poet is torn between despair and luminous new dawns. In his latest lyrical compositions, matured along the Argentine Atlantic coast, Nikolic, employing new registers, achieves a much broader poetic range, sustained by refreshing images and metaphors.

Nikolic, a connoisseur of Alfonsina Storni's poetry, translated some of her representative poems into Croatian. He shared with the great poet from San Juan the ability to enliven certain landscapes with a few polychromatic brushstrokes, and a deep love for the sea and its mysterious allure.

Beyond his literary work, Nikolic carried out an intense and commendable activity in the cultural field. In 1951, he founded the quarterly cultural and literary journal Hrvatska Revija (The Croatian Review), which he has directed and edited continuously ever since. This publication never received financial support or subsidies from any institution or foundation. Thanks to the dedication and persevering efforts of its director, who provided it with a broad democratic platform, the Croatian Review became a true literary, cultural, and political beacon for Croatian exiles scattered across the five continents. Its editor, open to all concerns, secured the free collaboration and almost unanimous moral support of Croatian intellectuals in exile.

His goal was to stimulate the creative work of the refugees, promote the culture of their country, interpret the aspirations of the Croatian people, prevented from expressing them freely, and contribute to the liberation of Croatia. In sixty graphically illustrated volumes, there is abundant and varied material related to the past and present of the Croatian nation and to significant events on the world stage. Most of the contributions are written at a scholarly level, in addition to original literary and artistic works.

The Croatian Review is the sum of the intellectual efforts of Croatian exiles and, at the same time, a forum for free discussion within democratic norms. It is, and rightly so, a source of pride for all Croatians and proof, despite such adverse circumstances, of their cultural and political maturity. It is worth noting here that each issue included a feature article in Spanish, and together they constitute a compendium of the most significant events in Croatian history, both past and present, and among the exiles. The Croatian Review is honored to have counted among its contributors such distinguished figures in Argentine cultural and political life as: Reverend Father Franceschi, former director of Criterio; José León Pagano; Julio E. Payró; Troiano Troiani; Alfredo Bigatti; Humberto Eduardo Cerantonio; Romualdo Brughetti; and José Garo, former Argentine consul in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia.

Nikolic, in addition to directing, writing, and managing the aforementioned quarterly publication, and working as a junior employee in the Argentine civil service, founded the publishing house "La Biblioteca de la Revista Croata" (The Croatian Review Library), demonstrating his rare talents as an organizer and successful editor, especially considering his very limited market. To date, he has published thirteen books, each with meticulous graphic design, and it is worth noting their titles and themes, as they are irrefutable proof of the editor's work ethic and the intense cultural activity of the Croatian exiles. Pod tudjim nebom (Under the Foreign Sky), an anthology of Croatian exile poetry, Buenos Aires, 1957; Bez Povratka (Without Return), short stories by Antun Nizeteo, Buenos Aires, 1957; Dr. Ante Trumbic, a political study of Dr. Ante Smith Pavelic, Munich, 1959; Pola stoljeca hrvatske politike (Half a Century of Croatian Politics), a historical-political study by Jere Jareb, Buenos Aires, 1960; Uspomene na politicke ljude i dogodjaje (Memories of Men and Political Events), memoirs of the sculptor Ivan Mestrovic, Buenos Aires, 1961; Blagoslov zvijezda (The Blessing of the Stars), selected poems by Raimundo Kupareo, Buenos Aires, 1960; Sabrane pjesme Viktora Vide, a complete collection of poems by the ill-fated poet Victor Vida, Buenos Aires, 1962; Dúga nad porusenim mostovima (The Rainbow Over the Destroyed Bridges), an anthology of poetry by Vinko Nikolic, Buenos Aires, 1964; Put k Mestrovicu (Road to Mestrovic), an essay on Mestrovic by the young writer Zlatko Tomicic, Buenos Aires, 1965; Exodus, poems by Luciano Kordic, Rome-Buenos Aires, 1964; I poslije nas ostaje tuga (After Us There Is Also Sadness), poems by Borislav Maruna, Buenos Aires, 1964; and the last book, which we will refer to below, Pred Vratima Domovine (On the Threshold of the Homeland), by Vinko Nikolic, Buenos Aires, 1966.

Last year, Vinko Nikolic visited Croatian communities, institutions, and colonies in Venezuela, the United States, Canada, and several European countries. The fruit of this extensive journey, his encounters and dialogues with prominent figures in Croatian political and cultural life, is captured in the comprehensive report titled Pred vratima domovine (On the Threshold of the Homeland), the first volume of which has just been published. Through his engaging account of his travels, Nikolic offers a panorama of Croatian emigration, its achievements and immediate aspirations, while also suggesting what remains to be done or what has been left undone.

The author's impressions, notes, and observations are complemented by insightful dialogues and exchanges of opinions with prominent figures within the Croatian immigrant community regarding current issues and future actions. The aim is to coordinate all intellectual, moral, and financial forces to continue, more efficiently, the struggle for the liberation and independence of Croatia, both culturally and politically. Furthermore, the book under review is interspersed with notes from a traveling poet who, in quick strokes, offers panoramic views, original impressions, and snapshots of the countries, ways of life, and customs of the countries and cities he visited (this volume covers only Venezuela, the United States, and Canada).

We wished, in brief, to outline the fruitful trajectory and trace the multifaceted figure of Vinko Nikolic, a fortunate combination of a true lyric poet, an enterprising man, a constant motivator, a promoter of Croatian culture, and an incorruptible fighter for the independence of his homeland, who, now residing in Paris, intends to further broaden his sphere of influence.

Fr. Bernardo Barcic O.F.M.: St. Paul VI and the King of Christ (In the Land of Christ with Paul VI)

By Bonifacio Perovic, Buenos Aires

(Makarska, Croatia, 1965)

It is well known that the Franciscan Order has been entrusted with the evangelizing mission in the Holy Land since the time of the Crusades, inaugurated by St. Francis of Assisi. Therefore, the history of the Holy Places is intimately linked to that of the Franciscan Fathers.

This was reason enough for the General Curia of the Friars Minor, that is, the Minister General with his Definitorium, to decide to accompany the Vicar of Christ when the pilgrimage of Pope Paul VI to the Holy Land was announced. Thus, the Croatian Franciscan Bernardo Barcic, Definitor General of the Franciscan Order for Slavic languages, accompanied the Pope on his historic journey and was also the only Croatian member of the papal entourage.

His book about that trip has just been published in Croatia, where (as in all of Yugoslavia) there is no freedom of the press and religious publications are very scarce. It achieved great success due to the significance of the event it describes (many in Croatia followed the stages of the papal pilgrimage on television) and the eagerness with which publications that deviate from the ideology, themes, and uniform, stereotypical style of the communist press are read in Croatia.

The author set himself two aims: to provide the faithful in Croatia, who have longed for religious publications for over two decades, with a book filled with quotations from Sacred Scripture that guided the Holy Father on his pilgrimage, and to revive in the minds and hearts of his readers the life and passion of Jesus Christ, awakening, at the same time, through the transcendence of the event, a pious fervor in their souls toward the Holy Places. His second purpose was to evoke the legacy of his Croatian predecessors, their work and contribution to the defense, preservation, and administration of the shrines in the Holy Land.

In his travel notes, Father Barcic gives a prominent place to the martyr Blessed Nicholas Tavelic, O.F.M., whose canonization is eagerly awaited. If canonized, Tavelic would be the first saint of the Custody of the Holy Land. In the chapel of the Apostolic Legation in Jerusalem (where Paul VI resided during his stay there), Blessed Nicholas Tavelic has his altar. Among the numerous Croatian Franciscans who served in the Custody of the Holy Land for centuries, Barcic mentions several custodians, including: Father George Bosnjak (1544), Father Bonaventure Corsetto (1547), a native of Zadar, and Father Francis of Kotor (1635). Father Boniface Drakulica of Lopud deserves special mention. As custodian, he renovated almost all the shrines of the Holy Land and was the first, after Saint Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine, to open the tomb of Christ, in 1555. Drakulica wrote a work entitled: De Perenni cultu Terrae Sanctae et de fructuosa eius peregrinatione (On the Perpetual Cult of the Holy Land and the Fruitful Pilgrimages Thereto).

Barcic had the opportunity to see the firman, that is, the Ottoman deed of sale, which records how the Franciscans came into possession of Gethsemane. According to the laws in force at that time in the Ottoman Empire, Franciscan friars in Palestine could not directly purchase any land or property. In 1681, three Brankovic brothers, Croatians from Sarajevo, arrived in the Holy Land as pilgrims. Upon learning that the Franciscans wanted to acquire the place where Christ spent his last hours of agony in the Garden of Olives, and that the laws in force forbade it, the Brankovic brothers, being Turkish subjects, offered to make the purchase on their behalf. Once the deed of sale was signed, they ceded the land of Gethsemane to the Custody at the foot of the document. The contract, preserved to this day, is, of course, written in Turkish.

The episodes of Paul VI's pilgrimage, as recounted by Barcic, while well-known, are interesting because of the many details and engaging anecdotes they contain. The author highlights the historic meeting between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, given its profound significance in the matter of Catholic-Orthodox unity, a topic of great importance to Croatians.

The book contains a map of Palestine with the detailed itinerary of the papal journey and several illustrative photographs of the pilgrimage.

Journal of Croatian Studies, III-IV, 1962-1963

By Milan Blazekovic

(Annual Review of the Croatian Academy of America, Inc., New York, pp. 200).

In the middle of last year, the Croatian Academy of America published issues III and IV of its Yearbook for 1962/1963, in a volume distinguished by solid works of a historical, political, and cultural nature. The historical-political group of contributors is headed by Dinko A. Tomasic, professor of sociology and Eastern European studies at Indiana University, USA, with his excellent study, "Ethnic Components of Croatian Nationality" (the Spanish version of this work, without any noteworthy changes, was published in Studia Croatica, Nos. 2-3, 1962, pp. 167-177).

This is a concise and synthetic overview of the sociopolitical process of the Croatian people from their settlement in their current homeland to the present day. The author analyzes the roles played by the shepherd guerrillas of the Dinaric Mountains, the farmers of the Pannonian Plain, and the intelligentsia in the urban centers, identifying them as the three actors whose influence was decisive in the formation of Croatian nationality and its distinctive characteristics, and who, moreover, were the bearers of the national ideology from the early Middle Ages to the present. In the subsequent chapters—"The Eastern Orthodox Intelligentsia" and "The Croatian-Serbian Conflict"—Tomasic summarizes, in just five pages, with clarity and scientific impartiality, the complex situation in the ethnically Croatian area, determined by the presence of the maladaptive Serbian Orthodox element and its collaboration with various powers in this region, to the detriment of the Croats. In this way, he provided a fitting interpretation of the events of the past fifty years, which, beginning with the draft constitution of the "neutral Croatian peasant republic," then through the assassination of Radic in 1928 in the Belgrade parliament and of the dictator King Alexander in Marseille in 1934, and continuing through the formation of the Ustaše movement, the creation of Banovina Hrvatska and the Independent State of Croatia, brought the communists to power throughout Yugoslavia "with the active assistance of the Western Allies and Soviet troops." The Yugoslav communists are dominated by Serbs, which provokes opposition even within the party itself, thus weakening its monolithic unity.

Professor Tomasic's work, judiciously placed first in the editorial section, also serves as a valuable introduction to Stjepan Gazi's historical-political study, *The Beginning of the Croatian Peasant Party*. In the first part, Gazi offers a general political overview of Croatia during the two-decade reign of Ban Khuen Hedervary (1883–1903). With his replacement by Ban Teodoro Pejacevic in 1903, political life gained new momentum, and new political groups, including the Croatian People's Peasant Party, joined the three existing parties between 1904 and 1905.

The second part refers to the emergence of the Radic brothers on the political scene in 1902, their participation in the "Croatian Opposition," comprised of the Independent National Party and the Croatian Constitutional Law Party, whose executive secretary was Esteban Radic, who resigned from the party in 1904. Gazi recounts how the Croatian Peasant Party was founded in 1905 and how it evolved until February 1908, when it achieved its first electoral victory and sent three deputies to the Sabor (Parliament).

While Tomasic's work is a profound assessment of Croatia's sociopolitical past and an original interpretation of the present, Gazi's study is a comprehensive and copiously documented account of how and why a political organization, original at the time, was formed in Croatia. This organization would, in the following decades, become the most important Croatian political party, whose program contained these three fundamental points: Croatian constitutional law, peasant democracy, and Slavic solidarity. Over time, this latter idea has been replaced by that of Croatian nationalism of humanist origin.

The collaboration between Professor Cristóbal Spalatin, "The Orthographic Reform in Yugoslavia," and Professor Bogdan Radica's "Notes on Croatian and Serbian Literatures" complement each other and explain to the reader the differences between the two literary languages before the unifying reform, and between Croatian and Serbian literatures, respectively.

Professor Spalatin argues that a literary language is always the result of organized efforts, whether imposed or voluntary. He means that a particular dialect is accepted as the literary language, while other dialects are allowed to develop within their provincial contexts. In the last century, both Croats and Serbs managed, through separate paths, to establish their literary languages, although their foundation is the same: "the Serbo-Croatian language." In other words, "the Serbian and Croatian literary languages are two different versions of the same language."

Among three main dialects—Chakavski, Shtokavski, and Kaikavski—the author states that Serbs and Croats chose the Shtokavski dialect as their literary language, with the difference being that Serbs adopted the Ekavski (a subdialect) and Cyrillic script, while Croats adopted the Ijekavski and Latin script as their means of literary expression. However, because these two peoples have lived separately throughout the centuries and under divergent cultural influences, orthographic, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and lexicographical differences arose in both languages—insignificant from an objective point of view, but extremely important from a subjective one.

The author then points out that two major trends manifested themselves in the political life of Serbia and Croatia: a common political solution, the Yugoslav state, and separate countries, Serbia and Croatia. Unifying trends also implied linguistic unification, while trends aspiring to separate lives between Serbia and Croatia emphasized that they were two different literary languages. As an example of political and linguistic interdependence, Spalatin cites the period 1918–1941 (common political life), then 1941–1945 (separate political life), and 1945–1964, when the communist regime decreed the idea of union and compromise, censoring as remnants of the Ustaše regime any manifestation of Croatian national individuality.

This opposition prevailed from 1953 to 1960 when the joint orthography of the literary language was drafted: "Serbo-Croatian" for Serbs and "Croatian-Serbian" in Croatia. Only in February 1964, that is to say, after 20 years of communist rule, was Stjepan Babic able to refer, with great caution of course, to the Serbo-Croatian linguistic differences in the journal Jezik (The Language). Spalatin, in order to summarize the new orthography of 1960 and show the true nature of the compromise imposed by the communist leaders within the spirit of the official "unity and fraternity," analyzes it in detail and compares Belic's Serbian orthography of 1952 and Boranic's Croatian orthography of 1940 (the seventh edition) with the unified orthography of 1960, which was standard for both Croats and Serbs.

