STUDIA CROATICA
Year XIV – July – December 1973 – Vol. 50-51
"Condemned to Freedom"
Dr. Dominik Mandic (1889-1973), a central figure in
Croatian historiography
Life and work of Prof. Dr. Dominik Mandic, OFM
The ethnic and religious history of Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Prof. Dr. Stjepan Krizin Sakac, CJ
Croats in Chile
How UDBA's "Progress" "Sailed"
at Croatia's expense
Opinions, comments, perspectives
Yugoslavia, agent of international communism
"Esprit," Paris, October 1973, on
problems in Southeast Europe
On Tito's Yugoslavia
Europe and Croatia between two giants
Book reviews
Jure Petricevic: Nationalism in Yugoslavia
Roko Remetic: Characteristic
Gert Fricke: Croatia 1941-1944. The Independent
State as seen by the Plenipotentiary General in Zagreb, Glaise v. Horstenau
Dr. Smail Balic: "Ilmihal" for Youth and
Adults
Dr. Asaf Durakovic: The Place of Muslims in the
Croatian National Community
Condemned to freedom
The right to self-determination of peoples amid
confrontations between international "hawks" and "doves"
Franjo Nevistic
" Croatian nationalism will not be easily disposed off by
Tito, any more than it was by King Aleksander and his successors before World
War I." In "Foreign Affairs", July 1973, p. 754, article In
Security and Cooperation: Yugoslavia and The Balkan,
pp. 778-793, J. Campbell.
The current international situation is confusing
and turbulent, politically, economically, and militarily. For international
observers and commentators, it would be extremely interesting, even compelling,
were it not for its profound tragic undertones.
Indeed, no sooner had the formal conditions been
created to extinguish the flames of war in the Far East than the fighting
between Israel and the Arab world resumed. Tragedy in one part of the world is
followed by tragedy in another. Even worse, this time the point of crisis is
located in a far more dangerous and volatile region, where interests of
paramount importance to many intersect.
What is striking about this situation is that the
main players in both cases are the same. While destruction, sacrifice,
suffering, and death fall upon the Vietnamese, Jewish, and Arab people,
respectively—especially their youth—Moscow and Washington are behind it all.
Destructive weapons, ammunition, money, and food would soon be lacking for the
belligerents if the two world superpowers were to refrain from supplying them
with a firm and determined purpose.
The policy of international détente inaugurated by
Washington and Moscow during 1972, which culminated in the peace in Vietnam,
the admission of communist China to the United Nations, and then a series of
agreements in the European sector—Berlin and the German problem in general—with
good prospects for world peace, had encouraged all those who sincerely love
peace and seek to eliminate war as a means of revenge or settlement between men
or nations, considering it beneath the rational nature of humankind.
And, paradoxically, while the principal negotiators
of this new policy, the architects of peace, were receiving the Nobel Prize for
their skill as negotiators and their pacifist attitude, at that very moment,
war broke out again in the Middle East. Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, despite their
jovial laughter and joy at such a high international distinction, must not,
should not, feel complete satisfaction. There is something—something—that
truncates their feeling, admittedly human, of triumph, something that embitters
them, makes them insecure and restless precisely at the moment of their formal
victory.
Their personal prize is diminished, precarious,
almost fictitious, by the outbreak of a new war in the Holy Land (as this
article was being written, news arrived that the Vietnamese president was
rejecting the prize). Bitterness, nightmare, and frustration must especially
overwhelm the US Secretary of State. For Dr. Kissinger, the "matter"
is very complicated, we might say irremediably contradictory. Three million men
of his Israeli people bear the weight of a war against a numerically vastly
superior enemy. And while he receives the award and accolades for being one of
the architects of the promising international political situation of peace, the
country whose foreign policy he is leading publicly sends all kinds of aid to
one of the warring parties—Israel. Thus, one of those honored for his
internationally "dovey" stance unexpectedly takes on the appearance
of a "hawk," opposed to world peace.
But the attitude of the new US minister is not
accidental. Kosygin's secret trip to Egypt and Brezhnev's own telegram to the
Algerian leader Boumedienne asking the other Arabs to help Syria and Egypt with
the simultaneous shipment of Soviet weapons evidently "inspired" Kissinger
and McCloskey. "Detente cannot survive irresponsibility in any area,
including the Middle East," said the first, and the second added: "If
a massive Soviet arms shipment turns out to be true, it will tend to change the
face of the situation" [1].
It is logical to ask: what is happening in the
world? Where is the international détente solemnly
announced with the promise of peace? What is Brezhnev's true position?
According to E. Ravines, he would be on the side of the "doves",
against the "hardliners" of his own party[2].
And now what? Is there a true winner of the Nobel Peace Prize?
What about the "tribute" to capitalism Brezhnev? For whom will the
fruit of the détente policy be bitter, as John Campbell foresees?[3]
The policy of detente and Croatia
There are few people - possibly none - as
interested in the questions, formulated above, and their possible answers, as
the Croatian people are. Campbell correctly asserts that the Soviet Union in
its current policy of détente shows a clear difference with respect to the
position to be adopted in southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean, on the one
hand, and in central Europe, on the other.
Within its policy of rapprochement and
collaboration with Washington, Moscow does not forget its own security, given
the scheme of division of the respective zones of influence between the two
capitals. The southeastern European sector, according to the general opinion of
observers, is the most dangerous point for peace, both from the point of view
of Washington and that of Moscow. Furthermore, the Soviet capital also sees
there as the weakest point of its own security. Yugoslavia, Albania and,
recently, Bulgaria, constitute a conglomerate and a group of highly dangerous
States.
This is so, without mentioning China's political
presence there, which increases the danger even more. That is why Moscow,
despite its fundamental desire to realize the dream of its own
"planners" with the "businessmen" of North America, and
perhaps, precisely for this reason, did not want to forget its security or,
even, for the same reason, risk a change in the current status of things in
that sector if the possibility is offered, says Campbell. Tito's Yugoslavia,
according to him, was until now the main obstacle in this regard.
But "Titoism" seems to be rapidly
approaching its end. The physical death of the Yugoslav dictator will, most
likely, also put an end to the movement. The national problem,
especially that of the Croats, remains unsolved for Titus, as it also
was for the Serbian king Alexander. Logically, Yugoslavia - both the first and
the second - organized and led as a Great Serbian hegemony, will dissolve or
fall like loot into the hands of its multiple enemies, internal and external.
Externally, for the reasons mentioned, Soviet Russia figures as its greatest
enemy.
Continental Soviet pressure must also find support
from the Mediterranean Sea. Croatian ports on the Adriatic and Walloon in
Albania would be an ideal solution in this regard. But Albania is protected by
"Yugoslav" territory, and this, in turn, by the dangerous invocation
of Brezhnev's doctrine of limited sovereignty. "Titoism," in
practice, has secured international protection, more of a political-moral than
a legal-formal nature. Therefore, in Soviet security calculations, Yugoslavia
occupies a key position. Campbell aptly observes: “To put it bluntly, security
in the Balkans depends, first and foremost, on how the Soviet Union defines its
requirements in view of its own security and its global role. Let us suppose:
whatever the future progress of European stabilization, the Soviets will wish
to severely limit Western influence—in the socialist countries (including
Yugoslavia)—for security reasons… Let us also suppose that they would look to
the Mediterranean and the Middle East as an area where they could project
Soviet power to compete with America and China. This is not an inaccurate
description of what the Soviets’ aspirations and policies were in past years.
Will they now bring greater or lesser security for the future? The answer to
this question has much to do with the so-called Brezhnev Doctrine and cannot be
found in the interpretation of its texts. The Kremlin may be driven by the
desire to extend its area of control, or it may come to tolerate a little more
independence for smaller nations.
Despite the current in "Given the current
trend of détente based on the status quo, things probably don't seem likely to
stay where they are."[4] This is precisely where the great interest of the
Croats in the current policy of détente lies. The Levant is once again ablaze.
Everyone knows that this would be almost impossible without Soviet aid. What
does Moscow want? To extend its sphere of influence or to
consolidate the status quo? Whatever arrangement might occur there—a
crushing Jewish victory, analogous to previous ones,
or a compromise acceptable to Washington as well—will have a direct impact on
Croatia's fate. An impact and consequences possibly more
painful than its current situation. Indeed, despite Tito's break with
Moscow twenty-five years ago, a mini-doctrine of limited sovereignty by
Brezhnev found fertile ground for application in Croatia. The crisis in Tito's
Yugoslavia, which erupted in December 1971, publicly revealed what was
happening behind a façade that bore no resemblance to the reality it concealed.
All the ideals and purposes extolled during the war and revolution
of 1941-1945, and which were meant to inspire communist Yugoslavia, were
betrayed.
The main slogan of the communist
revolutionaries—"unity and fraternity"—became a regime of Great
Serbian hegemony, oppression, persecution, terror, and exploitation of a scale
and cruelty rarely seen in history. This is not the opinion of us, political
refugees, who have opposed communism and the Yugoslav political community from
the outset because both are irreconcilable with the traditions, education, and
interests of the Croatian people. This is according to the Croatian communists
themselves, many of whom, along with Tito and his closest Serbian, Montenegrin,
and Slovenian communist collaborators, spread fear, destruction, and death
throughout the country during the last war and revolution, invoking the ideal
of a new Yugoslav society and state with freedom, equality, and justice for
all. Sixteen thousand of those Croatian communists have been imprisoned or
dismissed from their posts since 1971 alone.
Among them were some of the most prominent
generals, scientists, writers, journalists, poets, and philosophers.
"Studia Croatica" has dedicated four of its recent volumes to
documenting what we are saying. We have reproduced the written and authentic
opinions of those accused and convicted by Tito's regime. We have done the same
with a selection of foreign opinions—numerous, disinterested, and
objective—that corroborate our criticisms. The weight of the argument against
Tito's hegemonic and totalitarian regime rests on the grounds of economic
exploitation. Croatia is the object of systematic and blatant plunder by
Belgrade.
Presented in this way, the rest becomes perfectly
clear. This is not only in accordance with Marxist thought, where the economic
structure serves as the basis for the entire cultural superstructure of a
community, but also in accordance with a universal truth. There is no cultural
progress, in any of its aspects or as a whole, if a people or a nation is
deprived of its income, the fruit of its own manual or intellectual labor.
Economic pauperism necessarily leads to cultural pauperism, to the general
decline of the impoverished community.
In this sense, we find the truth and the essence of
what is happening in Serbian-occupied Croatia condensed in a French report,
when a Croatian student told the Parisian journalist: "We Croats send
remittances to Belgrade, and the Serbs send us the police, terror, and military
occupation." From this fact, it becomes clear why Croatian workers abroad
constitute 60% of the total workforce employed there and originating from
Yugoslavia, even though Croatia, under different political conditions, could
guarantee its children sufficient work and sustenance in their homeland. But in
communist Yugoslavia, there is a regime of injustice, national discrimination,
oppression, and terror, primarily to the detriment of Croatia. It is a worsened
repetition of the Great Serbian regime of monarchical Yugoslavia. Hence, logically, Croatian nationalism. And also its occasional virulence, justifiable and undeniably clear.
That is why Campbell's assertion that Tito will not be able to solve the
Croatian national problem, just as the Serbian King Alexander could not, is
accurate.
Countless proofs demonstrate that this is not a
matter of Croatian obstinacy, nor of our stubbornness,
nor of any attachment to certain political or social ideas of which our
oppressors accuse us in order to denigrate us and thus facilitate their
unspeakable actions. In our case, it is clearly and simply a matter of our
right to national self-determination, a right ignored, despised, and violated
by Belgrade. The communist and Great Serbian regime has applied the Brezhnev Doctrine
against the Croatian people in its fullest sense and scope. He did so, and is
doing so despite the fifty-fifty agreement at Moscow-Yalta[5]
and despite his break with Moscow.
Communism annihilates human personality.
To leave lasting testimony of what we have just
said, we have filled more than four hundred pages of our journal. Here we wish
once again to point out what one of the recent victims of Tito's neo-Stalinism
and his regime has said. Indeed, José Ivicevic-Bakulic, a former university
professor, after having clarified the falsity of the policy of unitarianism
interpreted by Belgrade[6], when he was brought to the dock as a
"counter-revolutionary and separatist," also said the following in
his defense speech: "There was a period (...) when in the socialist world
there was no place for questions and events." In that
finished world, as if there had been room only for mere repetitions... The vow
of loyalty, the "cult of personality," sprang from a living faith
that the collective spirit was embodied in a single person; that, through the
consciousness and will of this person, the self-awareness and the very will of
collective existence were manifested. The attempt of dogmatic consciousness
consisted of a series of identifications.
First, the
identification of the individual and society. Then, the identification of the national and the
universal: the "projection" of man in general corresponded to the
projection of socialism "in general," unique, identical, and for
all... The symmetrical identification of the individual with society and,
later, of society with the State, revealed itself as the omnipotence of society
over the individual and, finally, as the omnipotence of the State over society;
the absolute government of the totality ended in the absolutism of personal
power, the vision of a new and integral man ended in Stalinism. But humanity
could not submit to this process of depersonalization, to a despotic power.
Once again, the irreducibility of the world, its irreducible diversity, and, at
the very core of the world, the experience of the individual and irreplaceable
(human) person, that turning point of the world that escapes all forms of
generalization, became evident. Indeed, this was the experience of our condemnation
to freedom. Precisely because of this condemnation to freedom, according to our
author, an attempt was made to create a socialism with
a "human face," with a likeness not of a man "in general (...)
but with the likeness of the living man, the real man." The aim was,
"instead of a totalitarian and undifferentiated identity, a community
without the tragic and vain sacrifice of the individual: a community in freedom
and autonomy, both personal and national" [7].
It seems almost impossible to better "tell"
the "internal history"—philosophical, political, and sociological—of
the national hegemony and social totalitarianism of a country like Yugoslavia,
which attempts to pass itself off as "liberal." It is a perfect
application of Brezhnev's totalitarian communist and Stalinist doctrine,
disguised as that of its supposed opponent.
The relatively large international silence
regarding this and thousands of other similar victims of Tito was a great
source of bitterness for Croats, both in exile and those subjugated in the
occupied homeland. But the attacks against those who opposed that totalitarian
regime—inside or outside the country—are simply incomprehensible.[8] As if those "condemned to freedom" could act
otherwise. Had the Croatian people not reacted against the hegemonic Great
Serbian oppression and the totalitarian communist regime, they would have
failed in their most sacred duties as members of the Western world for more
than thirteen centuries of their existence in their present homeland. That is
why the position of a superior intellect, such as Mr. S. Madariaga undoubtedly
is, surprises us to the point of despair. Without touching on other cases, we
categorically state that Madariaga's assessment of the Croatian case is very
wrong.
The Right of Resistance and Rebellion
Many aspects of the concepts of rights, freedom,
and human personality are not entirely clear. There are vast differences of
opinion among the most eminent authors who have attempted to resolve them. But
there are also clear facts that preclude any doubt. Where a person or a people does not have the possibility of freely choosing
their own political representatives or form of government; where they must
surrender their natural resources or the fruits of their labor to others, there
the rights of the individual or their national community are violated.
Yugoslavia, both monarchical and communist, is a perfect paradigm of a
permanent, profound violation, a true genocide, of the human and national
rights of the Croatian people. Rebelling against the authorities of that state
is not only a right, but also a duty of the Croatian people. Their actions in
this regard—whether by a single person, groups, or the entire nation—would be
perfectly in accordance with the best traditions of the Western world, with the
fundamental values of a superior civilization, a leader of
humanity in its general progress.
West - East
Indeed, in 1955 an international English-German
colloquium was held—to cite just one clarifying example—on the difference
between the West and the East. On that occasion, the Englishman R. Bierley,
director of Oton College, delivered a lecture entitled "The Foundations of
Western European Culture." After enumerating its constituent elements, he
was asked the following question: Which elements did he consider essential?
Bierley replied: "The first is the ideal of the ultimate value, which is
the value of the individual... and the second is the principle, which possibly
follows from the first, that power is never justified in and of itself."
Indeed, since classical Greek antiquity, where the
law (nomos) was the true king, or Roman antiquity, when Cicero said:
"Populus non est, nisi qui consensu iuris continetur," that is, we
can speak of a people only where a community is governed by the law it has
embraced. Until modern times, Western political communities have considered
human personality their supreme value, and the justification for power lies
solely in the recognition of the rights of that same human personality.
Thus, as early as the Middle
Ages, Isidore of Seville characterized this conception by saying: "Rex
eris, si recte facis; si no facias, non eris"—you are king if you act
rightly, and if you do not, you are no longer king. From this, spontaneously,
arose the "ius resistendi," which even authorizes killing a
tyrannical king. In this sense, Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote: "...non
iniuste ... rex institutus potest destrui, vel refrenari eius potestas, si
potestate regia tyrannice abutatur; "nec putanda est talis multitudo infideliter
agere tyrannum destituens"—it is justly permissible to overthrow the
installed king or curb his power if that power is tyrannically abused; and the
multitude that proceeds to depose the tyrant cannot be considered as acting
infidelity.
These ideas, without mentioning other authors of
brilliant and universal renown, found their confirmation in the American
(1776), French (1789), and other constitutions. Jefferson said in this regard:
"...God, who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; The hand of violence, although it can destroy both, cannot
separate them from one another….” Before these constitutions, King John II of
England, in the 13th century, recognized his legal obligation—"that the
King is and be below the Law." Similarly, in the Hungarian-Croatian
political community, King Andrew II issued the Golden Bull in the 13th century
(1223), recognizing the right of subjects, especially nobles, to resist and
rebel (ius resistendi).
This idea of freedom, the right to resistance, and
rebellion against illegitimate and tyrannical powers that disregard obligations
arising from the law as an expression of the people's interests and will, has
so deeply permeated the Western mindset that even J. P. Sartre, a former
Marxist and now a materialist existentialist, wrote in one of his works:
"...You shouldn't have created me free... but from the moment you made me
so, I ceased to be your property... There is nothing else in heaven—neither
Good nor Evil—no one else who would be authorized to give me precepts... I am
condemned to have no other law than my own. For I am, O Jupiter, a man, and
every man must walk his own path..."
Clearly, Ivicevic-Bakulic and Sartre are speaking
to us about the fate of humankind and nations condemned to freedom.
Without debating the accuracy of Sartre's
poetic-absolutist assertion, the author, who provides us with some of these
quotations, comments: "We prefer to call him (Western man—our emphasis)
the man of freedom. Because the history of freedom is the history of the West;
only in the West has there been an attempt to realize freedom, says Jaspers.
Human rights, the right of resistance (ius resistendi), the idea of
measure as the opposite of arbitrariness, the rule of law, and
democracy—these are elements of European culture. When UNESCO appointed a
Chinese man—Chung Sho Lo, a professor of philosophy—to one of its Commissions
to draft a new list of human rights, the Asian scholar, somewhat confused,
replied that the ancient and respectable tradition of his country did not
recognize this concept, and the treasure of his language also contains no such
word."
According to our author, Ernst Jünger said,
approximately: "Where law has lost its effectiveness as a limit to power
and violence, and where arbitrariness is freed from all barriers, there we have
the East, not the West."[9]
What, therefore, can the Croatian people expect
from the current international policy of détente between the West and the East?