Karl Gustav Ströhm: Between Mao and Khrushchev, Turning Points in Communism in Southeastern Europe

By Francisco Nevistic, Buenos Aires

(Stuttgart, 1964, pp. 301).

The author of this book was a young German writer and contributor to the journal Christ und Welt, where he distinguished himself with his articles on the problems of southeastern and eastern Europe.

With the title of the epigraph, he addresses the future of communism after Moscow's authority as the center of world communism was challenged by Red China. This marked the beginning of the disintegration of a monolithic doctrine and a crisis in the adoption of practical decisions. The Moscow-Beijing conflict called into question the solidarity of communist regimes and determined not only the future of communism but also the development of world politics.

In his exposition, Ströhm essentially limits himself to Yugoslav and Albanian communism, where the ideological and practical crisis is particularly evident. Leaving aside the details, we will highlight the general idea concerning Moscow-Beijing relations and some points that directly affect Croatia.

Ströhm was wrong in his prediction that Beijing would win the favor of the Afro-Asian and South American peoples. The current situation from Indonesia to Cuba speaks in favor of Moscow, not Beijing. The increasingly sharp anti-China stance in Africa is interesting. Of course, this situation cannot be considered definitive or unchangeable. If the new African political leaders do not give due consideration to social justice in their respective countries and repeat the past mistakes of the bourgeois class in general, the situation could shift in Beijing's favour.

Ströhm strives to be impartial. With typical German seriousness, he gathered a wealth of data and hopes that global political actors will pay more attention to the Balkan peoples and their problems.

However, he lacks many elements of judgment to objectively address such complex issues. In our opinion, for example, Ströhm attributes exaggerated importance to the Serbian defeat at Kosovo in 1389. He makes no mention whatsoever of the bloody and protracted struggles of the Croats and Hungarians against the Ottoman conqueror. Nor does he mention the decisive Battle of Mohács. The "Emperor" Lazar, as Ströhm calls him, was simply a local Serbian prince.

Speaking of the organization of the Military Frontier, structured by the central government in Vienna in Croatia, Ströhm says that it was composed mainly of Croatian, Slavic, and Serbian "border" troops. This is tantamount to saying that the German troops fighting in Stalingrad were composed of Bavarians, Prussians, Silesians, and Germans. Slavonia is a province of Croatia, its inhabitants are Croats, and their local name is Slavic. This is an inexcusable error for someone claiming to be an expert on the problems of southeastern Europe.

Ströhm accurately distinguishes between the religion and cultural background of the Slavic population in the Balkans. These differences led to the brutal fighting of 1941–1945, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. “The hatred sprang from the depths of the subconscious,” Ströhm states, “and in the eyes of the Croats, the Serbs were half-Turks, representatives of the Orient, and they wanted to protect themselves from them.” Clearly, the author exaggerates here. For centuries, a sizable Orthodox minority has lived in Croatia, loyal to their homeland, and there have never been significant clashes between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, unlike, for example, the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Western Europe.

The conflict only arose at the end of the last century and in the present, especially after the creation of Yugoslavia in 1918. The Orthodox Christians in Croatia began to identify as Serbian, since the Orthodox Church was the Serbian national church, and Serbian teachers, priests, and the army did everything in their power to ensure that the Orthodox minority in Croatia replaced their former Croatian patriotism with Serbian patriotism.

From then on, this minority placed itself at the service of the Greater Serbian ideology and Belgrade's hegemony over the Croatian people, thus playing the role of traitors. This element, at the moment Croatia proclaimed independence and separated from Serbia in 1941, began with subversive acts, massacres, and mutinies, first under the command of General Draza Mihailović, leader of the Serbian nationalist and military Chetnik movement, and later within the ranks of Tito's communist partisans. Against this orthodox minority, which denies the Croatian people the right to self-determination, it was logical and necessary to fight by the means that it itself imposed.

Nor is the author's thesis tenable that the Croats, like the other Balkan peoples, "discovered the mythical past of their people." From the 7th century until 1918, the Croatian people maintained direct communication with the Popes, the Byzantine and Austrian emperors, the Doges of Venice, and the French and Spanish kings. Croatia experienced its Golden Age in literature, with its people contributing significantly to European art and science (R. Boskovic, Julius Clovius, Laurana, etc.).

Given this wealth of documentation, it is not legitimate to speak of mythology. Although the incessant struggles against the Ottomans weakened its forces, Croatia never lost the attributes and certain prerogatives of a sovereign state in relation to Hungary and Austria, as reflected in the formula: Regnum regno non proescribit leges (Kingdom does not prohibit laws), used by our politicians and military leaders of that era. Therefore, the author's assertion regarding the "domination of Budapest over Croatia" is also inaccurate, as if we were speaking of Turkish domination over Hungary.

Ströhm highlights the spirit of conspiracy among secret organizations and parties that took deep root in Serbia. This is especially true for Serbia, he writes, where the assassination of princes and kings (the last one in 1903, when the Obrenović dynasty was wiped out) became the instrument of political decision-making.

Even today, honors are paid to the student Gavrilo Princip, who in 1914, on the orders of the secret organization "The Black Hand," assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, a friend of the Slavs, in Sarajevo. A very strange dialectic: Franz Ferdinand had to die because he wanted to reconcile the House of Habsburg with its Slavic subjects and transform Austro-Hungarian dualism into a trialist system, with the incorporation of the Czechs, Croats, and the Galician Slavs.

This, however, would be directed against the great Slavic empire that Serbian politicians once dreamed of. When the idea that had driven Gavrilo Princip to become an assassin finally materialized, all the difficulties of a very complex past resurfaced. The Croats felt more distant from Belgrade than from Budapest and Vienna. The Serbs could not, or would not, understand that centuries-old cultural differences do not disappear overnight, nor do they allow for a common authority. By denying autonomy to the Westernized Croatia and Slovenia, the Serbs fueled the spirit of separation. When the time came, "Croatian nationalism abandoned the narrow confines of the Yugoslav border" in 1941. To curry favor with the victorious powers, the author also blames Croatian "extremists" for the "ruthless methods of struggle."

The author provides a concise biography of Tito and the Albanian dictator, Enver Hodza. Next, drawing on copious data and documents, he aptly focuses on the Yugoslav-Albanian conflict, which predates the crisis arising within communist ideology and also relates to the general communist ideological dispute, especially the Moscow-Beijing conflict. These are old conflicts in the new communist guise.

In the pursuit of truth, the author should have addressed the Serbian-Albanian conflict, since neither the Croats nor the Slovenes have interests opposed to those of the Albanian people. For centuries, Serbia has harbored imperialist ambitions over Albanian territory, seeking access to the Adriatic through it. In 1913, the Serbs occupied and annexed vast areas inhabited by a million Albanians, almost half of the population of that nationality, who live in territorial contiguity with their homeland. They employ every means to Serbize them or force them to emigrate and abandon their ancestral homes. These areas, populated exclusively by Albanians, now constitute the "Autonomous Territory of Kosovo-Metohija" within the Socialist Republic of Serbia. Needless to say, this autonomy exists only on paper.

Enver Hodza exploited the Moscow-Belgrade conflict to extricate himself from the "Serbian fraternal embrace" with which the Serbian communists, during and immediately after the last war, attempted to stifle the Albanian people as a nation. Later, with the rapprochement between Moscow and Belgrade, Albania, for the same reasons, aligned itself with communist China.

It would take too long to analyze the aspects of world politics suggested by the author in relation to the communist conflict and division worldwide, and particularly in the case of Yugoslavia-Albania. It should be noted, however, that the author emphasizes Enver Hodza's patriotism and political skill in defending Albania's interests, independence, and territorial integrity in every situation. This tendency is even visible among Macedonian communists. However, we cannot say the same of Tito and his communists of Croatian origin, with the exception of Hebrang, who committed suicide in Tito's prison for advocating "national communism" in Croatia.

As early as 1940, at the Fifth Conference of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, held in Zagreb, Tito had declared that insisting on dividing Yugoslavia into its respective nation-states would be contrary to communist interests. Tito, therefore, acted against his homeland, Croatia, from the very beginning. He placed himself at the service of Greater Serbian Yugoslavia, liquidating his comrades and fellow party members who were reluctant to "have to love Croatia less than Greater Serbian Yugoslavia," to paraphrase his own words when, in his polemic with the Russians, he stated that he and his supporters had no obligation to love Yugoslavia less than the Soviet Union.

At the end of World War II, Tito allowed his Serbian partisans to perpetrate the horrific massacre, unprecedented in the millennia-long history of the Croatian people, considering four centuries of constant and bloody struggles against the Ottoman invaders. Can Tito prove today that the interests of communism, which he placed above Croatian independence, have benefited the Croatian people in any way?

The Bleiburg tragedy, tens of thousands of political exiles, and hundreds of thousands of workers seeking employment and sustenance in the "capitalist" countries of Western Europe conclusively prove that Tito has failed as a communist, as a statesman, and as a supposed "Croatian patriot." Romanian, Albanian, Hungarian, and Polish communists strive to defend their peoples from excessive foreign interference, while the Croatian Tito oppresses and exploits his own people for the benefit of Serbia. Therefore, Ströhm is entirely mistaken when he maintains that only communism, that is, Tito, knew perfectly well during the last world war what should be done with the peoples of that region: organize them into the Communist Party on a supranational basis and lead them into the war of social revolution. This would be one of the most egregious errors in the global approach of the young German publicist.

Zlatko Tomicic: On the Road to Mestrovic

By Branko Kadic, Buenos Aires

(Buenos Aires, 1965, 152 pp. and 56 graphic reproductions)

The author of the book in the epigraph—to be more precise, of an impressionistic essay-report—goes in search of Mestrovic, "the greatest phenomenon among sculptors" (Rodin), from his birthplace to the galleries, mausoleums, temples, chapels, and squares where the works of this brilliant and astonishingly innovative sculptor of our century are kept. Tomicic is a prominent Croatian poet of the postwar generation and currently lives in Zagreb. From a very early age, he was captivated by the vigorous art of Mestrovic, to whom he dedicated his poem "The Sculptor," which, for obvious reasons, I cannot publish. His essay was published last year in Buenos Aires by the publishing house "La Biblioteca de la Revista Croata" (The Library of the Croatian Magazine). The fate of his notes and reflections is interesting. The manuscript, written in 1960 to commemorate Mestrovic's 75th birthday, while he was living in South Bend, USA, was sent to the master. After his death on January 16, 1961, his son sent it to the publisher Vinko Nikolic for publication, as it could not be published in Croatia, where strict communist censorship prevailed. The author neither updated nor granted permission for the publication of his warm and inspired tribute to the great master. Thus, the old adage is repeated: fate has its own destiny.

Tomicic, a vigorous and original talent, akin to the spirit of Mestrovic and, like him, deeply rooted in his land and his people, offers us a suggestive and poetic portrait of Mestrovic's life and work in Croatia. A keen observer of his work, the environment, and the themes that inspired it, he employs an interesting method to convey his impressions and experiences, following in the master's footsteps from his homeland to the places that house Mestrovic's statues. First, he seeks out his natural sources, his birthplace, Otavice. He poignantly describes this rocky and impoverished region in the Dalmatian rear, steeped in the ancient glories of Croatian history, the scene of bloody battles against the Ottoman invaders that gave rise to historical ballads, epic songs, and a particular conception of heroism, which Mestrovic expressed in his heroic cycle. In the nearby town of Drnis, he encounters The Fountain of Life, an expressionist bas-relief, executed in Vienna in 1905 for the Wittgenstein Palace, which the master later recovered and, a few years before his death, donated to the city.

The author draws from this source "the most sublime and most human beauty that perhaps man ever created in stone and wood. And that man is the Croatian Ivan Mestrovic." With poetic flair, he describes the arid and rocky landscape as he approaches the Otavice Mausoleum, a magnificent architectural and sculptural complex, where Mestrovic's remains now lie alongside those of his parents and several relatives. Tomicic analyzes the sculptures of the "powerful master of form and prodigious megaloplast," sometimes attributing unexpected symbolism and origins to them. Mestrovic's relatives shared with him many episodes and details characteristic of the sculptor. It was in this way that he learned that his father, a rough peasant, also possessed a talent for sculpture. Tomicic, through direct contact with the people, was able to verify that Mestrovic, although silenced under the communist regime and sometimes attacked, is in the heart of the people who pay tribute to him, admire and love him, are proud of him and consider him a national symbol and glory.

In a separate chapter, he draws a parallel between Mestrovic and Michelangelo, highlighting their affinities and differences, noting that both masters were deeply imbued with the fertile Mediterranean spirit and that they were united by their artistic genius and ontological suffering. Mestrovic is an "extroverted creator" who synthesizes all the traits of his people: invincible strength, optimism, hope, profound faith, pride and haughtiness, a wealth of thoughts and feelings, but also all the afflictions and sufferings, all the humiliations, misfortunes, and darkness. Michelangelo could be likened to the biblical prophets and Mestrovic to the evangelists; hence the contrast between Michelangelo's self-absorbed, desperate, anguished, and searching religiosity and Mestrovic's refined, optimistic, and clear one.

Tomicic, in his artistic pilgrimage, travels to Split, recalling his apprenticeship with the master in this beautiful city, recounting the impressions inspired by each of the statues housed in the squares and in the Mestrovic Gallery. However, he does not give due attention to the series of wooden panels in the Chapel of the Holy Cross, depicting the Life and Passion of Christ, a cycle on which the sculptor worked for many years and which constitutes his masterpiece. Later, we find him at the monumental votive chapel of Our Lady of the Angels—the Racic family mausoleum in Cavtat.

Here, the master did everything: he drew up the architectural plans, executed the statues and bas-reliefs, carved the doors, and modeled the ornamentation of the bell, achieving perfect harmony between architecture and sculpture. Tomicic, overwhelmed by such beauty, seemed to see, upon leaving the temple, that the palm fronds were heralding the end of slavery, the arrival of peace and freedom, so magnificently symbolized in Mestrovic's grand works and so relevant today in his homeland, Croatia, to which he donated a good part of his creations.

Tomicic's essay, written in a lively and engaging style, without pretensions of being a rigorous analysis, succeeds in bringing the reader closer to the human figure and the work of the illustrious master of visual arts, although his judgments, evaluations, and deductions sometimes appear arbitrary and untenable.

The book contains graphic reproductions of 56 of Mestrovic's works, and on the cover, designed by the painter Pero Maruna, one can appreciate the impressive marble sculpture, Croatian History.

Rastko Vidic: The Situation of the Church in Yugoslavia

By Ivo Bogdan, Buenos Aires

(ed. Publicistico Izdavacki zavod "Jugoslavija", Belgrade, pp. 144.) In our exposition "Relations between Yugoslavia and the Holy See" (Studia Croatica, 1964, nos. 1-2, pp. 32-33), we already mentioned this book. It is an unofficial edition of the Yugoslav communist government, translated into several languages, including Spanish, and published by a company specializing in publications for foreign markets. The version we are reviewing is the Spanish one.

The book in question is more propagandistic than a serious and objective study. Nevertheless, we believe it is important to highlight this because it is intended for an international audience and because it is a document that will help us better understand the constant postponement of the signing of the agreement on the resumption of relations between the Holy See and the communist government in Belgrade, announced so many times in the world press as imminent and finally signed on June 25, 1966.

The author explains the Yugoslav communist regime's view on the social role of the Church, which helps us understand the difficulties the Catholic hierarchy encounters in its attempts to ensure the minimum necessary level of religious freedom in a communist state.

Beyond this general and principled interest, the book has the value of a document, as it offers a detailed picture of the internal situation of a multinational state, where the national division also coincides with cultural and religious divisions. While Serbia, the ruling country, is rooted in the traditions of the Orthodox Church and Byzantium (and in modern times, Russia), Croatia and Slovenia are predominantly Catholic countries, integral parts for four centuries of the multinational community of Danubian peoples with Western culture.

This community was formed in the early 16th century out of necessity for common defense against Ottoman expansion, with the support of the Holy Roman Empire and the Spanish Empire. The first common king of the Habsburg Danubian Monarchy was Ferdinand I of the House of Austria, grandson of the Catholic Monarchs. Ferdinand I, King of Aragon, raised him as the presumptive successor to the Catholic Monarchs, as he already sought to separate the roles of Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain. It was only Philip II who would carry out this separation.

While Croatia was already ruled in the 9th century by the kings of the national dynasty, then by the Croatian-Hungarian kings and the Habsburgs, always appearing as a kingdom associated with sovereign rights and attributes, Slovenian lands were already part of the Holy Roman Empire during the Frankish era. Both countries developed for over a thousand years within the community of Western cultures. Only in 1918 were they incorporated into the new Yugoslav state, having to struggle against the forms and ideas of the Byzantine-Russian world, imposed by force. Serbian hegemony also prevails in the communist regime that supposedly overcame national conflicts through the application of the federal formula. Even the way in which the positions of Catholics and Orthodox Christians are treated, respectively, in this unofficial version, serves as evidence of discrimination against Croats and Slovenes—that is to say, the Catholic Church.

The book's title is imprecise and does not reflect its content, as it refers to the Church in the singular, while the book discusses the Catholic, Orthodox, and Old Catholic Churches, various Protestant sects, and even the very large Muslim and Jewish communities, although the term "church" cannot be used for these religious communities, much less in the singular.

After a brief, principled introduction, the book moves on to an exposition of the religious communities (always using the term "church" in the singular) between the two world wars, that is, under the Serbian Karageorgevic dynasty. The following chapter addresses the position of the religious communities during the communist uprising in the latter conflict. Separate chapters discuss the legal status and actual situation of each religious community in communist Yugoslavia. Next comes propaganda-style information on clergy social security, seminaries, ecclesiastical publications, and state financial aid, particularly for the preservation of religious buildings as historical monuments. A separate chapter addresses the international relations of each religious community and the clergy association, that is, the much-debated priests' unions. The final pages contain statements from some religious representatives and two legal texts: "The Law on the Legal Status of Religious Communities" (1953) and the decree concerning the Federal Commission for Religious Affairs. The book also includes illustrative propaganda material. Most of the photographs feature the communist dictator Tito surrounded by Serbian, Russian, and Greek Orthodox dignitaries.

The introduction cites the constitutional provisions related to the provisions of the aforementioned 1953 law. These provisions are consistent with Soviet ones and coincide in spirit with the extreme state secularism that considers religion a relic of the past. "In regulating relations between Church and State," it reads on page 8, "Yugoslavia bases itself on the social reality of today. In accordance with one of the ideological principles of society, religion is a conditional social phenomenon, dependent on the stage reached in the trajectory of societal development."

The containment of the social influence of religion is presented as the suppression of ecclesiastical privileges and as an achievement on the path to realizing human freedoms. Radical secularism of a communist bent is presented as the attainment of the right to freedom for non-believers, but in reality, it is the establishment of privileges for communists and the restriction of the rights of believers. The State arrogates to itself the right to control everything, ostensibly to maintain order and prevent religious conflicts, and for the preservation—crucial in a multinational state like Yugoslavia—"of the unity and fraternity of the peoples of Yugoslavia, the sovereignty and independence of the country, its socialist development, and the strengthening of its defensive capabilities." We will see below that all these reservations are directed against the Catholic Church, which represents the Croats opposed to the Yugoslav union imposed by force.

The introduction explicitly mentions that relations with the Orthodox Church and other less prominent religious communities have been normalized, but that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has not yet grasped that the regularization of these relations is also in its own interest. "The representatives of the Roman Catholic Church have excluded themselves from these efforts and discussions (...) The pace of this process depends on subjective factors residing within the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church (p. 11).

There is no doubt that the position and attitude of the Catholic Church depend not on subjective but on objective factors, which the author cannot conceal. These factors are:

1) The fact that the majority of Catholics are of Croatian nationality and that Croats, as a whole, oppose the imposed state union, a fact that cannot be erased by empty slogans about 'the fraternity and union of the peoples of Yugoslavia.'

2) The Catholic Church is a universal organization. Its supreme leadership is outside Yugoslavia and escapes the direct pressure of the red totalitarianism. In contrast, other religious communities are autocephalous and do not have such firm moral support from their coreligionists in other countries.

3) For identical reasons in both Yugoslavias, the current communist one and the former monarchical one, Discrimination is practiced to the benefit of the Serbian Orthodox Church and to the detriment of the Catholic Church. Serbia's cultural and state tradition, which even today enjoys a hegemonic position, is closely linked to the Eastern Church, while the Western Church and Western peoples are considered "hereditary enemies" of Serbia, that is to say, of Yugoslavia.

4) Catholics, due to their sound ecclesiastical organization, their high level of religious culture, and particularly their social doctrine, are dangerous ideological adversaries for the communists.

All of this becomes clear from the subsequent considerations. In the chapter dealing with the situation of religious communities in monarchical Yugoslavia (1918-1941), the Serbian national Church is also criticized for its "predominant position" (pp. 16-18), but it is emphasized that such a position was understandable "given its historical merits in the creation and safeguarding of the Serbian nation-state." Furthermore, it is stressed that the Serbian Church was right to oppose the ratification of the concordat with the Holy See.

The Catholic Church is treated very differently, presented as an anti-national institution, despite the fact that in Catholic countries, such as Ireland, Poland, Croatia, and Hispanic countries, notwithstanding its universal character, the Catholic Church has played such a significant role in the history of these nations that it is, to a certain extent, considered the national church. In the section concerning the Catholic Church's actions between the two world wars (pp. 18-25), its cultural and religious work is discussed with marked animosity and interpreted as an attempt to control all aspects of national life and as an action contrary to national interests. The communists overlook the fact that Catholics in Croatia considered it a patriotic duty to participate in the national opposition to the Yugoslav state union, imposed by force—a union that denied not only the right of Croats to re-establish their nation-state but also the very survival of the Croatian social and national group.

How biased, and even ignorant, the author is, is also evident in his assertion that the Catholic Church in monarchical Yugoslavia, where it was relegated, sought to impede and obstruct the activities of other religious communities. And why? "The Roman Catholic Church has proclaimed itself as the one and only true Church for the salvation of the soul." Doesn't every religion consider itself the only true one?

The author is extremely biased when he recounts the failed attempt to sign a concordat between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In a state where, as the author admits, the Serbian national Church, comprising 41% of the faithful (many of whom were not Serbian), enjoyed a privileged position, it was normal that 39% of Catholics would regularize their relations with the state authorities through a concordat to ensure religious equality.

The concordat was signed in 1934. This was the era of King Alexander's dictatorship, which sought not equality between Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs, but rather external gains. The regime also hoped to weaken Croatian national opposition to the Greater Serbian dictatorship. For similar reasons, the current communist regime seeks a modus vivendi with the Holy See.

Therefore, even today, the arguments of the Serbian chauvinists who in 1936 prevented the Yugoslav parliament from ratifying the concordat are officially accepted and defended. Greater Serbian chauvinism so inflamed passions that the Orthodox bishops excommunicated the Serbian deputies who had voted in favor of ratifying the concordat in the first vote. The Orthodox bishops actively participated in the shameful street demonstrations. The Orthodox ecclesiastical hierarchy openly asserted the privileged position of the Serbian Church. Several liberal and pro-Serbolist newspapers in France and Czechoslovakia described this attitude as dangerous for the very existence of the Yugoslav state. Ultimately, the concordat was not ratified, and this provided further convincing evidence for the Croats that Serbo-Croatian coexistence in a common state was not viable.

Taking these facts into account, it is highly significant that the author adopts the views of the Serbian opponents of the equality of Catholics and Orthodox Christians in Yugoslavia at that time. Without any critical analysis, he endorses the misleading interpretations of the proposed concordat provisions, according to which the Catholic Church could freely exercise its mission in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Greater Serbian anti-Catholic propaganda, for example, made the most of the erroneous interpretation of the term "the mission," as if it meant the right to organize Catholic missions among the Serbs with the aim of converting them to Catholicism (pp. 120-21). The Serbian bishops reacted "upon realizing that the positions of the Serbian Orthodox Church were threatened to the benefit of the Catholic Church."

In accordance with the typical conception of Serbian chauvinists, according to which the Catholic Church would be the exponent of Italian national interests vis-à-vis the Slavic peoples, the author suggests that the Yugoslav government advocated in 1937 for the ratification of the concordat "in order to put into practice its political projects, which consisted of its increasingly close adherence to the Axis powers." In other words, the Yugoslav government, in order to ingratiate itself with Mussolini and Hitler, had to favor the Catholic Church. The author goes so far as to claim that the rejection of the concordat—which amounted to reaffirming that Catholics, Croats, and Slovenes were second-class citizens—was a concession made to unanimous public opinion not only in Serbia but "in all regions of Yugoslavia," that is, also among Catholics, who, as is argued elsewhere, were well-organized, possessed a powerful press, and had "succeeded in subduing almost all intellectuals and, naturally, the masses.

Apart from progressive people and movements, it was rare to find a political or bourgeois figure who grasped the intentions of the Roman Catholic Church and who opposed its clerical aims" (p. 20). The author concludes his exposition of this problem by alleging that the separatists and Croatian chauvinists took advantage of the rejection of the concordat and that the peoples of Yugoslavia felt firsthand during the last war "the 'fruitful' activity of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican." This refers to the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the re-establishment of the Croatian state between 1941 and 1945.

In the following chapter, the author blames the Catholic Church for the national conflicts between Croats and Serbs. Shortly before (pp. 24-25), he speaks of "the so-called Catholic Action launched from the Vatican, a new offensive wave of the Roman Catholic Church... in every state of the world." Its aim is to incite fanaticism among the Catholic faithful in their clerical devotion, to "fight blindly for their faith," and for "their earthly power." The author states that within the Catholic Action youth organizations, under the protection of the state, paramilitary groups were created, such as Orao, which would later become "hotbeds of crime."

Apart from the distinctly communist interpretations of the aims and methods of Catholic Action, this involves significant historical inaccuracies. The Catholic youth sports organization Orao, which operated not only in Croatia but also in Bohemia and Slovenia as a counterweight to the secularist organization Sokol, was banned in Croatia during the dictatorship as early as 1929 and was never reinstated.

Therefore, all accusations concerning the paramilitary nature of Catholic youth organizations are false. The state did not protect them; rather, it banned them for being Croatian and Catholic, granting an exclusive monopoly to the Yugoslav nationalist organization Sokol. The Catholic bishops had to prohibit young people from joining this decidedly secularist and anti-religious organization, which provoked bitter controversy and the persecution of parents and students who, for religious or patriotic reasons, refused to join this secularist organization, which, moreover, preached that there is no such thing as a Croatian people in the ethnic sense.

The author's anti-Croatian attitude is also evident in the passage where he discusses the formation of the Old Catholic community in Yugoslavia after the First World War. This dissident movement arose in Croatia during the revolutionary and confusing postwar period. Some priests called for divorce and the abolition of celibacy. When the Yugoslav and Greater Serbian governments began to favor this movement with the aim of creating a political and religious schism in Croatia, the new community was reduced to a few thousand adherents who could thus obtain divorce. Vidic, however, sees the opposite.

"The Old Catholic Church began by gaining a considerable number of followers through patriotic and nationalist concepts, through the Yugoslav cause, and because it opposed the Vatican and its policies directed against the Slavs and the Yugoslav state" (p. 27). (The communist regime favored this sect. In the book under discussion, on page 138, there is a photograph in which the president of "the People's Republic of Serbia," not Croatia, is awarding a medal in Belgrade to "the eminent national activist," the Old Catholic bishop Milan Dobrovoljac.)

In the chapter "Attitude of Religious Communities During the War" (understood to be World War II), all religious communities are accused of "being closely linked to the reactionary political environment" or of assuming a passive attitude toward the communist uprising or even collaborating with "the invading forces." However, a number of clergy members—primarily Orthodox priests—joined the uprising. Of course, the Serbian high clergy are accused of having systematically collaborated with the traitors to the homeland. "However, the Serbian Patriarch Gavrilo refused to side with the occupying forces and the Quislings." "A significant portion of the clergy sided with the enemy and with Draža Mihailović."

In contrast to this favorable account of the attitude of some Serbian Orthodox clergy who, in their eagerness to restore Yugoslavia to its former status as Greater Serbia, were willing to submit to the communists, aided by Russia, a completely different picture emerges when it comes to Muslims, Protestants, and Catholics.

The Muslims (mostly Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the remainder belonging to the Albanian and Turkish minorities) are accused of having supported "the Ustaše state" (very rarely referred to correctly as the Independent State of Croatia). "The German Evangelical Church, with its Bishop Popp in Zagreb (the capital of Croatia, editor's note), was entirely at the service of the German forces..." (Bishop Popp was killed by the communists in 1945).

A large part of this chapter is dedicated to attacks on the position of Catholics during the war. The Catholic Church seized upon the collapse of Yugoslavia as a prime opportunity "to acquire and appropriate the same power it wielded in the northern regions of Yugoslavia during the Austro-Hungarian era." For the author, therefore, Croatia was merely "the region north of Yugoslavia," and at the head of this region, the Catholic Church had "the docile lackey of the Vatican and former Jesuit student Pavelic, along with Archbishop Stepinac, who, resorting to all means, acted to force non-Catholics, and first and foremost the Orthodox, to deny their faith and adhere to the Catholic Church... With the knowledge and blessing of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican, the horrific crimes of the Ustaše were carried out: crimes perpetrated in the so-called Independent State of Croatia..."