Faced with the mortal danger of a direct nuclear conflict between the two
superpowers, and given the possibility of realizing the dreams of American
businessmen on one side and Soviet planners on the other, the policies of
Washington and Moscow will likely continue along the same current course and
maintain the status quo. It is not, however, absolutely certain that Moscow,
after any eventual concessions in the final settlement of the Israeli-Arab
conflict (as we write these lines, the truce ordered by the United Nations
Security Council is about to expire), will demand compensatory concessions in
the Balkans.
Tito's death will be a propitious opportunity to
demand these concessions, either for reasons of security or perhaps because of
the promises he will obtain in negotiations concerning the conflict in the
Levant. These concessions—as we have seen—will aim to secure support from the
Mediterranean for continental Soviet pressure (Campbell). Could the political
presence of communist China in Albania and pro-Chinese Romanian sympathies work
against these Soviet interests? What would China do if the internal development
of Yugoslavia leads to the re-establishment of a regime completely subservient
to Moscow, which seems highly likely? Would this fall within the framework of
Moscow-Washington policy, conceived as a policy of maintaining the status quo?
Would Washington remain indifferent if the change there occurs through internal
pro-Soviet forces or with external support?
These questions remain without a firm answer.
Everything depends on the course of the current Moscow-Washington détente policy.
If the dreams of American businessmen and Russian planners prevail, perhaps if
they also assimilate security problems into the current status quo policy, not
only in Southern Europe but also in all sectors—European or Asian—over which
the two global superpowers are clashing, then many problems that seem to us to
be major, urgent, and of paramount importance, and which are indeed so for the
protagonists of current history, will become marginalized, secondary problems.
Be that as it may, we consider above all else, and
as an indisputable truth, that life and liberty, according to Jefferson, are
inseparable. They can be destroyed, but not separated. The Croatian people,
along with the Slovenian people, situated outside the current division of the
world between West and East in the European sector, invoke the right to
national self-determination because they belong inseparably to the Western
world. It is up to him whether it suits him to hand over two peoples and the
Adriatic coast to the absolute power of Moscow.
It is possible to destroy the life and liberty of
many peoples, but their right to resistance remains intact. Can those who feel
condemned to freedom expect understanding from those who justify their
international policy by invoking the value of freedom? All the more so since
the Adriatic shore, which is their property, is a factor of importance for the
security of the Mediterranean. When will there be a convergence between the
right to freedom of the Croatian and Slovenian peoples and the freedom and need
for security of the West? Will the fruit of the current international policy of
détente prove bitter only for these two peoples? Who deserves, or will deserve,
the next Nobel Peace Prize? Are there other parts of the world with the right
to discontent and rebellion?
Dusan Zanko
Dr. Dominik
Mandic (1889-1973), a central figure in Croatian historiography
Dr. D. Mandic died peacefully on August 23 of this
year in Chicago, surrounded by his Franciscan brothers from the Croatian
province of Herzegovina.
The news of his death shook our hearts and left a
vast void before our eyes. Indeed, from the very first moment of our political
exile abroad (1945), we felt, day after day, year after year, decade after
decade, the security, pride, and moral strength emanating from his living
presence.
In Rome, for twelve years (1939-1952), he kindly
attended to, comforted, and helped hundreds of the homeless. Furthermore, he
covered half the expenses of the enormous Croatian refugee camp in Fermo,
Italy. In Rome, he organized residences for Croatian students and founded
monasteries for nuns. He generously covered the expenses that many emigrants
had to incur to obtain documents and pay for travel to countries across the
ocean. He intervened before all the relevant authorities on behalf of those
unjustly persecuted by the powerful figures in Rome at that time (the Vatican,
the British, and the Italians).
Father Mandic truly provided us with a sense of
security during his lifetime!
He was able to do all this thanks to his prominent
position within the Franciscan Order in Rome, where he was called due to his
previous merits, and separated from his Franciscan family in the Croatian city
of Mostar. Indeed, throughout his 50 years, he proved to be an extraordinary
man, both as a writer, organizer, historian of the Franciscan Order, educator,
founder of newspapers and a printing press, and promoter and organizer of the
publication of a whole series of philosophical and theological studies, as well
as director of the classical Franciscan college in Siroki Brijeg (Herzegovina).
A succession of works and achievements truly more than
sufficient to fill a long, dynamic, and creatively rich intellectual life.
Once in Rome, the dynamism of his personality,
despite the hardships of war, left an indelible mark on the newly renovated
Antonianum, which was nearly bankrupt. There—truly miraculously—Mandic built
almost from scratch a new headquarters for the Franciscan Curia, complete with
a magnificent chapel, a masterpiece of art adorned with mosaics depicting
Croatian motifs, life-size figures based on historical Croatian models, and
works by Mestrovic. He also incorporated numerous creations by leading
architects, painters, and sculptors of the time.
This was a time of immense pride in the living
presence of Father Mandic!
Having accomplished this remarkable mission in
Rome, Dr. Mandic left Europe and moved to Chicago. But he did not go there to
rest, after 60 years of a fruitful and laborious life, but rather to begin a
new and great work: to continue studying and writing the history of the
Croatians. This task he began with energy and persistence, with profound
erudition and scientific preparation rarely seen, and above all, with love, and
which he completed, in its general outline, shortly before his death.
His last works were published by "Hrvatska
Revija" in 1972. This journal, throughout his historiographical career,
published almost all of his works, dedicating considerable space to them, and
also one of his last books: Croats and Serbs, Two Ancient and Different Peoples
(1971).
In these tragic years, when we were deprived of
everything and trampled underfoot, the strong personality of Father Mandic
emerged, who, with scientific methods, restored and reconstituted:
-- the honor of the Croatian people who, in the
very heart of Europe, as early as the 7th century, founded—the first among all
Slavic peoples—their own state; were also the first to embrace Christianity,
the first to have a crowned ruler, the first to translate the Holy Scriptures
into the national language and use it in divine service (Glagolis);
-- our name—Croatian and Croatia—almost forgotten
in the world due to the confusion of so many regionalisms and in our own
homeland due to the treacherous machinations and hatred of the Yugoslav
regimes;
-- the organic unity of the Croatian people in
their ancient ethnic group, not even recognized by some Croatian historians and
obscured by them for tactical reasons;
-- the lands (provinces) endangered and almost
definitively separated from the rest of Croatia; —the definitive truth about
the mystery of the Bogomil heresy of the Bosnian Christians, despite so many
contradictory hypotheses from some ten historians, thus becoming a key figure
in the international literature on this medieval issue;
—the meaning of
Croat history during the continuous and ideal internal development of their
cultural identity on the border between East and West.
This was the era of our moral strength in the
living presence of Dr. Mandic!
* *
It is impossible, given the brevity of this
obituary, to delve into the details of Mandic's historical work, which
comprises some ten volumes in which he elaborates almost the entire ancient
history of Croatia; three volumes dealing with the history of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, specially written; and a fourth on Franciscan history in Bosnia.
Nevertheless, I believe this is a fitting
opportunity to highlight the most salient aspects of this invaluable work: From
the outset of his work, and on several occasions, he himself emphasized
"the need to carry out a fundamental revision of all existing academic
theses and scholarly positions regarding Croatian history, to dispel 'black
legends,' both ancient and recent, and to write the pure and unique truth about
the Croatian people." On many occasions, he informs us that "so many
'scientific' investigations have led to the obscuring of Croatia's origins, to
the questioning of ancient Croatian historical works and their sources, to the
underestimation or even denial of the virtues and privileges of the Croatian
people, and to the minimization, dilution, and misrepresentation of all
Croatian history."
It is, therefore, a serious matter. It is not
merely a cold, academic endeavor undertaken by a professional historian, but
rather a work born of a historical conscience and sense of responsibility,
which re-examined and corrected all the errors, intentional or not, that had
accumulated from the time of Ivan Lusic (18th century) to Nada Klaic, the
current professor of Croatian history at the University of Zagreb.
To achieve this, he had to confront formidable
adversaries: F. Racki, V. Jagic, F. Sisic, not to mention a whole host of other
writers, especially Serbian and Slovenian. It was necessary to dismantle the
"scientific" strongholds of top-tier authorities who wrote either in
favor of Pan-Slavism or in support of contemporary Freemasonry, Yugoslavia, or
Communism. And this "current" ideology insistently repeated theories
such as these:
-- that the Croats and Serbs were two insignificant
tribes, belonging to the same people—the South Slavs—who arrived and dispersed
in the 6th and 7th centuries as a homogeneous mass but without
Christianization. In other words, a magnified thesis, typical of Slavic
romanticism, which did nothing but favor the Yugoslav idea;
-- that the Croats and Serbs were two insignificant
tribes, belonging to the same people—the South Slavs—who arrived and dispersed
in the 6th and 7th centuries as a homogeneous mass but without
Christianization. -- that the Croatian lands -Bosnia, Neretva, Zahumlje,
Travunja, Boka Kotorska, Dubrovnik and Duklja- were not historically studied as
Croatian lands from the beginning and that the entire region south of the
Cetina or Neretva river was not considered Croatian land, a circumstance taken
advantage of by the Serbian historian S. Corovic to extend, without serious
opposition, the borders of the Serbian space precisely to the Cetina River, in
Dalmatia, and the city of Livno in Bosnia;
-- that the "Bogomilis" (Cathars) were
orthodox to some, good Christians to others, a model of Croatian national
resistance to still others, and finally, even precursors of modern
socialism—terms subjectively politicized without real metaphysical content,
lacking theological knowledge, and exhibiting a superficial historical and
cultural understanding;
- that the policies of Croatia's national rulers
deserve no respect and can be viewed negatively for many reasons, such as the
myth of Gregory of Nin, the tension surrounding the death of King Zvonimir,
etc., all based on false historical assumptions. (*)
(*) To confirm the need for a revision of Croatian
history, as Mandic suggests, it is particularly interesting to mention the work
of Ivan Muzic, *Croatian Politics and the Yugoslav Idea*, Split, 1969. Muzic,
mindful of the era of monarchical Yugoslavia, states that "some of our
historians and writers reinterpreted the early Croatian Middle Ages as suited
the desires and interests of their patrons in the 20th century."
(*) To further support the need for revision of
Croatian history, as Mandic suggests, it is worth mentioning the work of Ivan
Muzic, *Croatian Politics and the Yugoslav Idea*, Split, 1969. Sava M.
Stedimilija (a Montenegrin, friend of the Croats and opponent of Serbian hegemony
- translator's note) wrote upon the publication of Muzic's book: "Due to
the need for a reinterpretation of that era and thanks to the objectives
sought, many problems of the Croatian past and that of its closest neighbors
were left more obscured and unresolved..." (See: D.
Zanko: The Scientific Work of Father Mandic, in "Hrvatska Revija",
No. 4, 1969, p. 375). Furthermore, Mandic seriously warned Croatian
public opinion about "the false stance and the harm of the writers (of
Professor N. Klaic) to the education of young Croatian historians and to the
Croatian people in general" (Hrvatska Revija, No. 17 (2-4), pp. 278-299,
1967).
Mandic clarified the problem of tension and
conflict between East and West on the Drina-Budva border, not only through
extensive argumentation analyzing characteristics of Roman and Croatian
Dalmatia, but also by conducting a profound analysis of the Western cultural
landscape. "Every people," we stated in 1969, "has its own
cultural space, where its source and formation, its tradition and continuity
are found. Therefore, without a thorough understanding of these fundamental
aspects of the past, everything remains incomprehensible."
Our official historiography resolved this
fundamental problem of cultural traditions in a vague, superficially
politicized manner, with intriguing, Byzantine-style debates. This, on the one
hand, exacerbated a complete understanding of the profound internal European
opposition—in the complex context of present-day Yugoslavia—between Eastern and
Western European peoples (F. Heer), and on the other hand, facilitated the use
of all this for political ends, allowing problems of the rigorous historical
and scientific discipline to be resolved according to the prevailing interests
of the moment.
In this sense, Mandic's historical works provide
excellent support for the philosophical and political theses on Croatian
historical and cultural tradition put forth by Starcevic, Sufflay, Lukas,
Zimmermann, and Makanac. Furthermore, these works will serve as a documented
basis for a future elaboration of the meaning of Croatian history within the
framework of the philosophy of history, an elaboration that has yet to be
written. According to R. Altamira, culture is synonymous with history.
History, in this respect, has its own peculiar
logic in attempting to uncover the genesis, the chain of dependencies, and the
meaning of the events to which it refers (Viealteux). The logic of the
state-ethnic and cultural history of the Croats, according to Mandic, as well
as "the national question," insofar as it is of a
"fundamental" nature in the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as
well as in the present reality, possesses within itself the condition of its
value. It intertwines the national mentality and spirit from the earliest days
of its genesis to the most recent events.
From its inception, the Croatian people have been a
state people, and as such, recognized and treated by the Western cultural and
political community of that time. No Croatian generation, through many
political upheavals—Venetian, Hungarian, Turkish, Austrian, or Serbian—and
during periods of feudal ideology—Bogomil, Josephite, Illyrian, Slavic,
Masonic, liberal, Yugoslav, and communist—ever abandoned or forgot the
character of its statehood. History has its logic, just as life does, like the
blood in the struggle for that life and like a sacred book of life itself; like
feeling and its interpretation, and ultimately, like the event and the
philosophy surrounding it.
Mandic addresses these major themes:
Rubra Croatia (with all the implications of the
recent interpretation of the Chronicle of the Priest of Duclea);
The Assembly at the Duvno Field (originally placed
in 753, contrary to the opinions of Sisic, Kukuljevic, Klaic, and L. Jelic);
The Bogomilis: Bosnia and Herzegovina (a detailed
analysis of their state, religious, and ethnic affiliation with Croatia, from
their historical beginnings to the present day).
From now on, all these themes, and others, become
and remain cornerstones for future Croatian historiography, whether in the
sense of critique, new perspectives, or even new revisions, as well as for the
consolidation of Croatian historical consciousness. This last point is the most
important, because we all know "that knowledge of the past is something
that is in permanent and continuous progress, constantly transforming and
perfecting itself" (Bloch).
Likewise, Mandic's works will find different
interpretations of his theses in serious scholarly discussion: the conception
of certain dates or a better interpretation when reading a document in relation
to the meaning of a particular event. But the most important thing is to point
out, authoritatively and with authority, the historical consciousness of one of
the oldest peoples of the era in which Western European consciousness was
formed. Historical consciousness, based on the truth of documents, transcends
them, creating that spiritual climate in which a people lives and breathes.
If historical consciousness is tormented by doubts,
contradictory hypotheses, biased political insinuations that favor some current
and transient political group, or by the exhibitionism of ambitious
pseudo-authorities, the people lose their moral strength, security, and clarity
of their ethnogenesis, like an illegitimate child without a birth certificate.
Likewise, they lose the sense of the purity of their language, their religion,
and their ethical principles of life, and consequently, their state
consciousness. Mandic's Opus emerges there and affirms our historical
consciousness. Therein lies its value and also its success.
Back home, there's a real scramble to obtain
Mandic's works, which are losing pages in the Croatian University Library due
to almost excessive use, while within the Academy they circulate widely, with
Matica Hrvatska constantly requesting more copies. Specialists and
intellectuals begin reproducing various theses by Mandic, sending him numerous
letters of praise and recognition. The Yugoslav-communist regime reacts with
condemnations. In Split, the Croatian lawyer Ivan Muzic was convicted,
accused of "sending Dr. Mandic, a declared enemy and provocateur of
Yugoslavia, various materials when he requested them."
There's something deeper at play here: we feel that
with the emergence of Mandic's historical and scientific figure, a new image
and a new concept of the historian in general also appear. That is to say, from
the very beginning, Mandic directs his writings toward the distant and
challenging 7th century, guided by the desire to encounter a living being and
embrace it with empathy. "At this word (sympathy), I feel our old
positivist masters stirring in their graves: what a change of perspective!
Reading their manuals, we get the impression that for them, the historian's
primary virtue is a critical spirit and methodical doubt..." (H. Irenee
Marraou, professor at the Sorbonne).
Indeed, when faced with historical testimonies, one
must not proceed with the grim face of a bad policeman for whom everything is
suspect, because love, the source of the deepest knowledge, is lacking. If
knowledge and complete understanding constitute the dialectic between self and
other, then these testimonies represent a long-standing basis of communication
between subject and object, between the historian and the document—or rather,
between the individual and the people, who are presented in the document.
Without this disposition of the spirit, it is almost impossible to understand
all that humankind feels and thinks. Not only sympathy, but also friendship,
must be fostered between the historian and their subject. Critical spirit and
sympathy are not, in themselves, contradictory. Alongside rigorous criticism,
empathy is always the source and condition of understanding; it always
constitutes a constructive element of the work (Marrou).
D. Mandic, with his critical spirit, demolished the
provisional edifice of imperfect historical knowledge in order to construct,
with empathy, a new vision of the truth. "History is the answer to the
question arising from the depths of the researcher's soul" (Marrou). What
was the deepest part of the soul of a born historian like Mandic? He himself
answers: "...to establish the true historical reality of our past and to
correct so many incorrect assertions that I found, especially in works in
foreign languages." Furthermore, our historian possessed, in his personal
culture and in the very structure of his spirit, a psychological affinity that
allowed him to imagine the lives of the Croats of the 7th century, as well as
later, in the heart of the Middle Ages. This was a predominantly religious
period, with Rome as its central influence. Emile Male and Sh. Dawson often
repeats that men today are divided into those who hate and those who love the
Middle Ages, but that the latter increasingly prevail, making the truth about
that enigmatic "night" ever greater and clearer.
The people, both in exile and at home, felt the
impact of Mandic's work, despite its being written with the heavy armor of a
scholar and in a rigorously scientific style. The people embraced it as their
own and hailed it, a rare occurrence among our academic historians, historians
who, with the exception of a few honorable ones, remained trapped in their
meticulous technical requirements, in the sea of monographs and
the police-like examination of "falsifications."
One of these honorable exceptions was, in fact,
Father Stjepan Sakac, who died in Rome on the same day as Mandic, that is,
August 28, at the age of 83. Mandic himself called him "the pioneer of the
revision of Croatian history."
The oppressive void we feel at Mandic's death must
be filled with the spirit of his Opus, with which he restored to us our honor,
our name, our ethnic unity, our stolen lands, and, finally, a sense of our
history—a whole series of essential elements of our historical and national
consciousness in the current, difficult, and critical struggle for survival.
(Translated by
F. N.)
Life and work of Prof. Dr. Dominik Mandic, OFM
Milan Blazekovic
On August 23, 1973, at the age of 84, Professor Dr.
Dominik Mandic, OFM, honorary member of the Croatian-Latin American Institute
of Culture and contributor to the Buenos Aires journal "Studia
Croatica," passed away at Merey Hospital in Chicago. With his death, a man
whose exceptional qualities and outstanding contributions to the cultural,
economic, and political life of his native province of Herzegovina earned him a
place in the monumental work "The Illustrious and Renowned Croats and
Other Persons Worthy of Mention in Croatian History from 925 to 1925,"
published in Zagreb in 1925 to commemorate the millennium of the Kingdom of
Croatia, was lost. In the aforementioned work, the librarian of the University
of Zagreb, Dr. Velimir Dezelic senior, referred to the personality of Dr.
Dominik Mandic in the following terms:
"He was born on December 2, 1889, in Lise,
near Siroki Brijeg, in Herzegovina. He completed his primary studies in Siroki
Brijeg and Humac. He entered the Franciscan Order and in 1910 finished his
secondary education in Mostar. From 1910 to 1914, he studied theology in
Fribourg, Switzerland, where he graduated in 1921. At the beginning of the
First World War, he collaborated with Father Buntic in his 'peasant schools';
in 1916, he was secretary of the Franciscan province in Herzegovina and a
catechist at the school in Mostar. At this time, he was the leading figure of
the religious and economic-cultural movement in Herzegovina. During the period
of constitutional changes, in In 1918, he was a member
of the National Council for Herzegovina.