The Vatican, the author maintains, aspired to the restoration of the Habsburg monarchy as a great Central European Catholic state. He then names some members of the Catholic clergy who took part in the fighting between the Serbs and the Croats, without mentioning that they were suspended by ecclesiastical authorities because their actions were incompatible with their priestly duties. It should be noted here that the names of exemplary priests currently serving in various republics of the New World were also interpolated among them. Among those accused is the Archbishop of Sarajevo, Ivan E. Saric (who died in Madrid in 1960), a worthy spiritual representative of the Catholics of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The author states that "his criminal activity was crowned by unscrupulous and shameless acts." The character of the episcopal commission, established to prevent and deter forced conversions, is then misrepresented. The book maintains that the commission's function was, on the contrary, to promote coercive conversions to Catholicism. This is not the author's invention, but rather the official thesis of Yugoslav communist propaganda.

Slovenian Catholics are mentioned only to underline "that the treasonous activity in occupied Slovenia of Prince-Bishop Gregorij Rozman of Ljubljana is well known..." (this fervent pastor died in the United States where he worked among numerous Slovenian Catholic refugees).

In the section dealing with the Vatican's position during the last war (pp. 39-42), it is argued that the Holy See considered the re-establishment of the Croatian state in 1941-45 "as the fulfillment of its long-held aspirations and its project of creating a strong, Catholic country in the Balkans that would serve as a bulwark against the invasion of dangerous movements from the East."

Therefore, the Vatican, setting aside its neutral stance, gave its full support and recognition to the founders of the Independent State of Croatia. For the author, the height of the Vatican's culpability was the audience that Pope Pius XII granted to Pavelić in 1941. (What would the author say today about the private audience that Paul VI granted to André Gromyko?). The Vatican is also accused of sending the Apostolic Delegate to Croatia in the person of the Benedictine Abbot Ramiro Marcone.

The nature of his role, which was entirely in accordance with the practice of the Holy See, is being misrepresented. A trip Abbot Marcone made to Bosnia and Herzegovina is being portrayed as stirring up the anti-Serbian struggle. In fact, the Apostolic Delegate tried to influence the troops of the Italian Second Army, stationed in those provinces, to cease their violent actions. Furthermore, the Italians were providing aid to the Serbian Chetnik nationalists who were exterminating Muslims and Catholics and had killed several Catholic priests. The slanderous claim that the Vatican was sending messages to Croatia stating that conversions "by force" were permissible is being repeated without any basis. The Vatican reportedly showed its support for Pavelić when it issued him a passport after the war to travel to South America. (It is quite clear that the author is completely ignorant of how the Vatican operates. Furthermore, it is widely known that Pavelić arrived in South America with a passport from the International Red Cross.)

We find it unnecessary to refute the author's assertion that Pavelić was the head of the Catholic Church in Croatia. The idea that a layperson can be the head of the Catholic Church in a country belongs only to the imagination of a man born and raised in the world of Byzantine Caesaropapist tradition. The Catholic Church in Croatia during the last war, led by its resolute and upright pastor, Archbishop of Zagreb and Croatian Metropolitan, Louis Stepinac, knew how to occupy its rightful place.

He stood by his people as they fought and sacrificed themselves for the ideal of national independence, and at the same time, he never ceased to preach and point out that justice and respect for human and divine rights are the foundation of every state and every civilized society. The communists, by slandering the Catholic Church in Croatia and the Holy See, emphasizing the aid they provided to the Croatian state during the war, unwittingly speak in favor of Croatia's struggle for independence, since the free world knows the true character of the Catholic Church very well. If the Catholic hierarchy, with the Pope at its head, provided so much aid to the Croatian state, as the communists claim, it must have been a just and good cause. And so it was. The Catholic Church should not be ashamed of its benevolent stance toward the Croatian people's struggle for national independence and against atheistic communism, despite the confused and contradictory infighting among political and ideological factions during the last world war.

The chapter dealing with the legal status of religious communities focuses solely on the unilateral interference of a government, controlled and directed by the Communist Party, in matters of Church-State relations. The separation of Church and State exists in several free countries, especially where no single religious community predominates. Therefore, this separation does not have the same character in a free country as in a communist country.

From the constitutional and legal texts cited in the book, it can be inferred that the supposed freedom of worship is under the rigorous control of an atheist and totalitarian regime. Article 5 of the 1946 Constitution contains, for example, the following provisions: "Religious schools for the training of clergy are free, but subject to State control"... "Political organizations based on religious dogma are prohibited." Article 26 of the Constitution states in one of its sections: "Minor children enjoy special protection from the State."

The provision prohibiting a religious organization like Christian Democracy speaks for itself. Such provisions are of paramount importance in a religiously neutral country like a secular democratic state, and especially in a regime that proclaims itself the dictatorship of the proletariat.

According to the law on religious communities, the eventual transgression of a seminarian not only punishes the offender, but can also lead to the closure of the school, seminary, or institution to which he belongs (Art. 23). In this way, seminaries are under the control of the communist political police. This is not merely a presupposition but a harsh reality. Political trials have repeatedly been staged against seminarians and their superiors. Severe sentences have been handed down, and in several cases, the respective seminary has been closed.

"The protection of minors" is carried out against the will of the parents, and children are forced to denounce their parents as subversive elements and adversaries of the regime. The law on religious communities, among other things, permits the baptism of children with prior parental consent, but if the child is 10 years old, the father is not required to intervene (Art. 14). This implies that a 10-year-old child possesses greater spiritual maturity than their parents. Experience shows that all supposed religious freedoms in a communist state are restrictive and interpreted according to the regime's immediate criteria and interests.

The portrayal of the ecclesiastical organization in Yugoslavia, particularly concerning Catholics, is biased and riddled with prejudice, which is also reflected in the erroneous terminology used. The term "Holy Place" appears several times instead of "the Holy See." Catholic convents are described as having "the prince or the custodian at their head" (p. 67).

A separate chapter discusses the priests' trade unions, which were banned by the bishops and the Holy See. The communists tried to force as many Catholic priests as possible to join these organizations, offering them various financial benefits, but without success. In the chapters dealing with religious buildings, considered cultural monuments, and the international contacts of religious communities, the privileged status of the Orthodox Church becomes evident. Every detail is given of Serbian medieval monuments, while the numerous Catholic churches and other buildings—true jewels of Western religious art—are barely mentioned.

The author extensively describes the ties between the Serbian Church and the Russian and other Orthodox churches and recounts the visits exchanged by their representatives. In contrast, there is no mention whatsoever of the Catholic Church's direct contacts with the outside world until the Second Vatican Council, when bishops were finally permitted to travel to Rome. Since there are no Catholic Action organizations, Croats and Slovenes are conspicuously absent from international Catholic congresses.

Both the communist regime and the monarchical one before it frowned upon the international involvement of Catholics, even individually, because these are simply ties with the Western world, with democratic countries, outside the control of the Belgrade government, whether communist or not. The persistent tendency of Yugoslavia under Serbian hegemony, regardless of the prevailing regime, aimed to separate Croats and Slovenes from the free world and strengthen the influence of the Russian world, to which Serbia belongs by virtue of its fundamental national tradition.

---

^[1] Ver artículos de nuestro colaborador Petricevic.

^[2] Komunist, 3/III/1966. Belgrado.

^[3] Hrvatski Glas, Winnipeg, 18/III/1966, Canadá.

^[4] Yugoslav Communism. By Viktor Meier. Published in Communism in Europe. Volumen I, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, pp. 20-80.

^[5] Vjesnik u srijedu, Zagreb, 6/I/1966.

^[6] Le Monde, París, 7/III/1966.

^[7] Algunos periódicos europeos se refirieron a las inclinaciones intelectuales de Koca Popovic. En efecto, ese típico representante de la decadencia de la alta burguesía servia, de rápido ascenso y caída más rápida aún, editaba antes de la guerra en Belgrado la revista surrealista exclusiva Nemoguce-Impossible. Ya el título bilingüe indica que se trataba de una imitación de los surrealistas franceses. La revista se editaba en 150 ejemplares, destinados al círculo “selecto” de los snobs. Sus financistas fueron Koca Popovic, Marko Ristic, escritor marxista y primer embajador de la Yugoeslavia comunista en París, y Stanislav Krakov, íntimo colaboracionista del nacionalsocialismo alemán. En dicha revista Koca Popovic había publicado su autoentrevista. A la pregunta: “¿Qué hace falta a la humanidad?”, contestó: “Una trompeta infantil, una garrafa de gas y una caja de fósforos”. Y a la pregunta: “¿Qué piensa usted de la venganza?”, Popovic dio esta significativa respuesta: “ La venganza del cabecilla rojo será atroz; hasta los nińos en las entrañas maternas responderán”. En efecto, en 1945, en el área del II Ejército yugoeslavo, con sede en Zagreb, al mando del general de los guerrilleros comunistas, Koca Popovic, se cometieron matanzas colectivas de croatas y eslovenos. Millares y millares de niños fueron matados en el útero materno. (Cf. La Tragedia de Bleiburg, “Studia Croatica”, Nros. 10-13). Por cierto, la venganza del cabecilla rojo fue horrenda.

^[8] Phillis Audi, Yugoslavia, Londres 1955, p. 194.

^[9] The New York Times, el 20 de febrero 1966. El texto en la sección “Notas y comentarios” del presente número.

^[10] Winston Churchill: La Segunda Guerra Mundial – Triunfo y Tragedia, Buenos Aires 1955, p. 209.

^[11] Vjesnik, Zagreb, 9/I/1965.

^[12] Times, Londres, 12/XI/1965.

^[13] Borba, Belgrado, 12/XI/1965 en el artículo de P. Stojanovic: Con medidas administrativas no podemos impedir la salida de los obreros al extranjero; ef., el artículo de M. Baletic en Vjesnik, Zagreb, 21/XI/1965: ¿Por qué ilegalmente?

^[14] Borba, 12/XI/1965, Belgrado.

^[15] Vjesnik, 18/1/1965.

^[16] Respecto de las noticias sobre la depuración de Rankovic por tratar de hacer "la revolución de palacio" -noticias que nos llegan mientras el presente número se halla en la imprenta- aquí se trata, evidentemente, de la táctica de Rankovic para no suscitar o reforzar suspicacias en su actitud granserbia. (N. de la R.).

^[17] Cfr. AFP, Reuter, 12/3/1965

^[18] Vjesnik, Zagreb, 5/3/1965.

^[19] N. Pospelov, P. Zablinovkyi, A. Serchaminov: Ruskaia literatura, Moscú, 1945.

^[20] Dostojevski danas, Kolo, Nos. 6-7, Zagreb, 1964.

^[21] Ibid.

^[22] Ed. Iskustvo, Moscú, 1961.

^[23] Komunista, febrero 1965, Belgrado, N. 408.

^[24] Die Zeit, 19/3/65.

^[25] Die Welt, 6/5/1965.

^[26] Narodni list, 6/5/1965, Zadar.

^[27] Borba, 29/7/51.

^[28] Borba, 9/10/51.

^[29] Ver: "La Pensée", revue du rationalisme moderne, A. Cornu: Karl Marx à, Paris, p. 100, 1961, pág. 24.

^[30] Para estudiar la relación entre el nacionalismo-dogmatismo y el absolutismo político ver: Hans Kelsen: Staasform und Weltanschauung, Tubingen 1933; H. de Man, por ejemplo, dice que el comunismo de Marx es el fruto auténtico de su tiempo, una síntesis del racionalismo y de métodos de las ciencias naturales. Su racionalismo "consiste à transporter le principe de causalité mécanique, qui si manifeste dans la technique, à l'intérpretation des faits psychiques. Elle voit dans la pensée rationelle... la règle de tout vouloir et de tout devoir social...".

^[31] M. Scheller: El puesto del Hombre en el Cosmos, pág. 26, Buenos Aires, 1938.

^[32] Theilhard de Chardin: El Porvenir del Hombre, Madrid, 1962. Aquí se puede ver el alcance y el sentido de la interpretación de la evolución de un eminente sabio y sacerdote católico. "Sin la evolución biológica, que ha constituido el cerebro, no habría ánima santificada..." y en cuanto al objetivo último de la evolución,Teilhard dice: "En el seno de un Océano tranquilizado, pero en el que cada gota tendrá consciencia de permanecer, siendo ella misma, terminará la extraordinaria aventura de mundo. El sueño de toda mística habrá hallado su satisfacción plena y legítima. ERIT IN OMNIBUS DEUS", pág. 379. Esta posición acepta también el jesuita español E. Aguirre. Ver: Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, en el artículo: El Mañana de la Evolución, N. 193, enero 1966.

^[33] Pío XII: Encíclica "Humani Generis", Colección Completa de Encíclicas Pontificias, Ed. Guadalupe, Bs. Aires, Tomo II, pág. 1804.

^[34] Existe la opinión sobre este asunto, que podríamos llamar creacionismo "lato sensu". Ver: Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, enero 1966, pág. 179. Romano García, presentando el libro del C. H. Waddington: La naturaleza de la Vida, dice: "Ya Anaxágoras, frente a Empédocles y Demócrito, que explicaban los cambios evolutivos por las colisiones y conjugaciones azarosas de los átomos, veía en tales cambios la materialización de un propósito inteligente" (Waddington), lo que admite la disposición creadora desde el principio, depositando en la primera materia todo el desarrollo ulterior.

^[35] Es sumamente interesante lo que dice: "La especie humana desaparecerá como han desaparecido los dinosaurios... lentamente perderá nuestra estrella su calor y su luz, entonces desaparecerá en ella toda la vida... Entonces no se salvará nada de la civilización humana o superhumana. Descubrimientos, filosofía, ideales, religión -nada existirá ya. De nosotros no quedará tanto ni cuanto quedó del hombre de Neanderthal... En este pequeño rincón del universo será anulada para siempre la irrisoria aventura del protoplasma... La aventura que, posiblemente, se repita en otros planetas... Pero, por donde quiera, siempre sostenida por las mismas ilusiones; creadora de los mismos dolores, absurda; de la misma manera frustrada; de igual manera, por doquiera, destinada fatalmente, desde el principio, a la muerte definitiva y a la eterna oscuridad". Jean Rostand: "Pensées d'un Biologiste", pág. 103, 4. Citado en "Crkva u Svijetu", vocero de la diócesis de Split, enero 1966.