That same year, he began publishing the magazine
"Current Problems," which included scientific-religious treatises for
educated circles. He was the founder and first president of the Croatian
Catholic "seniorat" for Herzegovina, in Mostar. In 1919, together
with Father Dane Zubac, he founded the newspaper "Narodna Sloboda"
(National Freedom), also serving as one of its main contributors. Also that
year, together with Dr. Rogulja, he founded the first organization of the
Croatian People's Party in Mostar, the Tobacco Growers Association of
Herzegovina (with 18,000 members), serving as its first president.
In 1920, he made the largest contribution to the
founding of the "Martic" public library, the only one of its kind in
Herzegovina. He was also the founder of the Croatian Catholic Savings Bank; he
wrote several treatises for various newspapers. In 1920, together with Father
Dane Zubac, he created the Croatian Political Library and, in the In 1923, the Library of the Tobacco Growers Association of
Herzegovina was founded. Among other works, he wrote the
treatise "De Protoregula Ordinis Fratrum Minorum" (1923);
"Abecedario para las escuelas campesinos croatas (para los cursos para
illiterados según sistema de Fray Didak Buntic, 1924)"; and "De
Legislatione Antiqua Ordinis Fratrum Minorum. Vol I. Legislatio franciscana ab a. 1210-1221".
The first of the three main stages into which we
can divide, applying a geographical criterion, the life and cultural,
political, socioeconomic, and scientific activity of Professor Dominik Mandic
extends until 1939. This first stage, therefore, we call the Mostar stage, the
period in his native region.
After publishing his doctoral thesis, "De
Protoregula Ordinis Fratrum Minorum," in Mostar in 1923, he initiated, in
1927, the publication of sources for the Franciscan history of the South Slavic
region. Thus, in 1934, the first volume of the work "Acta Franciscana
Hercegovinae" appeared, covering the period from 1463 to 1699. That same
year, the Zagreb-based journal "Togoslovska Smotra" published his
treatise "The Chronological Overview of the Life of Saint Francis of
Assisi Based on the Most Recent Research" ("Conspectus chronologicus
vitae S. Francisci Assisiensis"). Earlier, in 1926, the Makarska-based
journal "Nova Revija" published numerous articles and treatises on
the founding of Franciscan schools and convents. In Zagreb, in 1936, his study
"The Diocese of Duvno from the 14th to the 17th Century" appeared as
the eighth volume in the Croatian Ecclesiastical Academy's editions.
Regarding Dr. Mandic's educational activity within
the Franciscan Order, it should be noted that in 1928 he was elected Provincial
of the Herzegovina Franciscan Province, a position he held for six years, until
1934. That same year, instead of accepting Rome's invitation to teach
ecclesiastical history at the central Franciscan university, Antonianum, and at
the urging of his Franciscan province, he accepted the appointment as director
of the classical high school in Siroki Brijeg, which, thanks to his efforts and
mediation, had achieved the status of a public school with eight complete grade
levels. However, in 1939, he was elected to the central administration of the
Franciscan Order in Rome as the representative of all the Franciscan provinces
in the Slavic countries and, simultaneously, as the Order's general treasurer.
With these appointments, and the subsequent move to
Rome, the first stage of his life and educational, cultural, social, and
economic activity in his homeland came to an end, as did his political
activity, carried out through the Croatian Catholic Movement in the spirit of
solidarity and cooperation with the South Slavs. This political stance, which
had been adopted by the Croatian People's Party in Herzegovina, proved to be a
complete and utter failure among Croatians after the assassination attempt in
the Belgrade Parliament against the Croatian leader Esteban Radić.
The second stage of Dr. D. Mandić's life and
activities, the Roman stage, spanned the period from 1939 to 1952. In terms of
his political views, this stage marked the gradual abandonment of "Yugoslav"
ideals in favor of a policy aimed at the re-establishment of the Croatian
state. It was perhaps not the re-establishment of the Independent State of
Croatia in 1941 that led to the change in his political views, as he feared
that the manner and circumstances of its proclamation would not guarantee its
future existence.
Rather, it was the profound disappointment he felt
with the policy of the Western Allies in not landing on the Croatian coast in
Dalmatia and in allowing Serbian-Communist terror, under Moscow's protection,
to descend upon Croatia. It was at this moment that Dr. Mandic completely broke
with his political past, with his dreams of the union of Croats and Serbs in
one state, and embraced the struggle for Croatian state independence.
Dr. D. Mandic's activities during his twelve years
in Rome focused primarily on two areas: the construction of various Franciscan
institutions and aid to Croatian emigrants, especially young people, following
the devastation that befell Croatia at the end of World War II.
As treasurer of the Franciscan Order, Dr. Mandic
built the beautiful church dedicated to Mary Help of Christians (Marija
Pomocnica) on Gelsomino Hill, near the Vatican. This church is considered the
most remarkable work of art built in Rome in the last 300 years, and together
with the new General Curia of the Franciscan Order, it forms a harmonious
architectural ensemble. The church's most outstanding artistic piece is the
marble sculpture "Stigmata of Saint Francis" by the Croatian sculptor
Ivan Mestrovic. He also ordered the construction of a 1,500-seat auditorium
near the Antonianum and initiated the reconstruction of the Apostolic College
building in Grottaferrata, which had been destroyed during the war, as well as
the construction of a Franciscan recreation center for 150 people.
As a man and as a Croatian, from a position of some
influence, Dr. Mandic undertook an effort to help and protect Croatian
intellectuals who had taken refuge in Italy, especially the youth, founding a
home for young women in Grottaferrata and a high school in Grottamare for young
men. With his support, the Croatian printing press was established in Fermo,
where newspapers and books for the refugees were printed.
In 1952, the third and final stage of Dr. Mandic's
life began: his time in America. That year, he moved from Rome to Chicago,
where he led the Franciscan community that had been established there for
several decades. He brought with him the library of the renowned Italian
Slavist Luigi Salvini, which Salvini had been forced to sell. Mandic, now 64,
feels the time has come to dedicate the rest of his time to his true calling:
ancient Croatian history. Throughout his life, he tirelessly collected data and
documentary material, awaiting the opportunity for its scholarly analysis.
Dr. Mandic's first project in Chicago was the
founding of the Croatian Publishing Institute "Croatia," which, in
its very first year, 1953, published two works: a symposium on
"Croatia," containing religious, historical, and educational material,
and Dr. Vatroslav Murvar's work, "Croatia and Croats." In 1954, this
publishing house published two works in English ("A Brief Overview of
Croatian History," by Basilio and Esteban Pandzic, and "Croatia and
Serbia; Why Their Peaceful Separation Is a European Necessity," by George
W. Cesarich) and four works in Croatian (poems by Lucian Kordic, essays by
Antonio Bonifacic "Eternal Croatia," the novel by Marijan Mikac
"In the Columns of Death," and the folk songbook by Friar Branko
Maric "The Voices of the Homeland").
His most important work and, at the same time, the
last one published by the Croatian publishing institute "Croatia" is
the 400-page symposium entitled "The Croatian Nation in the Struggle for
Freedom and Independence", in English, in which appeared the study of Dr.
Mandic "The Croatian Character of Bosnia and Herzegovina", previously
published in "The Croatian Review", (No. 1/1954) of Buenos Aires, and
with which he begins his regular collaboration in said magazine. The works
successively published in "The Croatian Review" are as follows:
"Medieval Bosnia without Serbs" (1955),
"The Croatian Diet in the Duvno Valley in the Year 753" (1957),
"'Gesta regum Chroatorum'" (1957), "St. Venantius or St. Dujam,
First Bishop and Founder of the Spalato-Salonitan Diocese" (1958),
"The Foundation of the Archdiocese of Dubrovnik" (1959), "The
Diocese of Srebrenica and Visoko" (1960), "The Unwritten Chapter on
Croatian Writing" (1961), demonstrating that the first works written in
Croatian date from the 8th century—the administrative manual
"Methodos" from the beginning of the 9th century—the "Croatian
Evangelistary"—and from the end of the same century—the chronicle
"The Kingdom of the Croats"—and that they do not begin with
"Plaque of "Baska" (Bascanska ploca) at the beginning of the
12th century. Regarding this, Mandic wrote in one of his studies: "These
three works are written in the old Croatian language 'Chakavian'.
As for their origin, these works are older than the
Russian, Czech, and Polish Slavic chronicles. In terms of antiquity, they are
surpassed only by the writings of the great Western nations, such as the Franks
and Germans. However, the Croatian works have the advantage of having been
written in the vernacular, Croatian, while the old Western works are written in
Latin."
Other treatises published in "La Revista
Croata" include: "Herzeg-Bosnia and Croatia" (1963), "The
Founding of the Croatian Franciscan Province - Provincia Sclavoniae"
(1965), "Gregory VII and the Venetian Occupation of Dalmatia in 1076"
(1968), "Nicholas Tavelic - The Croatian Saint" (1970), and "The
Croatian Coat of Arms" (1970). He applied his vast scholarly erudition on
several occasions to refute inaccurate and harmful teachings or assertions made
by some historians and politicians, such as when he criticized the teachings of
Professor Nada Klaic in her work "Croatian History in the Middle
Ages," labeling it anti-scientific and anti-Croatian.
When in 1955 the "Croatia" Publishing
Institute, due to reasons inherent to all immigrants, had to suspend its
activity, Dr. Mandic promoted the founding of the Croatian Historical Institute
in Chicago, being its president until his move to Rome in 1963. The first
scientific work of this third stage of Dr. Mandic's life is his treatise on the
origin of the Vlachs based on more recent historical research, which he
published in the magazine "Croatian Thought" (Hrvatska Misao), of
Buenos Aires, in 1956.
The newly founded Historical Institute began its
activities in 1957 with the publication of Dr. Mandic's seminal work,
"Croatia Rubea in the Light of Historical Sources," in which the
author argues—contrary to the opinions of historians F. Racki and F. Sisic—that
the regions of Zahumlje, Neretva, Duklja, and Travunia, which comprise Croatia
Rubea, with the exception of Duklja, also form part of the Croatian national
territory today.
However, a great purpose remained to be fulfilled,
an irresistible desire for Dr. Mandic for more than fifty years of his life: to
write a critical history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, his native provinces. Only
in 1955, after being freed from almost all the obligations that had previously
hindered the realization of this desire, was Professor Mandic able to give free
rein to his true vocation as a historian. Thus, in 1960, the Croatian
Historical Institute of Chicago published the first part of its historical
trilogy, "Bosnia and Herzegovina - Historical-Critical Research: Volume I:
State and Religious History of Medieval Bosnia and Herzegovina" (Bosna i
Hercegovina -povjesno-kriticna istrazivanja: I. svezak: Drzavna i vjerska
pripadnost sredovjecne Bosne i Hercegovine), comprising 487 pages.
A year and a half later, in 1962, the same
Institute published the second volume of the trilogy, entitled "The
Bogomil Church of the Bosnian Christians" (Bogomilska crkva bosanskih
krstjana), a 508-page work of fundamental importance for understanding the
political, social, and religious events in these two Croatian provinces from
the mid-13th century onward. In 1966, Dr. Mandic completed the third part of
this monumental work, titled "The Ethnic History of Bosnia and
Herzegovina" (Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine), a 535-page work
published by the Croatian Historical Institute in Rome, where he had moved in
1963 from Chicago. Dr. Mandic's conclusion in this history is that Bosnia and
Herzegovina remain ethnically Croatian to this day.
While Dr. Mandic was working on the third part of
his trilogy, the Croatian Historical Institute in Rome published the first
scholarly edition of his work "Treatises and Contributions to Ancient
Croatian History." This work consists of twenty-five historical studies,
eleven of which have already been published.
The Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture in
Buenos Aires, in the special 1965 edition of the journal "Studia
Croatica" entitled "Bosnia and Herzegovina - Contributions to
Clarifying the Origins of the First World War," published a 70-page study
by Dr. Mandic entitled "Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatian Provinces,"
which the author wrote to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the fall of
Bosnia (1663-1963) to Turkish rule.
In English, Dr. Mandic published his treatise
"The Ethnic and Religious History of Bosnia and Herzegovina," which
was presented on pages 362-393 of the symposium "Croatia: Land, People,
Culture," held in Toronto in 1971. That same year, the historical work of
Professor Mandic appeared in the regular editions of the Library of the
Croatian Journal. Mandic's "Croats and Serbs - Two Ancient but Different
Peoples" was conceived as a contribution to a just resolution of their
mutual relations by highlighting the differences in their cultural heritage and
state development.
His last historical work, published as a book, was
"Croatian Lands in the Past and Present," which the Rome-based
publisher ZIRAL released in Croatian in 1972. In it, Dr. Mandic describes
Croatian national and state borders throughout the centuries.
Very few Croats have received such warm expressions
of recognition and gratitude in their lifetime as Dr. Mandic did on his 70th,
75th, and 80th birthdays. Despite his advanced age, his death was premature, as
he did not live to fulfill all his plans and goals. With him passed the
rectifier of Croatian history, a figure who will be very difficult to replace. However,
the path is clear and awaits his successor. Finding that successor is the duty
of an entire nation towards Dr. Mandic.
The ethnic and religious history of Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Dr. Dominik Mandic
The settlement of the Slavs in the Balkans
Along the eastern border of the current
"provinces" of Bosnia and Herzegovina runs the line that, many years
ago, separated the Western Roman Empire from the Eastern one, the Western and
Eastern Christian Church, Western culture from the Eastern one. In the 15th
century the Turks made there, in western Bosnia, a combat border between
Islamic Turkey and the Western Christian powers.
Because of this strategic and geographical
location, radically different cultural influences have been introduced into
Bosnia, creating a highly divergent internal state of affairs. Changes in Bosnia's national ethnic and religious ensemble occurred
more frequently and penetrated more deeply than in other parts of Europe.
In the last hundred years, historians have tried to unravel some salient
features of that complex development and explain the enigma of Bosnia. However,
the problem of the religious and ethnic origin of the people of Bosnia and
Herzegovina remained unresolved.
During the last ten years, after long preparation
and research, I have published several carefully documented historical works,
where I have proven to be able to offer some new knowledge and new aspects of
the ethnic and religious history of those provinces[10].
The following pages offer a short review of these studies. To the reader who
wishes to study the problems in a more in-depth way, I invite you to
familiarize yourself with the studies that I have published in Croatian, where
you will find copious documentation and appropriate sources in the original
languages.
Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina
The invasion of the Mongol Huns to Europe in the
year 375 moved the migration of the peoples of eastern and northern Europe
towards the rich and spacious Roman Empire. The first to emigrate were the
Germans, then the Huns and the Avars, who destroyed the entire Empire and its
cultural institutions. The last immigrants to the Balkans, the Slavs, arrived
in two stages. In the first, which began in 375 AD and for more than two
hundred years, under the command of the Huns or the Avars, or under their own
command, the Slavs populated the area from the Black Sea to Tyrol and the
Tagliamento River, in Italy[11].
The second Slavic migration began in 626, when the
Croats crossed the Carpathian Mountains at the invitation of Heraclius I, the
Byzantine emperor (610–641), who needed allies in the war against the Avars
besieging Constantinople. Within ten years, the Croats defeated the Avars,
penetrating from north of the Drava and Danube rivers. According to the pact
between themselves and Emperor Heraclius, they took possession of the Roman
province of Dalmatia, from the Rasa River in Istria to the Drina River and the
city of Budva, south of Boka Kotorska. One group occupied southern Pannonia and
Illyricum.[12]
Shortly after the arrival of the Croats, the Serbs
entered the Balkans from the regions that are now Germania and northwestern
Bohemia. Emperor Heraclius I granted them the northern part of the Roman
province of Praevalis, from the Drina River to the Ibar River and the Kosovo
Polje.[13] The Bulgarians were the last to arrive as
Turco-Altaic conquerors and occupied the northeastern part of the Balkans, from
the Black Sea to the Kosovo Polje.[14]
These three peoples gave their state organization
and name to the First Migration Slavs, with whom they amalgamated ethnically
and linguistically, each within their own territory. Due to their small
populations, the Bulgarians abandoned their Turco-Turanian language, and the
Serbs their West Slavic dialect; both adopted the Ekavian dialect of the First
Migration Slavs, who arrived there from the Don River region in present-day
Russia.
Bosnia and Herzegovina were Croatian lands in the Middle Ages.
That the Croats, upon reaching the south, took
possession of Bosnia and Herzegovina as their permanent homeland is proven by
the following documents:
1) Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (10th
century), based on Croatian tradition and historical documents in the Imperial
Archives of Constantinople, writes that the Croats settled, with the permission
of Emperor Heraclius I, in the Roman province of Dalmatia; a group, he says,
populated Pannonia and Illyricum.[15] Today, Bosnia
and Herzegovina largely coincide with the borders of Roman Dalmatia, extending
a narrow portion into the easternmost region of Pannonia. Had the Croats not taken
possession of all of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, they would not have
been able to cross Illyricum and Pannonia.[16]
2) An ancient Croatian chronicle from the 8th
century concerning the first Croatian ruler stated: "And his lands were
Bosnia and Valdemin (Valde-vino or Vinodol, near the present-day city of
Rijeka) and extended as far as Poland (Polina, ancient Apollonia, near
Wallonia): his land also included the coast extending beyond the
mountains."[17]
3) The Croatian chronicle known as the Methodos,
written in 753, mentions that the provinces that constituted the Kingdom of
Croatia at that time were: White Croatia (western), Red Croatia (southern), and
Bosnia.[18]
4) The authors of the chronicle Kraljevstvo Hrvata
(The Kingdom of the Croats), written between 1074 and 1080, as well as the
Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, written between 1149 and 1153, support the
same view.[19]
5) From the earliest times, Bosnia, as an
autonomous unit, had its governor, the Ban, who was consequently called the Ban
of Bosnia (Banovina Bosanska). The title "Ban" was a Croatian
specificum unknown to the Serbs and any other European people before the
twelfth century.[20] This might seem normal because
Bosnia was from the beginning colonized and populated by Croats. Who else could
use a purely Croatian title like Ban for the governor and call Bosnia
"Banovina" if not the Croats themselves?
6) The Byzantine writer Johannes Cinnamus,
describing (recounting) the military expedition of Emanuel Comnenus in 1155,
says the following about Bosnia: "Bosnia is not subordinate to the power
of Serbia. It is independent; a special nation that has its own way of life and
governs itself" [21]. Thus, it is evident that as early as the 12th
century, the people of Bosnia considered themselves distinct from those of
Serbia. The Bosnian people at that time had their own autonomous government
with their own customs and practices. From this, it follows that there could be
no other people in Bosnia than the Croats, because in Bosnia and in Rascia or
neighboring Serbia, from the 11th century until the present day, there were no
other Slavic peoples besides the Serbs and the Croats.