^[36] J. Huxley: En su famosa polémica con el presbítero anglicano Mascall: Die Mucht des Menschen ist alarmierend, en Die Zeit Nro. 32/1960, Complemento, pág. 1.

^[37] Gustavo A. Wetter: El Materialismo Dialéctico Soviético, págs. 222, 3, 4 y 5. Buenos Aires, 1950. "Esta ley que por Engels fuera ubicada en el segundo puesto, hoy en día es colocada generalmente en le primero. Esta ubicación preferencial corresponde a la importancia capital que le atribuye Lenin, quien dice: "La condición del conocimiento de todos los procesos del mundo está en su autocínesis, en su desarrollo espontáneo, en su vida viviente y en su conocimiento como unidad de los opuestos". La esencia de esta autocínesis es descrita por Lenin como: "... el desdoblamiento del uno de los opuestos, que se excluyen recíprocamente, y la relación recíproca entre ellos"... "La 'Unidad' (coincidencia, identidad, equilibrio de la acción) de los opuestos, es condicionada, temporánea, transitoria, relativa. La lucha de los opuestos, que se excluyen recíprocamente, es absoluta, así como también es absoluto el desarrollo, el movimiento".

^[38] Ver sobre las propiedades innatas de la materia y el concepto de "Qual" en F. Engels: El socialismo utópico y socialismo científico, pág. 13, Ed. Coyoacán, Buenos Aires, 1961.

^[39] A. Cornu, op. cit. "La généralisation de la production de valeurs d'échange, qui caractérise le régime de la propriété privée et en particulier le sistème capitaliste, a déshumanisé à la fois le travail, le produit du travail et l'échange". Pág. 29.

^[40] "El objetivo de la historia, después de haber desaparecido la verdad de otro mundo, es el restablecer la verdad de este de aquí. El primer deber de la filosofía, que se halla al servicio de la historia, después de haber desenmascarado la sagrada forma de la alineación del hombre de sí mismo, desenmascarar también esta alineación en sus formas profanas. La crítica del cielo se convierte así en la crítica de la tierra, la crítica de la religión en la crítica del derecho, la crítica de la teología en la crítica de la política". Karl Marx: Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechts-Philosophie: Einleitung, en la obra de Marx-Engels: Uber Historischen Materialismus, Berlín, 1930, pp. 17-18.

^[41] A. Cornu: op. cit. en nota bajo el texto: "Ceci (la crítica de Hegel y Feuerbach - n. observación) montre combien sont peu fondées les tentatives sans cesse réiterées del penseurs burgeois, qui posent comme notion centrale et fondamentale du marxisme, no la notion de praxis, mais celle d'aliénation, pur rejeter l'élément révolucionaire de la pensée marxiste et la réduire à une utopie moralisante, à un humanisme, dont le but serait la réalisation de l'homme vrai, socialment indiferencié". Pág. 32.

^[42] E. Aguirre, S. J., en revista Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, cita a J. Huxley: "El hombre tiene de hecho nueva responsabilidad, le guste o no; ha sido promovido a 'Director de la empresa evolutiva' y no tiene opción a rehusar este cargo", pág. 9.

^[43] Idealismo y Materialismo en la concepción de la historia, J. Jaurès y P. Lafargue, Ed. Siglo Veinte, Buenos Aires, 1960, pág. 47.

^[44] "Ici s'achève l'itinéraire surprennat de Prométhée. Clamant sa haine de dieux et son amour de l'homme, il se détourne avec mépris de Zeus et vient ver les mortels pour les mener à l'assaut du ciel. Mais les hommes sont faibles, ou lâches; il faut les organiser. Ils aiment le plaisir et le bonheur immédiat; il faut leur apprende ŕ refuser, pur le grandir, le miel des jours. Ainsi, Prométhée, á son tour, devient un maître qui enseigne d'abord, commande ensuite. La lutte se prolonge encore et devient épuisante. Les hommes doutent d'aborder ŕ la cité du soleil et si cette cité existe. Il faut les sauver d'eux-męmes... Le Prométhée seul, est devenu dieu et rčgne sur la solicitude des hommes. Mais, de Zeus, il n'a conquis que la solicitude et la cruauté..." A. Camus: L'Homme Révolté, Gallimard, 1951, pág. 301.

^[45] R. Rolland: Péguy, pág. 21, Buenos Aires, 1916.

^[46] A. Camus: Op. cit., págs. 253 y 257

^[47] A. Camus: Op. cit., págs. 241 y 307

^[48] H. Wallon: "Témoignage", en la revista "Pensée", pág. 3, toma la posición contra el positivismo científico, por no querer pronunciarse sobre lo que está más allá de lo positivamente comprobado. Así, según él, se deja lugar para lo misterioso, para lo excepcional, para lo providencial y autónomo. "Et l'autonomie absolue des individus autorisait la croyance qu'il peut y en avoir d'excepcionnels, de providenciels, que leur destin place au-dessus des autres: on sait l'espèce de credulité populaire qui s'attache è la personne des dictateurs".

Wallon evidentemente trata de exterminar una clase de dictadores, excepción de la historia de los pueblos civilizados, para substituirla por otra, del terror racional, como lo ha demostrado en forma tan brillante su connacional A. Camus. Además, desde la sociedad de esos racionalistas modernos, actualmente se libra una batalla muy recia contra Pauwels y Bergier, por temor a permitir el derecho de ciudadanía a otras fuerzas del espíritu, fuerzas irracionales, lo que para los marxistas significa la degradación de la ciencia y el retorno a la hechicería.

En cuanto a la crítica de nuestros filósofos marxistas del régimen comunista yugoslavo, debemos destacar que la ideología oficial yugoslava está contra ellos. Efectivamente, el gobierno de Belgrado en la edición Práctica y Teoría de la Edificación del Socialismo en Yugoslavia, preparada para los lectores de idioma castellano, toma posición al respecto con las siguientes enunciaciones: "... El humanismo abstracto preconiza, a veces, la necesidad de realizar, en las relaciones actuales, los elementos fundamentales de la sociedad comunista; pero en el grado actual de desarrollo material de la sociedad yugoslava, y no sólo de la sociedad yugoslava, sólo podría realizarse en el mejor de los casos, una especie de comunismo primitivo, no exento de elementos burocráticos-estatales, impresos fuertemente". Pág. 372. Del texto fácilmente desprendemos que la política oficial de Tito rechaza el humanismo de los filósofos de Zagreb, insistiendo en la veracidad, la intangibilidad y la posibilidad de realizar la sociedad comunista. Al comunismo "primitivo" le faltan elementos, pero con "elementos burocráticos fuertemente impresos" todo se va a conseguir. Además el ministro de Tito, Kyrov, al defender la orientación económica de su gobierno hacia el Occidente, no pone en duda la superioridad del socialismo-comunismo frente al sistema de libre empresa. Una vez obtenidos los elementos técnicos del mundo capitalista, se realizará la plena industrialización, llegará "el apocalipsis industrial" y con él el comunismo puro! ¡La fe comunista en su futura sociedad queda intangible y, naturalmente, también el terror racional como medio de realización!

^[49] Cf. J. Petricevic, Política agraria en Yugoslavia, "Studia Croatica" Nros. 2-3, 1961, pp. 117-129, Fracaso del titoismo en agricultura y el campo en general, "S. C." Vol. 4, 1962, pp. 309-324.

^[50] Statisticki godisnjak SFRJ 1964 (En Anuario estadístico de Yugoslavia 1964), ed. El Instituto Federal de Estadística, Belgrado, p. 142.

^[51] FAO, Production Yearbook 1963, Roma, p. 37.

^[52] Statisticki godisnjak SFRJ 1964 (El anuario estadístico de Yugoslavia, 1964), p. 145; Borba del 2/10/1964. Datos provisorios.

^[53] Statiscki godisnjak SFRJ, 1963-1964 (El anuario estadístico de Yugoslavia, 1961964)

^[54] Anuario estadístico de Yugoslavia.

^[55] Anuario estadístico de Yugoslavia 1964, pp. 150 y 153.

^[56] Cf.: FAO, Production Yearbook 1963, Roma, p. 222.

^[57] Calculado según el Anuario estadístico de Yugoslavia 1964, pp. 150 y 161.

^[58] Cf. Vjesnik del 22/VII/64; K. Dzeba, Razgovor o novim cijenama (La discusión sobre los nuevos precios).

^[59] Vjesnik, 2/ /1976, Zagreb.

^[60] Vjesnik u srijedu, 8/XII/1965.

^[61] New York Herald Tribune, edición parisina del 23/XII/1965.

^[62] New York Herald Tribune, 4 y 5/XII/1965.

^[63] Cf. Schematismus Provinciae Dalmatae SS. Redemptoris O.F.M., Spalati 1965, 1960. Su padre se llamaba Marko y madre Matija Radojkovic.

^[64] Ibídem.

^[65] Acerca del profesor fray Pedro Grabic consultar: Mp. O. Petar Dr. Grabic (1882-1963) Zivotne crtice i glavnija djela, Split, 1964, p. 8; cf. el artículo de Balic: "Glavne oznake dogmatsko-apologetske naravi O. Fra Grabica", ibid., 14-26.

^[66] Cf. Ephemerides theologicae lovaniensis 4 (1927) 743; Antonianum, Romae, 1 (1926) 507.

^[67] Este estudio fue publicado den Revue d´histoire ecclésiastique, Lovaina, 22 (1926) 551-566.

^[68] Cf. Nova revija, Makarska, 7 (1928), 13-22; 8 (1929) 3-16; 9 (1930) 1-21; 10 (1931) 310-329, 414-417; Bogoslovni vestnik, Ljubljana, 9 (1929) 185-219; Theologische Revue, Münter in Westf, 28 (1929) 449-451; Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, Lovaina, 2 (1930) 160-188; 3 (1931) 191-201.

^[69] Cf. Theologische Revue, 28 (1929) 414-417; Nova revija, 10 (1931) 414-417.

^[70] Cf. Nova revija, 10 (1931) 331-352; 390-392; 11 (1932) 123-140.

^[71] Bibliotheca Mariana medii aevi - Textus et disquisitiones, Collectio edita cura Instituti Theologici Macerskensis (Dalmacia), I-II, Sibenici 1931-1933; III-V; Sibenici-Romae 1941-1945; VI-VIII, Romae 1951-1954.

^[72] Cf. Bittremieux, J., en Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 8 (1931) 464-465: "Hoc fasciculo cl. Balic dignissime inaugurat novam collectionem mariologicam... Eruditionem ingentissimam manifesttat Auctor ubicunque; maximam curam in edendo adhibuit, quibus accedit elegans ac nitidus edendi typus; ex quibus omnibus de scientifica soliditate totius collectionis ex hoc primo fasciculo bene augurare jam licet. Quantae utilitatis pro estudio ac progressu mariologiae erit, omnes facile vident"; ver también reseñas en Nova revija 10 (1931) 375-379; en Recherches de théol. Ancienne et méd. 4 (1932) 593-595; Collectanea franciscana 3 (1933) 109-13.

^[73] Autores tratados en la colección: Ionnes de Polliaco et Ionnes de Neapoli; Duns Scotus; S. Bonaventura; Asunción de María en los escritores del siglo XIII; Constitución de Sixto IV sobre la Inmaculada Concepción de María; Jacobus a Voragine; Dionysius Cartusianus; S. Albertus Magnus es eius coaequales. Ver nota Nº 9.

^[74] Cf. Acta Ordinis Fr. Min., 53 (1934) 14.

^[75] Cf. Malo A. - M., Pour le centenaire de Lourdes, Montreal, Canadá, 1958, 89.

^[76] Cf. Acta Ordinis Fr. Min., 53 (1934) 50-65.

^[77] Colectanea franciscana slavica. Acta congressum professorum complectentia, I-II Sibenici 19371940. La crónica del congreso en Zagreb se halla en el vol. I, p. V-XXIV - 534-574; la crónica del congreso en Cracovia figura en el vol. II, p. V-XIX. El tercer congreso, dedicado al Cristo Rey, debió celebrarse en septiembre de 1939 en Bratislava, Eslovaquia, pero fue postergado debido a la crítica situación política. Los provinciales de las cinco provincias franciscanas croatas, junto con la eslovena, habían decidido en su reunión de 17-18 de septiembre de 1939, celebrarlo en Zagreb en 1941 con motivo de los festejos de 1300 años de la cristianización de los croatas y de sus primeras relaciones con la Santa Sede. Debido a la guerra, tampoco esta vez pudo celebrarse. Cf. Collectanea franciscana slavica, II, p. XIX, nota 8.

^[78] Cf. Collectanea frac. Slavica, II, p. XVIII-XIX.

^[79] Cf. Ibid., II, p. XIV.

^[80] Ver la Constitución sobre la Asunción de María Munificentissimus Deus en "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" 42 (1950) 753-771. De la participación de Balic en la promulgación de ese dogma se hablará en las páginas siguientes.

^[81] Dom Quentin H., O.S.B., La vulgate à travers les siècles et sa révision actuelle, Roma 1926, 85: "Ya no se lee ningún texto, clásico o patrístico, en una edición del siglo XV; la crítica ha pasado por doquier, logrando que las ediciones hagan progreso a veces muy grande".

^[82] Ioannis Duns Scoti, Doctoris Subtilis, Ordinis Minorum, Opera omnia, vols. I-XII, ed. Lucas Wadding, Lugduni 1639.

^[83] Ioannis Duns Scoti, Doctoris Subtilis, Ordinis Minorum, Opera omnia, editio nova iuxta editionem Waddingi, vols. I-XXVI, ed. Ludovicus Vives, Parisiis 1891-1895.

^[84] Balic C., The life and works of John Duns Scotus, in Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy, Washington, 3 (1965) 15-26.

^[85] Cf. Balic C., Die kritische Textausgabe der Werke des Johannes Duns Skotus, in Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, Bd. 43, Heft 3, Berlín 1961, 303-304; The nature and value of a critical edition of the complete works of John Duns Scotus, in Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy, Washington, 3 (1965) 369.

^[86] La obra publicada como primer tomo de la nueva colección: Bibliothèque de la Revue d´histoire ecclésiastique, 1, Lovaina 1927, pp. XVI - 370.

^[87] Ioannis Duns Scoti, Doctoris Subtilis et Mariani, Theologiae Marianae elementa, quae ad finem codicum manuscriptorum editit P. Carolus Balic (Bibliotheca Mariana medii aevi) 2 A. Sibenici 1933, pp. CLVL - 452.

^[88] Amadeus a Zedelgen, O. M. Cap., in Collectanea franciscana, 5 (1957) 262.

^[89] Cf. Acta Capituli Generalis a. 1927, ad Claras Aquas 1928, 40; Acta Ordinis Fr. Min., 58 (1939) 25-26.

^[90] Cf. Acta Ordinis Fr. Min., 57 (1938) 233.