The Conversion of the Croats to Christianity in
Bosnia
When the Croats arrived in the South, they were
pagan Iranian-Slavs. At the request of the Byzantines, Pope John IV (640-642)
sent Catholic missionaries to the Croatian provinces. In 640, these
missionaries converted Porga, the supreme governor of Croatia, as well as a
large number of tribes under his immediate authority, to the Catholic faith.[22] This prompted the Pope to re-establish the ancient
diocese of Salona and move it to the seaside city of Split (Spalatum). He also
granted all the rights of the former diocese to the newly established one in
Split, which encompassed all the districts of the Croatian federal state,
including the area comprising present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, and covered
all the territories extending from the Adriatic Sea to the Danube River in the
north, and to the Drina River in the east.[23]
The Bogumili in Bosnia and their conversion to
Catholicism
During the reign of the Bulgarian emperor Peter
(927–969), an Orthodox priest of that nationality, named Bogomil, began
teaching a new religious doctrine which he called Bogomilism. Its main
characteristic was religious dualism, asserting that the world is governed by
two principles: the principle of good and the principle of evil. This heresy
spread rapidly to neighboring lands, including Croatia. When Bosnia and
Herzegovina fell under the rule of the Bulgarian emperors between 990 and 1018,
they established a separate diocese in Bosnia for all of Croatia, calling it
the Croatian Church, Ecclesia Slavoniae.
By the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th
centuries, most of the inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina had become
followers of this heresy. [24] After the failure of the Crusades of 1222–1227
and 1235–1239, the Popes sent Dominican friars to Bosnia, and shortly
thereafter Franciscans, to bring the Bogomils back to the Catholic Church. At
the request of Pope Benedict XII (1334–1342), Father Geraldus Eudes, Franciscan
General, personally visited Bosnia in 1339 and founded a special Franciscan
unit—the Vicariate of Bosnia. From then on, the Franciscans began sending their
best missionaries to Bosnia from all over Europe; this practice continued until
Bosnia fell under Turkish rule in 1463. [25]
As a result of the zeal with which the Franciscan
missionaries dedicated themselves, Pope Boniface IX noted in his letter of
March 7, 1402, that 500,000 followers of Bogomilism returned to the Catholic
Church.[26]
Just before the Turkish conquest, the population of
Bosnia and Herzegovina presented the following religious and ethnic picture:
approximately 750,000 were Croat Catholics; between 80,000 and 90,000 adherents
of Bogomilism; 12,000 to 15,000 were non-Slavic Vlachs; and 25,000 to 28,000
were Serbs.[27] The Serbs lived in Podrinje, a region
that was separated from ancient Serbia by the governor of Bosnia, Tvrtko I, and
annexed to Bosnia between 1366 and 1373.
Origin of the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina
First and foremost, it is a fact that Muslims never
migrated in groups from the Near East to Bosnia and Herzegovina. During their
rule, the Turks were unable to establish a Turkish-speaking population anywhere
in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Both Catholics and Muslims continued to speak
exclusively Croatian, in the Stokavian dialect and Ikavian pronunciation, the
same language that was spoken and written during the Middle
Ages, in the time of the banes and kings of Bosnia. Only those men from Bosnia
and Herzegovina who were educated in Constantinople mastered Turkish and wrote
in it; however, in their families in Bosnia, only Croatian was spoken.[28]
Today, Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina are
descendants of native Bosnians and ethnic Croats; their ancestors were
followers of the Catholic faith or the Bogomil doctrine.
This is so clear that from the outset, the Turkish
authorities, upon conquering Bosnia, did not use force to compel its inhabitants
to embrace Islam. Muhammad II, the Conqueror, at the request of Father Angel
Zvizdovic, superior of the Franciscans in Bosnia, issued the famous order known
as the Ahd-name on May 28, 1463. In it, he guaranteed the Franciscan friars
full freedom to carry out their religious duties and the protection of their
lives and property. He added the stipulation: "As long as you remain
faithful and obedient to my ministry and my order" [29].
According to the official Turkish government book
(Defter) of 1489, written twenty-five years after the conquest of Bosnia, there
were 25,068 Christian families, 1,332 Christian widows, 4,026 unmarried adult
Christians, 4,485 Muslim families, and 2,348 unmarried Muslims living in the
area of the Bosnian Sandyacate[30], in
settlements located between Novi Pazar and the Sana River, and then between
Ivan Planina and the city of Maglaj. At that time, Bosnian families had, on
average, eight members, meaning that the Christian population in the Bosnian
Sandyacate was approximately 225,000, or 48% of its total inhabitants. The remainder were Muslims, numbering around 40,000, or 16%.
Most of these Muslim converts came from Bogomilism.
During the first part of the 16th century,
relations between the Catholics of Bosnia and the Turkish government changed
completely. At that time, the war between free Croatia and Islamic Bosnia, or
more precisely, between the Turkish Empire and the Christian West, intensified
considerably. Naturally, the Croatian Catholics of Bosnia, along with the Franciscan
friars, felt genuine love and sympathy for their free brethren, demonstrating
this through the assistance they provided them in the fight against the Turks.
The Turks retaliated drastically by reversing their
liberal stance toward the Catholics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the first
book of the Statutes (decrees) for the Bosnian Sahrawi, written in 1516, the
Turks included the following decree: “Churches were built in some places where
they did not exist before, during the reign of the infidels. All newly built
churches must be demolished; those infidels and their pastors who attend these
churches and who spy on us and our movements and report this to the authorities
of the infidel countries, must be severely punished by physical torture” [31].
With this new law, the Catholics of Bosnia and
their spiritual leaders, the Franciscan friars, were officially proclaimed
enemies of the Ottoman Empire, and thus began the cruel persecution of the
Catholic Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Turkish authorities resorted to
economic sanctions against the Catholics, imposing heavy taxes, from which
Muslims were exempt [32].
Suspicion was heightened by the fact that Bosnian
Catholics and their Franciscan friars recognized the Roman Pontiff as their
supreme spiritual leader. Since the Popes had been the main instigators of
military expeditions against the Turks, they were considered, in
Constantinople, to be the principal enemies of the Ottoman Empire.[33]
To avoid persecution, a large number of Catholic
Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina began to emigrate
to the free regions of Croatia, while many others headed to other European
countries. However, the majority remained in Bosnia, especially the peasants.
To save themselves from economic ruin, they regularly embraced Islam, some
willingly and others not, remaining faithful to the Christian faith in their
hearts.
According to statistics compiled by Professor Omer
L. Barkan in the official Ottoman Empire book for the period between 1520 and
1530, there were 135,000 Muslims in the Bosnian Sandak and 221,328 in all
regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[34]
This significant increase in the Muslim population
from 1489 to 1530 stemmed in part from members of the Bogomil Church, but also
from Catholic Croats (120,000 to 150,000).
After 1530, due to the continuation of the
persecution that had begun two decades earlier, the conversion of Catholics in
Bosnia and Herzegovina to Islam accelerated considerably. In 1624, the
apostolic delegate, Peter Masarechi, referring to the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith in Rome, gave the following report on the population
of the Bosnian Basalt: 900,000 Muslims, 300,000 Catholics, and 150,000 Eastern
Orthodox.[35]
The conversion of Catholics to Islam was not always
complete, for, as mentioned above, for example, in the mid-16th century, there
were a large number of "poturice" in Bosnia—that is, people of mixed
Turkish and Orthodox faith—who baptized and circumcised their boys. Outwardly,
this population was Muslim, but at home they continued to live according to
Christian doctrine.[36] This practice continued until
the 17th century. The Bishop of Bosnia, Balicevic, in his 1600 report to the
Holy See, confirms this: "There are many adult Muslims there who firmly
believe in Christ and receive baptism, but are afraid to profess their faith
publicly" [37]. The Apostolic Delegate, Masarechi, stated in 1624 that the
Franciscan friars in Bosnia were baptizing the children of Muslims [38], and in
1625 the Franciscans went so far as to request permission from the Holy See to
continue this practice, which was granted to them [39].
Again, in 1628, Domingo Andrías, OF (Franciscan),
bishop in central Herzegovina, requested instructions from the Holy See on how
to deal with Muslims who were crypto-Catholics.[40]
There are a large number of written documents from
that period relating to the conversion to Islam, whether genuine or feigned, of
Catholic Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I will mention a few.
The Bishop of Zagreb, Simon Erdedi, states in a
letter dated November 24, 1536, that after the conquest of the city of Brod, on
the Sava River, "more than forty thousand Catholics had embraced Islam,
and others are changing their minds every day."[41]
Gerónimo Zlataric, a Bosnian nobleman, wrote in 1599:
“In this province there are a great number of ‘poturica’ who were once
Catholics (Christians). They embraced Islam out of fear of their enemies, but
they themselves are neither good Muslims nor good Christians”[42].
In 1616, the Jesuit Bartul Kasic, after visiting
Slavonia and southern Hungary, reported to Pope Paul V that “many Christians
(Catholics) in these regions, as in Bosnia, became Muslims”[43].
The apostolic delegate, Peter Masarechi, wrote to
Rome in 1624: “In the Sutjeska district, about six or seven thousand souls left
the Catholic faith last year”[44]. In the same year,
the Franciscan Blasius de Gradac reported to Rome that the Catholics in the
diocese of Trebinje "are going over to schism or Islam, and almost all of
them are either in schism or in Islam" [45].
Atanazije Jurjevic (Georgician), after a long
journey through Bosnia in 1626, wrote: "The number of Muslims considerably
exceeds that of Catholics and Orthodox. It is necessary to note this here
because few Muslims who work in the fields are able to speak the Turkish
language. If they were not frightened by rifle fire, most of
them would become Christians, knowing full well that their ancestors were
Christians (Catholics)" [46].
The Croatian historian Ivan Tomko Mrnavic, of
Bosnian origin, wrote in 1627: "Generally speaking, two-thirds of the population in Bosnia are Muslims and most of them were
converts from Christianity to Islam" [47].
In 1675, the Bishop of Bosnia, Nikola Ogramic, OFM
(Franciscan), reporting to the Holy See on the Bijela district in northeastern
Bosnia, stated that there were only 995 Catholics in the entire district and
added: "The rest of the population is Muslim and Orthodox and until
recently belonged to the Catholic faith" [48].