^[91] Amedeus a Zedelgen. O. M. Cap., in Collectanea franciscana, 5 (1957) 262.

^[92] Gilson, E., Duns Scott à la lumière des recherches historico-critiques, en Scholastica ratione historico-critica instauranda, Romae, 1951, 507.

^[93] Cf. Ratione criticae editionis Operum omnium I. Duns Scoti, I, Romae, 1939, 106-114.

^[94] Normae pro collatione codicum manuscriptorum a Commissione Operibus I. Duns Scoti edendis servandae, Romae 1939, pp. 8.

^[95] Pelster, F. J., en Scholastik, 27 (1952), 246-247: "Ich glaube nicht zu übertrieben, wenn ich sage, dass siese Opera zu den schwierigsten Ausgaben gehören, die je unternommen wurden".

^[96] El plazo de su labor literaria fue demasiado corto: "unum fere decennium 2, cf. Disquisitio historico-critica, en Ioannis Duns Scoti, Doctoris Subtilis et Mariani, Opera omnia, ed. Vaticana, I, p. 155; cf. asimismo Balic C., The life and works of John Duns Scotus, 2-14.

^[97] Gilson, E., Duns Scot à la lumière des recherches historico-critiques, en Scholastica ratione historico-critica instauranda, Romae, 1951, 516

^[98] Ratio criticae editiones Operum omnium Ioannis Duns Scoti, I-III, Romae, 1939-1951.

^[99] Disquisitio historico-critica y varias Adnotationes están impresas en Ioannis Duns Scoti, O.F.M., Doctores Subtilis et Mariani, Opera omnia, ed. Vaticana, I. Civitas Vaticana 1950, 3-319; IV, 1956, 1-46; VI, 1963, 1-30; XVII, 1966, Introductio.

^[100] Cf. entre otras, ej. Gr., Antonianum, 20 (1945) 267-308; Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, vol. 6 (en Studi e Testi, 126), Città del Vaticano 1946, 292-233; Mélanges Auguste Pelzer, Lovaina 1947, 551-556; Libro e Biblioteche (en Bibliotheca Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani, 5-6), Roma 1950, 189-219, Scholastica ratione historico-critica instauranda (en Bibliotheca Pont. Athnaei Antoniani, 7), Roma 1951, 489-501; Scriptorium, 8 (1964) 304-318; Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, Bd. 43, Heft 3, Berlín, 1961, pp. 303-317.

^[101] Ioannis Duns Scoti, O.F.M. Doctoris Subtilis et Mariani, Opera omnia, studio et cura Commissionis Scolasticae ad fidem codicum edita praeside P. Carolo Balic: Ordinatio, vols. I-IV, Civitas Vaticana 1950-1963; Lectura, vols. XVI-XVII, Civitas Vaticana 1960-1966.

^[102] Masai F. En Scriptorum, 8 (1954) 142.

^[103] Pelzer A., en Revue d´histoire ecclésiastique, 51(1956) 439.

^[104] Dumont C., S.J. Nouvelle Revue Théologique, 88 (1956) 439.

^[105] Gilson E., Bulletin thomiste, 8 (1955) 115

^[106] Geyer B., Franziskanische Studien, 33 (1951) 301.

^[107] Pelster F., S.J., Archivum franciscanum historicum, 44 (1951) 215.

^[108] Nardi B. Revista de storia di filosofia, 1951, p.8.

^[109] Xiberta B., O. Carm., Revista española de teología, 15 (1955) 689.

^[110] Van Steenbeghen F., Revue philosophique de Louvain, 50 (1952) 611-612.

^[111] Idem, Ibid., 61(1963) 321.

^[112] Martin R. M., O.P. Revue d´histoire ecclésiastique, 24 (1928), 175.

^[113] Cf. ver nota 15.

^[114] Scholastica ratione historico-critica instauranda. Acta congressus scholastici internationalis Romae Anno Sancto 1950 celebrati (Bibliotheca Pont. Athenaei Antoniani, 7), Romae, 1951, pp. XXIII, 670.

^[115] Cf. Programma: "Duns Scotus Congress" - Secundus Congressus internationalis scholasticus VII recurrente saeculo a nativitate I. Duns Scoti celebrandus (Oxonii 1114 sept., Edimburgi-Duns 15-17 sept. 1966), Romae, 1965.

^[116] Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II, Decretum de institutione sacerdotali, Nos. 15 y 16.

^[117] Cf. Acta Ordinis Fr. Min. 85 (1966) 53-56.

^[118] Cf. L´Osservatore Romano, 22/X/1950, p. 1: "Apenas elegido Papa, Pío XII confió al entonces monseñor Tardini, que tenía tres puntos principales en el programa de su pontificado: la nueva traducción del Salterio, la definición de la Asunción, y las excavaciones de la tumba de San Pedro".

^[119] Cf. L´Osservatore Romano, 9-10 dic. 1950, pp. 1 y 2.

^[120] Cf. L´Osservatore Romano, 1/XI/1950; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 42 (1950) 778-782.

^[121] Sardi V., La solenne definizione del dogma dell´Inmacolato Concepimento di Maria Santissima. Atti e documenti pubblicati nel cinquantesimo anniversario della stessa definizione, I-II, Roma, 1904-1905.

^[122] Balic. C., Von Tode und Himmelfahrt Mariä, en Wissenschaft und Weisheit, 5 (1938) 183-201; De definibilitate Assumptionis B. V. Mariae in caelum, en Antonianum, 21 (1946) 3-67; De Assumptione B.V. Mariae quatenus in deposito fidei continentur, en Antonianum, 24 (1949) 153-182; La controversia acerca de la muerte de María Santísima desde la Edad Media hasta nuestros días, en Estudios Marianos, Madrid, 9 (1950)101-123; Verso la definizione dogmatica dell´Assunzione della SS. Vergine Maria, en L´Osservatore Romano, 19/VIII/1950.

^[123] Balic C. Testimonia de Assumptione B.V. Mariae ex omnibus saeculis, I-II, Romae, 1948-1950; cf. vol. I, p. IX.

^[124] Laurentin R., La vie spirituelle, nro. 378, noviembre 1952, p. 393, nota 16: "Le soin apporté à èlucider les questions de date et d´athentiché et la présentation de cet Enchiridion sont dignes de tous éloges".

^[125] Cf. Ver nota nro. 9.

^[126] Bibliotheca mariana moderni aevi - Textus et disquisitiones, Collectio edita cura Academiae Marianae Internationalis, I-III, Romae, 1953-1964. Sobre Bibliotheca mariana medii aevi ver nota nro. 9.

^[127] Bibliotheca Assumptionis B.V. Mariae - . Textus et disquisitiones, I-IV, Romae 1948-1962; Bibliotheca Immaculatae Conceptionis - . Textus et disquisitiones, I-IX, Romae, 1950-1959; Bibliotheca Mediationis B.V. Mariae - . Textus et disquisitiones, I-II Romae 1952-1960.

^[128] Laurentin R., La vie spirituelle, nro. 378, noviembre 1952, 391.

^[129] Cf. Malo, A.M., Pour le centenaire de Lourdes, p. 89. R. Laurentin ("mariologue bien connu", prof. Phillips), analizando sendos volúmenes de dichas colecciones, con frecuencia elogia la labor de Balic: "En esta colección (Bibliotheca Immaculatae Conceptionis) se siente plenamente la notable dirección de P. Balic... aquí puede extremar sus exigencias. El resultado es notable: ordenamiento bien concebido, redacciones claras y objetivas, apoyadas paso a paso en notas precisas. La documentación agota los inéditos y nos brinda, cuando lo merecen, una impecable edición crítica. Los índices rematan el conjunto que se presenta en la misma tipografía clara y aérea que las actas del congreso. Es un verdadero descanso espiritual consultar obras tan bien hechas". La vie spirituelle, nro. 456, diciembre 1959, pp. 539-540.

^[130] Ver el texto de la carta papal Deiparae Virginis Mariae en las actas del congreso de Montreal: Vers le dogme de l´Assomption (en Studia Mariana, 4), Montreal 1948, 4-5.

^[131] Cf. Ordinationes peculiares Commiss. Mariali Franciscanae, Romae 1948, 5.

^[132] Cf. Ibid., p. 4.

^[133] La crónica de cada congreso consultarla en el tomo correspondiente de Studia Mariana.

^[134] Studia Mariana, cura Commissionis Marialis Franciscanas edita I-IX, Romae (Lisboa, Madrid, Buenos Aires, París, Montreal, Burlington, etc.) 1947-1954.

^[135] Cf. Acta Pontificae Academiae Marianae Internationalis, Romae, 1, (1961) 18.

^[136] Ibid., p. 18. Es interesante acotar aquí el juicio de R. Laurentin: "¿De dónde estriba el interés primordial de esos congresos? En el encuentro, en la reunión, en los intercambios que suscitan. Acabamos de ver que el trabajo mariano de siglo XX se organiza en el cuadro de las sociedades nacionales. La proximidad geográfica y lingüística impuso tal solución. No está exenta de peligro: de producir mariologías en el vaso cerrado donde el factor nacional perjudica al factor Iglesia, puesto que las tendencias, buenas o malas de cada país se exageran y porque cada sociedad particular tiende a erigirse en norma. Importaba, pues, que se celebren reuniones supranacionales donde las tendencias divergentes puedan tomar conciencia de sus particularismos, neutralizarse, también intercambiar sus logros positivos. Ese resultado fue conseguido tanto al margen como durante las manifestaciones de las que ha informado la prensa. Fue conseguido no sin dificultad: dificultades insuperables aparentemente, afrentadas con intrepidez por el padre Balic. La dificultad básica material es el idioma. El presidente de la Academia Mariana insistió esta vez que las sesiones se desarrollen en latín. Y por cierto, es una buena solución" (CF. La vie spirituelle, Suplément, nro. 52, 1er. trimestre 1960, p. 234).

^[137] Ver crónica del congreso en la colección Alma Socia Christi, I, Romae, 1951, un tomo de 382 páginas con muchas fotografías; cf. ver nota 82.

^[138] Ver la crónica del congreso en la colección Virgo Immaculata, I, Romae, 1958, un tomo de 422 páginas y con abundante material gráfico; cf. nota 83.

^[139] Ver la historia y la crónica del congreso en Nuntia periodica de congressu mariologico-mariano international in civitate Lourdes diebus 10-17 sept. 1958 celebrando, nro. 1-5, Romae 1957-1958.

^[140] Cf. Acta Pontificae Academiae Marianae Internationalis, 3 (1965), 53-72.

^[141] Malo, A.M. Pour le centenaire de Lourdes, 90-91.

^[142] L´Osservatore Romano 1958, sept. 12, 15-16, 17, 19, 20; 1965 marzo 17, 19, 22-23, 25, 27, 31.

^[143] Alma Socia Christi (Acta congressus mariologici-mariani Romae anno sancto 1950 celebrati), I-XIII, Romae, 1951-1958.

^[144] Virgo Immaculata (Acta congressus mariologici-mariani Romae anno 1954 celebrati), I-XVII, Romae, 1955-1958.

^[145] Maria et Ecclesia (Acta congressus mariologici-mariani in civitate Lourdes anno 1958 celebrati), I-XVI, Romae, 1959-1960.

^[146] Cf. Acta Pont. Academiae Marianae Internationalis, 3 (1965) 53. El primer volumen está imprimiéndose.

^[147] Laurentin R., La vie spirituelle, Supplément, nro. 28, 15/II/1954, p. 104.

^[148] Idem, Ibid. Nro. 52, 1er. trimestre 1960, pp. 224-225.

^[149] Idem. La vie spirituelle, Supplément, nro. 28, 15/II/1954, p. 104.

^[150] Idem La vie spirituelle, nro. 378, nov. 1952, p. 390; nro. 388, octubre 1953, p. 292, nota 15.

^[151] Idem La vie spirituelle, nro. 378, nov. 1952, p. 391.

^[152] Así el gran mariólogo jesuita P. De Aldama escribe en Estudios Eclesiásticos 26 (1952) 88: "Todo este conjunto de trabajos y colecciones... constituye hoy sin duda el más importante centro de investigación mariológica en el mundo. La Mariología lo habrá de agradecer siempre a la gloriosa Orden Seráfica"; monseñor Parente en Euntes docete, 6 (1953) 397, dice: "Debemos estar agradecidos al reverendo padre Balic y a todos los relatores del congreso por este largo y precioso aporte científico a la Mariología, que en nuestros tiempos se ha convertido en el punto focal de la Teología"; Michel A., dice L´Ami du Clergé, 66 (1956), 300: "Es un nuevo y verdadero monumento teológico que la Academia Mariana Internacional ha erigido a la Virgen Inmaculada en su congreso de 1954, realizado en Roma"; P. García Garcés, presidente de la Sociedad Mariológica EspaÑola y director de la revista Ephemerides mariologicae, 8 (1958) 174, escribe: "Todos los volúmenes de esta colección (Virgo Immaculata) tienen valor y precio innegables...". Varios juicios están recogidos en Nuntia periodica, Academia Mariana Internationalis, Romae, 6 (1959) 85-95.

^[153] Cf. Acta Pont. Academiae Marianae Internationalis, 1 (1961) 19.

^[154] Cf. Ibid., p. 7-9, 20.

^[155] Cf. Ibid., 3 (1965) 3.

^[156] Cf. L´Osservatore Romano, 18-19 julio 1960, Civilitá Cattolica nro. 111, 20/VIII/1960.

^[157] Cf. Civilitá Cattolica nro. 113, 3/XI/1962, p. 279; . L´Osservatore Romano, 28/IX/1962.

^[158] Sobre el trabajo de las comisiones preparatorias y conciliares y sobe el curso de los trabajos en las sesiones conciliares, consultar, además de los comunicados de L´Osservatore Romano, cf.: Besutti G.M., O.S.M. le note di cronica sul Concilio Vaticano II e lo schema "De B. Maria Virgine", en Marianum, 26 (1964), 1-42; Balic C., O.F.M. La docrine sur la Bienheureuse Vierge Marie, Mére de l´Eglise, et la Constitution "Lumen Gentium", du Concile Vatican II, en Divinitas, 9 (1965) 464-482; Laurentin R. L´enjeu du Concile, I-IV, París, 1962-1965.

^[159] De Maria et oecumenismo, Romae 1962, pp. XI - 593.

^[160] Sebastián Aguilar, CMF, Ephemerides mariologicae, 13 (1963), 491.

^[161] Koser, C. O.F.M., Revista ecclesiastica Brasileira, 23, fasc. 2 (1963) 537.

^[162] Laurentin, R. Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 48 (1964) 122. Ver también P. Luigi Ciappi, O. P. Maestro del Sacro Palazzo Apostolico, L´Osservatore Romano, 19/XII/1962.

^[163] Cf. Laurentin R. L´enjeu du Concile, II, p. 27-45; II. P. 89-113.

^[164] De Scriptura et Traditione, Romae 1963, pp. XI - 742, cf. p. XI.

^[165] Koser C., Revista ecclesiastica Brasileira, 23 fasc. 3 (1963) 819.

^[166] Holstein H., Recherches de science religieuse, 62 (1964), p. 170.

^[167] F.S.A., Ephemerides mariologiae, 14 (1964) 420-423. Cf. Julius Kaup, Franziskanische Studien, Heft 1-2, 1964, p. 163: "monumentale Band".

^[168] Aldama (De) J., S.J., De quaestione mariali in hodierna vita Ecclesiae, ed. Bibliotheca Mariana moderni aevi, 3, Romae, 1964, pp. XIII - 163.

^[169] Laurentin, R., La question mariale, París, 1963, pp. 176.

^[170] García Garcés N., CMF, Ephemerides mariologicae, 14 (1964) 419; cf. asimismo: Aperribay B., Verdad y vida, 88 (1964) 719-728; Philips G., Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses, 41 (1964) 527-528; Boyer, C., S.J., Gregorianum, 45 (1965) 573-574.

^[171] Cf. Balic C., La doctrine sur la Bienheureuse Vierge Marie..., en Divinitas, 9 ( 1965) 464: "L´un ou l´autre pourrait penser: celui qui fut membre depuis le début de la commission théologique, participant ainsi à toutes ses séances; qui fut en outre au début relateur du schéma oficiel, puis participa avec Monseigneur Philips à la rédaction du schéma actuel, est certainement en possession de détails intéressants, peut-être encore non connus ou du moins rapportés de manière imparfaite et souvent inexacte"; cf. p. 465-469; cf. Laurentin R., La Vierge au Concile, Paris, 1965, 9-16.

^[172] Cf. Circa schema constitutionis dogmaticae De Beata María Virgine Mater Ecclesiae; Votum P.C. Balic, periti, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis 1963, pp. 32.

^[173] Cf. Balic C., La doctrine ..., en Divinitas, 9 (1965) 469-70; cf. Laurentin R., La Vierge au Concile, 16-17.

^[174] Cf. Balic C., La doctrine ..., 469-71; cf. Laurentin R., La Vierge au Concile, 21-23.

^[175] Al respecto, estimo apropiado citar aquí un párrafo del artículo de Balic La doctrine. P. 170-171, para que el lector tenga una idea objetiva: "Quand les divisions (entre los Padres Conciliares) parrurent telles qu´elles mena¸aient de ruiner tout le travail accompli, je me rendis chez le cardinal Frings, le priant d´intervenir pour qu´on accepte le texte tel qu´il était, ni plus ni moins. Il le fit et le vote du 29 octobre 1964 obtint le consentement de 1559 contre 10, et 521 se prononcant iuxta modum. Ces derniers étaint encore trop nombreux; ils auraient éte plus élevés encore si directement ou par personne interposée je n´avait pas fait tout mon possible pur convainere les Pères de se contenter de la vois moyenne qui avait ètè choisie".

^[176] Cf. Maria e la Chiesa del Silenzio, Roma, 1957, p. 2.

^[177] Mencionamos sólo alocuciones de los cardenales Ottaviani, Bea, Dopfner, Brown.

^[178] Ver nota 115.

^[179] Disquisitio de valore seu momento critico editionis Locatellinae Sermonum S. Antonii Patavini (Disceptatio Sacrae Congretationi Rituum exhibita super confirmatione cultus Doctoris S. Antonio Patavino per saecula tributi eiusque extensionis ad universam Ecclesiam), Romae 1945.

^[180] Cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 38 (1946) 200-204.

^[181] S. Antonio Dottore della Chiesa. Atti delle Settimane Antoniane tenute a Roma e a Padova nel 1946, Città del Vaticano, 1947, XIX - 520.

^[182] Cf. Acta Ordinis Fr. Min., 66 (1947) 15; 69 (1950) 43.

^[183] Cf. Acta Ordinis Fr. Min., 67 (1948).

^[184] Miscellanea Contardo Ferrini. Conferenze e studi nel fausto evento della sua Beatificazione (Bibliotheca Pont. Athenaei Antoniani, 1) Roma 1947, pp. X - 176. En esta colección salieron hasta ahora 14 volúmenes.

^[185] Studia Antoniana, cura Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani edita, I, Romae 1948. En esta colección se editaron hasta ahora 21 volúmenes.

^[186] Il libro e le biblioteche. Atti del primo congresso bibliologico francescano internazionale, 20-27 febbraio 1949 (Bibliotheca Pont. Athenaei Antoniani, 5-6) I-II, Romae 1950, pp. XX - 525-494

^[187] Cf. L´Osservatore Romano, 6-7 dic. 1965.

^[188] Cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 56 (1964) 223.

^[189] Sobre la estructura de la universidad medieval, especialmente la de París, cf. Balic C., Sredovjecna Univerza (De universitate medioaevali), Nova revija, 17 (1938) 266-282.

^[190] Cf. Commentarium, Pontificia Universitas lateranensis anno academico 1959-1960, Romae 1960, 100.

^[191] Acta Pontificiae Academiae Marianae Internationalis vel ad Academiam quoquo modo pertinentia, fasc. 1-3, Romae 1951-1965.

^[192] Epístola apostólica Alma parens, "L´Osservatore Romano", 24/7/1966.

^[193] Cfr. Cronia A., Dante nella letteratura serbo-croata, L´Europa Orientale, I (1921).

^[194] Llama la Verónica faz nuestra al Santo Sudario con la faz de Jesucristo que se conserva en Roma.

^[195] Delorko completó la traducción inconclusa de Mihovil Kombol, el mejor traductor croata de La Divina Comedia. De su versión se hablará más adelante. Kombol no consiguió traducir los últimos dieciséis cantos del Paraíso por fallecer antes, de manera que su traducción fue completada por Delorko, excelente conocedor del idioma y la literatura italianos. Su versión, editada por Matica Hrvatska tuvo varias reediciones, lo que prueba el vivo interés de los lectores croatas por la obra maestra de Dante.

^[196] Anonimo Florentino. Commento alla Divina Commedia d´Anonimo Fiorentino del secolo XIV, ora per la prima volta stampato, a cura di Pietro Fanfani, Bologna, Romagnoli, 1866-1874. En dicha obra los versos aludidos se comentan en los términos siguientes: "Gente salvatica e scostumata nella riviera del mare adriatico" (La gente salvaje y rústica del litoral adriático). Cfr. La Divina Commedia nella figurazione artística en el secolare comento. A cura G. Biagi (et al.), Turín, 1939, v. 3., pp. 701-702. Ver también artículos y notas de Vinko Lozovina, R. Lenac y B. Poparic sobre dichos versos de Dante en Obzor (1936-37), Hrvatski Dnevnik, (1938), Jadranski Dnevnik (1937) y Hrvatska smotra (1938). Asimismo consultar el artículo de M. Deanovic en Ponte, IX, nro. 8-9 (1955), p. 1430; y B. Radica en Hrvatski Glas, nro. 25 (1965), Canadá.

^[197] Dante Alighieri, Vita Nuova, XLI.

^[198] Cfr. Trabajo de Mirko Deanovic, Dante prema Hrvatima (Dante acerca de los croatas), Hrvatska Enciklopedija, tomo 4, Zagreb, 1943, p. 588. Es escritor croata y prestigioso publicista norteamericano, Bogdan Radica en su estudio "Dante 1265-1965" (Hrvatska Revija, Buenos Aires, 1965, tomo 3, pp. 182-183) comenta los versos de referencia y cita a su profesor de la lengua y literatura italianas Vinko Lozovina en la escuela secundaria de Split, quien opinaba que el sudario de Verónica se mostraba especialmente a los romeros croatas porque en él había escritas letras glagolíticas (Sobre la Glagolitza Croata ver el estudio de M. Japundzic, Studia Croatica, Año V, nro. 1-2, pp. 55-76).

^[199] El comentarista de este forse (acaso) T. Casini en Ponte, IX, nro. 8-9 (1955).

^[200] M. Deanovic, op. cit..

^[201] Cuando durante la primera guerra mundial y en la Conferencia de la Paz los croatas lucharon contra las injustas cláusulas del Pacto de Londres (de carácter secreto) de 1915, según las cuales Istria entera y gran parte de Dalmacia con sus islas debieron ser incorporadas a Italia como recompensa por su participación del lado de las Potencias de la Entente, pudieron citar al mismo Dante en defensa del principio nacional.

^[202] Trad. Del italiano por Juan González, Conde de Cheste; Ed. El Ateneo, Buenos Aires, 1959. Nota del traductor de dicha edición: Pola es ciudad de Istria y el Cuarnaro el golfo que la baña y separa la Italia de la Croacia.

^[203] Paraíso, XIX, 140-41. "Aquel de Rascia", es decir el rey serbio Uros Milutin, falsificador de la moneda veneciana.

^[204] M. Deanovic, Ponte, nro. 8-9, 1955, p. 1430.

^[205] Nacido alrededor de 1450 en el territorio de la República de Dubrovnik. Si bien actuaba en Italia (falleció en 1528 como decano del Cabildo de Treviso) no se olvidó de su patria chica. Hizo importantes donaciones a la iglesia de la Madre de Dios en Lastovo, donde todavía se conserva un cuadro de la Virgen de Pier Francesco Bisoli con la figura del donante e inscripción: Virgini Matri Boninus de Boninis, decanus travisinus aere su j.f. MDXVI. Su nombre y apellido en latín es la traducción fiel de su nombre y apellidos croatas.

^[206] Sobre Marko Marulic ver: Pedro Barnola S.J, Epifanía americana de un insigne humanista croata, "Studia Croatica", Año I, nro. 1, Buenos Aires, pp. 58-60; Ante Kadic: La literatura renacentista croata, "Studia Croatica", año III, nro. 4, 1962, pp. 293-96.

^[207] Cf. C. Dionissoti, M. Marulo, traduttore di Dante, Miscellanea L. Ferrari, Florencia, L. Olschki, 1952. Transcribe el texto íntegro de la traducción de Marulic y en parte la comenta. Influenciado por las pretensiones infundadas del irredentismo italiano sobre Dalmacia, étnicamente la provincia croata más pura, considera a Marulo (Marulic) "dálmata" y nada más. R. Vidovic, Marulicev prepjev Dantea, "Mogucnosti" nro. 4 (1956). El mismo autor, Dante u hrvatskim i srpskim prijevodima, "Mogucnosti" nro. 7-8 (1963); luego Versioni croate e serbe di Dante, "Studi Danteschi", XL (1963), pp. 411-441. Ver también la bibliografía citada allí.

^[208] Cf. El trabajo de Vidovic sobre las versiones croatas de Danta. Ver asimismo Bibliografija rasprava, clanaka iknjizavnih radova (vol. Para el año 1960 y ss.), luego Republika, nro. 5 (1965) dedicada a Dante, con las colaboraciones de F. Cale, M. Zoric, O. Delorko, M. Peic y otros.

^[209] Acerca de dichos escritores ver: Ante Kadic, op. cit.

^[210] Petar Preradovic (1818-1872), Stanko Vraz (1818-1851) e Ivan Mazuranic (1814-1894), escritores de nota de la época del resurgimiento nacional croata de los aÑos treinta y cuarenta del siglo pasado. Ante Tresic-Pavici (1867-1945), Silvio S. Kranjcevic (1865-1908), Ivo Vojnovic (1857-1930) y Agustín Ujevic, destacados escritores y poetas de fines del siglo pasado y de la primera mitad del siglo presente. Algunos representan la cumbre de la creación poética croata.

^[211] Entre otros escribieron sobre Dante: Ivan K. Ostojic (1882), M. Srepel (1889), I. Krsnjavi, L. Vojnovic, M. Begovic, Dinko Sirovica, Lj. Marakovic, Stj. Ilijic, A. Ssso, A. Petravic, V. Vitazica, Vl. Nazor, A. Tresic-Pavicic, V. Lozovina, B. Poparic, T. Ujevic, R. Lenac, S. Rac, A. Wenzelides, M. Deanovic, I. Hergesic, A. Bonifacic, M. Kombol, B. Radica, O. Delorko, F. Cale, M. Zoric, M. Peic, I. Franges y otros. Entre las dos guerras mundiales I. Krsnjavi, L. Vojnovic, M. Deanovic y Vl. Nazor pronunciaron conferencias sobre Dante, y con motivo del 6to. centenario de su muerte las revistas Kritika y Savremenik publicaron colaboraciones especiales. Vale la pena destacar que dedicaron su atención a Dante todas las revistas literarias sin distinción de ideologías, desde la católica Hrvatska prosvjeta (1939) hasta las comunistas Republika y Forum (con motivo del 7mo. Centenario del nacimiento de Dante).

^[212] Cf. Vidovic, op. cit., ver nota 13.

^[213] F. Cale en Republika, nro. 5 (1965), Zagreb. A. Nizeteo en Hrvatska Revija XV, t. 3 (1965), Buenos Aires.

^[214] D. Alighieri, La Comedia Divina, 1ra. Parte: Infierno. Traducción y comentario de Iso Krsnjavi; ed. Matica Hrvatska, Zagreb, 1909, p. 3.

^[215] D. Alighieri, El Infierno, traducción de V. Nazor, comentario y epílogo de I. Hergesic, Zagreb, Matica Hrvaska, 1943. Las partes restantes todavía en manuscrito. Es extraño que a un Nazor no se le publican ni hoy día algunas obras póstumas.

^[216] D. Sirovica, La versión croata de Dante, "Zadarska revija", IV, nro. 4 (1965).

^[217] Dante Alighieri: La Divina Comedia, trad. Mihovil Kombol, Zagreb, ed. Matica Hrvatska, 1948-63. Muerto Kombol en 1955, los últimos dieciséis cantos inconclusos del Paraíso los tradujo Olinko Delorko. Esta edición de Dante fue reimpresa repetidas veces.

^[218] Vidovic, op. cit.

^[219] Cfr. M. Zoric, Nasi novi pjesnici i Dante, "Repúblika", XXI, nro. 5 (1965).

^[220] Cfr. Branko Kadic, Julio Clovio, protector del Greco joven, "Studia Croatica" aÑo II, nro. 1 (nota 2), pp. 19-24.

^[221] Cf. M. Peic, Dante i Hrvatsko slikarstvo (Dante y la pintura croata), "Republika", XXI, nro. 5 (1965).

^[222] J. Badalic, Inkunabule u NR Hrvatskoj, Zagreb, 1952. A. Nizeteo, The First Press in Croatia, "The Library Quaterly", XXX, nro. 3 (1960), p. 209.

^[223] Cornell University. Rare Book Library. Biblioteca Dantesca. The request of Willard Fiske, Cfr. M. Bishop A History of Cornell, Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press, 1962.

^[224] Isidoro Krsnjavi (1845-1927), escritor, pintor, erudito y, sobre todo, meritorio organizador de instituciones culturales croatas como ministro de educación y culto en el gobierno croata autónomo de Zagreb a fines del siglo pasado y comienzo del actual. Dicho gobierno estaba influenciado por los húngaros, de modo que los patriotas lo criticaban acremente, per ni sus adversarios políticos más radicales le negaron sus méritos extraordinarios en el fomento de la cultura croata. Se oponía a toda clase de yugoslavismo. Escribió una biografía novelada de San Francisco de Asís.

^[225] Vlaho Bukovac (1855-1922), el pintor croata más destacado por los años 1900. Alumno de Cabanel, tuvo mucho éxito en París y en Praga, donde era profesor en la Academia de Bellas Artes.

^[226] Bela Czikos (1864-1931), profesor de la Academia de Bellas Artes de Zagreb fundada por Krsnjavi, notable representante y jefe intelectual del academismo pictórico croata.

^[227] Mirko Racki, destacado pintor croata, escenógrafo, profesor de la Academia de Bellas Artes en Zagreb y miembro de la Academia de Ciencia y Artes, Zagreb.

^[228] Dante, Tre donne intorno al cor mi son venute. Canz. XVII, Stanza V.

^[229] Versión castellana: Juan González, Conde de Cheste; Ed. El Ateneo, Buenos Aires, 1959.

^[230] De acuerdo a la estadística oficial de 1963, en el perímetro urbano de Sibenik viven 23.000 habitantes, y casi igual número en sus alrededores densamente poblados.

^[231] La forma italiana es Sebenico y data de la época de la administración veneciana.

^[232] F. Racki, Documenta Historiae Chroaticae periodum antiguum illustrantia, en Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium 7 (1877), 66.

^[233] Ibid., pp. 65-66.

^[234] Rey de Croacia y Dalmacia (1089-90) de quien se conserva un documento, expedido apud castrum Sibinico, feckado el 8/IX/1089 (Cf. Racki, Ibid., p. 148).

^[235] Marko Kostrencik, Nacrt historije hrvatske drzave i hrvatskoga prava (Esbozo de la historia del Estado croata y del derecho croata), Zagreb, 1956, pp. 175-176.

^[236] Ferdo Sisic, Pregled Povijesti Hrvatskog naroda, Zagreb 1862, p. 144.

^[237] Cf. J. G. Fratija, Arquitectura islámica en Bosnia y Herzegovina, "Studia Croatica", 1965, pp. 273-278.

^[238] Cf. el artículo El milenio polaco y los croatas, en este número; Pedro Vukota, Croacia en la geografía Blaviana, "Studia Croatica", Año I, Nro. 1, pp. 56-57; J. B. Fratija, Recuerdo de dos reinas de Bosnia en Roma y Zadar, "Studia Croatica", 1965, pp. 151-52.

^[239] Antun Dabinovic, Hrvatska drzavna i pravna povijest, Zagreb, 1940, p. 214.

^[240] Geoffroy de Willehardouin, uno de los comandantes de la cuarta Cruzada, describió también la conquista de Zadar. Una parte de los cruzados franceses, pese a la protesta de los delegados del Papa Inocencio III, consistió en conquistar Jadees en Eslavonie por 35.000 marcos de plata, para pagar el transporte de los cruzados en las naves venecianas. Willehardouin relató el sitio de la ciudad y los conflictos entre los cruzados y los venecianos. De Zadar dice que "la cité fermée est de hautes murs et de hautes tours; et vainement en eussiez-vous demandé une plus belle, plus forte, ni plus riche" (La Conquête de Constantinople... écrite par... maréchal de Champagne et de Romanie"; "Classiques de l´histoire de France au moyen âge", Chap. 38-40). El Papa emitió un interdicto contra los conquistadores de Zadar y sobre todo contra los venecianos, censurando sus fechorías. "Au lieu de gagner la Terre promise, vous avez eu soif du sang de vous frères. Satan, le séducteur universel, vous a surpris. De mauvais anges vous ont induit, sous prétextes des nécessités inéluctables, a dévier... au païement de votre dette la dépoulle des chrétienes... Tout aurait dû vous détourner de ce dessein, le respect de la croix placée sur vos épaules, le respect du roi, de Hongrie et de son frère, le duc André, croisé comme vous; le respect tout au moins de l´autotité apostolique.Vous n´avez déféré ni à Dieu, ni au Siège Apostolique. Vous avez obligé les gens de Zara à capituler. Sous vos yeux les Vénitiens ont détruit les murs de la cité, pillé les églises, renversé les édifices, et vous avez partagé avec eux les dépouilles de ces malheureux. Sous peine d´anathème, arrètez-vous dans cette oeuvre de dèstruction et faites restituter aux envoyés du roi de Hongrie tout ce qui leur a eté enlevé...". Andrea Vicentino y Tintoretto perpetuaron en el palacio ducal la conquista de Zadar, y sus lienzos prueban los métodos de las conquistas venecianas.

^[241] El cardenal Boson (las biografías de los papas inserte en el Liber Censum de Cencius Camerarius, Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 1886-92) describió la visita que el papa Alejandro III hizo a la ciudad de Zadar en 1777. Acota que la ciudad está "ubicada en los confines de Hungría" es decir que la ciudad pertenece al reino húngaro-croata. "Visto que ninguno de los papas había anteriormente visitado esta ciudad, el clero y el pueblo se regocijaron inmensamente a causa de la llegada del Papa y bendecían con voz alta a Dios por haber permitido que su servidor Alejandro, sucesor del bienaventurado Pedro, visitara la iglesia de Zadar. Luego de montar, según la costumbre romana, un corcel blanco, lo llevaron en procesión por la ciudad con inmensas alabanzas y cánticos en su lengua eslava (in eorum slavica lingua) hasta la iglesia catedral de Santa Anastasia... Cuatro días después, el Soberano Pontífice dejó Zadar y costeando las islas eslavas... llegó felizmente ... a Venecia". Esos eslavos, se entiende, eran croatas.

^[242] Las galeras de las ciudades dálmatas tomaron parte activa en la batalla naval de Lepanto. Algunas ciudades dálmatas guardan todavía con gran respeto los trofeos de la trascendental victoria.

^[243] En 1409, Ladislao, llamado el Napolitano, el último angevino con pretensiones al trono croata-húngaro, se dio cuenta de que prevalecería el partido de Segismundo I de la dinastía de Luxemburgo y por 100.000 ducados vendió a Venecia: Zadar, Novigrad, Vrana y la isla de Pag, el único territorio croata que estaba en su poder, y también sus presuntos derechos a las ciudades dálmatas. Por supuesto que Venecia tuvo que conquistarlas, pero la transacción concertada con Ladislao, en la concepción de aquellos tiempos, le facilitó la conquista. Invocando sus derechos adquiridos mediante la compra, Venecia no se portó como un simple conquistador, sin tener en cuenta cómo logró su título, no reconocido, por supuesto, por el rey Segismundo, monarca legítimo de Croacia, Hungría, Bohemia y emperador romano-germánico.

^[244] Cf. el ensayo de Ante Kadic, La literatura renacentista croata, "Studia Croatica", 1962, nro. 4 (nota 9), pp. 287-308.

^[245] Ljubo Karaman, Umjetnost u Dalmaciji XV i XVI (El arte en Dalmacia en los siglos XV y XVI), Zagreb, 1933; C. M. Ivekovic, Dalmatien Architektur und Plastik, Bd. I-VIII, Viena, 1927; Ivan Bach, Likovna umjetnost u primorskoj Hrvatskoj. "Nasa Domovina", Zagreb 1943m, pp. 669-675; Hans Folnecies, Studiens zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Architektur un Plastik des XV, Jahrhunderts in Dalmatien, en "Jahrbuch d. Zentr. Kommision", 1914, Viena; D. Frey, Der Dom von Sebenico und sein Baumeister Giorgio Orsini en "Jahrbuch d. Zentr. Kommision", Viena 1913; A. Venturi, Storia dell´Arte Italiana, vol. VI y ss., Milán 1908.

^[246] Cf. J. G. Fratija, Ivan Duknovic (Giovanni Dalmata), "Studia Croatica", vol. 2-3 (7-8) 1963, pp. 159-166.

^[247] Bogdan Radica, Risorgimento and the Croatian Question - Tommaseo and Kvaternik, "Journal of Croatian Studies", Nueva York, V-VI, 1964-1965, pp. 3-144.

^[248] Al inaugurar los festejos oficiales del noveno centenario de Sibenik, el 24 de abril del año en curso, Tito personalmente sostuvo en su discurso conmemorativo que la trayectoria histórico-cultural de la ciudad de Kresimir culminó en la supuesta guerra de liberación, encabezada por los comunistas.

^[249] Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Dokumenti i Korespondencija I, Zagreb 1933 (Red. de F. Sisic)

^[250] I. Krnsjavi, Acerca del obispo Strossmayer, Strossmayer - koledar za god. 1907, pp. 124-127.

^[251] Ch. Loiseau, Strossmayer, son époque et son oeuvre, "Le Monde Slave", XIV, 1937, 426.

^[252] Documenti i korespondencija, op. cit., p. 70

^[253] Idem, p. 110.

^[254] R. W. Seton-Watson (Scotus Viator), Die Südslawische Frage im Hamsburger Reiche, Berlín, 1913, 136.

^[255] Idem, 594.

^[256] Dokumenti i korespondencija, op. cit., pp. 72-73

^[257] Prólogo a la "Correspondencia Racki-Strossmayer", IV.

^[258] Ibid., II

^[259] "Korespondencija Racki-Strossmayer", II, 65.

^[260] Cf. P. C. Scolardi, Krijanich, París, 1947, 53 ff.

^[261] V. Szylkarski, Solowjew und Strossmayer, "Ostkirchliche Studien", 1 bd., Würzburg, 1952, 2-15, 86-106, 174-186; 2 Bd., 1953, 36-58.

^[262] Ibid. 1.175

^[263] Cf. S. Rospond: Biskup J. J. Strossmayer a Polska. "Slavia", XV, Praga, 1937-38, 216-230.

^[264] Seton-Watson, op. cit., 262.

^[265] Idem, p. 630.

^[266] Ibid., 148.

^[267] Sobre la Glagolitza consultar el estudio de M. Japundzic en S.C., año V 1-2, pp. 55-76. . N. de la R.

^[268] Haus-, Hof- und Stattsarchiv, Viena, P.A., tomo 259.

^[269] Ibid. "Strossmayeriana varia" 1882-85, 7.73 v.

^[270] El original italiano reza: "Comele he detto altre voltre l´Austria fa male i suoi conti osteggiando gli Slavi e servendo cosí stenza accorgersi alle mire della Rusia" (El archivo de los Barnabitas, Roma).

^[271] Haus, -Hof- und Staatsarchiv P. A. Bd. Fasz., 1913-14.

^[272] Korespondencija Racki-Strossmayer", II, 323.

^[273] La Documentation Catholique, Nro. 1466, col. 432, 6 de marzo de 1966, París.

^[274] Palabras de mons. Boleslao Kominek, quien, según el Anuario Pontificio, es "el encargado de la atención espiritual de los católicos de la diócesis de Vroclav" (ex Breslau), Cfr. Documentation Catolique, París, marzo 1966, col. 445.

^[275] El Consejo de ministros polacos (el gobierno) dirigió el 9/1/1966 una extensa carta al episcopado polaco, alegando que el motivo de haber retirado el pasaporte al cardenal Wyszynski es el envío del mensaje a los obispos alemanes. A continuación escribiremos un párrafo de la carta del gobierno polaco:

"Lo que se dice en ese mensaje y particularmente el pedido de perdón por pecados de que la nación polaca no es culpable, es contrario a la historia, nocivo para la razón de Estado polaco y opuesto a la dignidad nacional. Todo eso suscitó en todo el pueblo polaco una justa indignación". (Ibid. Col. , 448).

^[276] Ibid., col. 445.

^[277] Que los comunistas polacos no lograron inducir a error al pueblo, aunque recurrieron a todos los medios propagandísticos, lo prueban las enormes multitudes en las manifestaciones religiosas y otros sucesos. La Croix (París, 10/2/1966) escribe textualmente al respecto:

"Una ukase de la Oficina de Culto ordenó que los deberes en las escuelas debían hacerse en torno a las distintas variantes de la cuestión: '¿Qué tienen que reprochar al episcopado polaco en su mensaje a los obispos alemanes?' Hubo respuestas asaz inesperadas. A su vez los alumnos preguntaban, por ejemplo, si los polacos habían abandonado voluntariamente las tierras del Este, ocupadas por la Unión Soviética; si el perdón a 'los verdugos de Katyn' y de los campos de trabajo forzado en Siberia, donde murió más de un millón de polacos, era también reprochable como 'el perdón al Oeste'; si los polacos estuvieron presentes en Yalta y Postdam". Ibid. col. 446.

^[278] La lettre des évêques polonais aux évêques allemands (La documentation Catholique, Ibid., col. 431-439); La réponse des évêques allemands (ibid., col. 439-442); Message collégial des évêques polonais à l'episcopat fran¸ais (ibid., col. 450-458).

^[279] Ibid., col. 428.

^[280] Cfr. L´Osservatore Romano.

^[281] Dr. Antun Dabinovic, Hrvatska drzavna i pravna povijest, Zagreb, 1940, pp. 208 y 214.

^[282] Cfr. Milan Blazekovic, "Ilustres croatas de Bosnia y Herzegovina en el imperio turco", Studia Croatica, 1965, Nros. 1-4 (16-19), pp. 298-311.

^[283] D. Mandic, Rasprave i prilozi iz stare hrvatske povijesti (Estudios y aportes de la vieja historia croata), Roma, 1963, pp. 54, 55 y 59.

^[284] Cf. L´Osservatore Romano, ed. Castellana, Buenos Aires, 12 de julio 1966.

^[285] L´Osservatore Romano, Ib.

^[286] Cf. Las relaciones entre Yugoslavia y la Santa Sede, "Studia Croatica", v. 1-2.

^[287] Cf. el texto de Informations Catholiques Internationales en la sección Documentos.

^[288] The Time, 8 de julio de 1966.

^[289] Ver texto completo de la carta en T. Dragoun: Le dossier du cardinal Stepinac, París, 1958, pp. 224-233.

^[290] Paul Lendvai, Jugoslaviens Einvillige Kommunisten, "Der Monat", Berlín, marzo 1966, p. 23.

^[291] New York, 20 de febrero de 1966. Texto en la sección "Crónicas y comentarios".