In 1648, the Franciscan missionary Father Donatus
Jelic reported to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in
Rome that "the Christians in Bar (Antivari) converted to Islam to avoid
losing their property and their lives when they saw the Turks behead
seventy-four Christian leaders as rebels and traitors" [49].
It should be added that some Muslims in Bosnia and
Herzegovina today are descendants of Slavs from Croatia proper. As history
tells us, countless Catholic Croats were captured by the Turks in Bosnia and
other Croatian lands and sold into slavery in the markets of Sarajevo, Bosnia,
and Skopje, Macedonia, and then shipped to the Near East and North Africa. The
Venetian historian Sanudo recounts that in 1533 more than 600,000 Croatian
Catholics were captured by the Turks and sent as captives to Turkey.[50] Naturally, some of those captured remained in Bosnia
and were forced to convert to Islam.[51]
A considerable number of the Muslims living in
Bosnia and Herzegovina today are descendants of Croats from Slavonia, Vojvodina,
Lika, and Dalmatia, who had embraced Islam and then fled those provinces when
they were liberated from Turkish rule during the Vienna Wars of 1683–1699 and
subsequently came under Christian rule.[52]
[52] Today, some Muslims in eastern Bosnia, Herzegovina,
and Sandyac are descendants of the Croat Muslims who lived in medieval Croatian
Diocleia, present-day Montenegro, and who were expelled from their homeland
during the 18th and 19th centuries. They were aware of their ancestors'
Croatian origins and therefore often gave Croatian names to their new
settlements.[53]
The Serbs did not participate in the spread of
Islam in Bosnia. Under Turkish pressure, medieval Serbs did not retreat
westward to Bosnia but instead began to move north, crossing the Danube River
into present-day Vojvodina and southern Hungary.[54] Moreover, during the first
centuries of their rule, the Turks did not persecute the Greek Orthodox Church,
to which all Serbs belonged.[55] The Patriarch of Constantinople and the
Orthodox Vlachs cooperated closely with the Turkish government, so this church
was favored and privileged in the territories of the Ottoman Empire.
According to statistical research by Professor Omer
I. Barkar on the population of Serbia from 1520 to 1530—that is, two generations
after the subjugation of Serbia by the Turks in 1459—there were only 4,307
Muslim families, compared to 169,916 Greek Orthodox families in the Serbian
Sandiyak.[56] Most of these Muslim families came from
elsewhere, either as soldiers or as artisans.
According to our own research on the origins of
present-day Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the composition of the followers
of Islam can be described as follows: between 10 and 12 percent are descendants
of the Bogomil Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 70 to 75 percent are
descendants of Catholic Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12 or 13 percent are
descendants of Croat Muslims from the neighboring Croatian provinces and
Montenegro, 2 or 3 percent are of Turkish ethnic origin, and 1 or 2 percent are
of Vlach ethnic origin.
Were the Muslims and Catholics who inhabited Bosnia
and Herzegovina during the Turkish occupation aware of their origins?
I. In the Middle Ages,
Europe was composed of several states of varying sizes, principalities, and
free cities with varying degrees of independence. The borders of these
political entities were constantly changing. It was customary to extend the
names of political units to the natives, even though they might be of different
origins or part of a larger ethnic group. However, this political atomism did
not impede the spread and use of common languages and customs,
nor the preservation and development of spiritual unity with the larger ethnic
groups. The natives were generally quite aware of their belonging to a specific
national entity.
The growth of political atomism among the Croats
was fostered by specific geopolitical factors. From the beginning of their
political existence, the Croats were organized into a series of autonomous
principalities and political-geographical units, populated by the same ethnic
group. Thus, ancient chronicles already mention certain principalities of
Croatia by their proper names: White Croatia (Western), Red Croatia (Southern),
Duklja (Dioclea), Zahumlje, Slavonia, etc.[57] The
inhabitants of these principalities or provinces were called, interchangeably,
either by the name of the principality or by the common name of Croats.
In Bosnia, this practice of designating the
inhabitants by the name of the principality was reinforced by two factors.
First, the population and its leaders were eager to preserve as much
independence as possible from the overlapping states; a specific name that,
through simultaneous use, could identify the political unit and the population
was of great help in this regard. The second contributing factor was the
emergence in Bosnia of the Croat Bogomils who, to distinguish themselves from
the Catholic Croats, began to call themselves Bosniaks and their language
Bosniak.
The same practice was later adopted by the Muslims,
whose origin appears to lie in the conversion of almost all members of the
Bogomil sect and many Catholic Croats. Nevertheless, their common Croatian
origin and name were not completely forgotten. Bosnian Muslims, like Catholics,
spoke the same Croatian language and were aware of their common national origin
and that they were only one branch of the Croatian nation that extended beyond
the political borders of Bosnia[58].
This knowledge of their Croatian origin is attested
to by the following facts:
1) In 1512, at the general convention of the
Franciscan Order in Naples, the official delegates of the Vicariate of Bosnia
who lived in the territory not yet under Turkish rule called themselves Croats
(Croatae) and requested that the convention change the name of "Vicariate
of Bosnia" to "Province of Croatia" (Provinciae Croatiae)[59].
At the next convention of the Order, held in Assisi in 1514, the Vicariate of
Bosnia was divided into two units, and the larger unit, which was outside the
territory under the control of the Ottoman Empire, was given the name Bosnia of
Croatia (Bosnia Croatiae)[60]. This unit included the following monasteries in
the territory of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina: Hlivno, Glamoc, Bihac,
Jajce, Glaz on the Ukrina River, Modrica on the Bosna
River, Tuzla, and Bijeljina on the Drina River.
2) Those Bosnian Catholics who left the
Turkish-dominated territory after the first persecution of Catholics, which
began in 1516, called themselves "Croats" [61].
3) The Franciscan Franjo Glavinic, born in 1585 in
the city of Glamoc, Bosnia, used the Croatian language in his writings. In his
work Origine della provincia Bosna Croatia, he stated: "The Bosniaks are
the same people as the Croatian people, and their language is the same"
[62].
4) The Franciscan Lovro Sitovic (c. 1680-172), born
to Muslim parents, speaks in his writings of the "Croatian nation,"
"Croatian language," and "Croatian rivers." In the
Introduction to his Illyrian-Latin Grammar (Venice, 1713), he refers to himself
and the youth of the Bosnian province to whom he addressed his introduction as
"we Croats."[63]
5) The Franciscan Nikola Lasvanin (died 1700), one
of the best-known chroniclers of Bosnia, maintained that the Croats arrived
from the other side of the Carpathians in 640 AD "to Dalmatia and settled
in the present-day Croatian and Slovenian regions. Dalmatia (Roman-Byzantine),
which extended from the sea to the Danube River, took the name of Croatia, as
it is called today."[64] Elsewhere it says: "In the mountainous
region of Croatia, which is now called Bosnia" [65].
6) Before the wars of Vienna (1683-1699), the
Ottoman Empire's military structure in Bosnia included units composed of native
Catholic Croats. These units were called Hrvatski junaci (The Brave Croats)
[66]. These natives, both Catholic and Muslim, constantly reminded themselves
of their origins and nationality.
II. The Bosnian Croats
were introduced to Islam by the Turks. For this reason, these converts were
called "Turks" by the Catholic Croats. This term was accepted by the
Ottoman authorities, and, lacking native Turks in Bosnia through whom they
could govern, they encouraged its use. Over time, this practice became
commonplace, and by the end of the 16th century, the population was classified
as "Turks" (Muslims), "Kršćani" (Catholic Christians),
and "Hršćani" (Orthodox Christians).
However, the Ottoman authorities did not proceed to
denationalize the Bosnian Muslims or erase their awareness of their Croatian
origins. Until the Vienna Wars, Muslims and Catholics lived together amicably
in segregated neighborhoods. Members of the same tribe could be either Catholic
or Muslim. Often, in the same families, the parents were Catholic and the
children Muslim, or a husband was Muslim and his wife Catholic.[67]
The common origin and kinship between Catholics and
Muslims are evident in the fact that the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina have
preserved to this day the old Ikavian language, exclusively Croatian, combined
with elements of the dialect called Chakavian, also Croatian.[68] Furthermore,
Muslims use the old Croatian system for numbering years and Croatian names for
months;[69] they write in a special variant of the Cyrillic alphabet called
Bosancica;[70] they also practice many folk customs and retain the same
superstitions as Catholics.
The Turks were a relatively small nation at the
time of their most rapid expansion. As soon as they controlled a large
territory, they faced the need for a large number of soldiers and
administrative personnel. To solve this problem, they created special military
units called Janissaries, who were recruited from among the Christian boys in
the occupied territories.
These boys in Bosnia, starting in 1472, were taken
every 5 or 10 years from their Catholic parents or from "poturice"
(and were called adzemi oglan in Turkish)[71] and sent
to the Janissary school, where they continued their education at the largest
court school. Graduates of this school were appointed as future military and
administrative leaders of the Empire.
Although they fully integrated into Turkish life,
the Janissaries and high-ranking administrative officials born in Bosnia and
Herzegovina did not completely forget their homeland and were not ashamed of
their Croatian origins. They continued to speak Croatian in Istanbul and at the
Sultan's court. It even became the second official language of the Empire
during the 16th and 17th centuries, demonstrating that their families were
Croatian and that their homeland, Bosnia, was Croatian territory. Here are some
of the most important examples:
1) The young Mehmed Sokolovic, the future Grand
Vizier, was born in eastern Bosnia. At the age of 18, having graduated first in
his class from the High Court School in Istanbul, he was questioned by Sultan
Suleiman the Magnificent about his birthplace, and he replied, "From the
Croats."[72]
2) Grand Vizier Rustanpakha, who was probably born
in Mostar,[73] proudly called himself a
"Croat." In 1553, he received envoys from King Ferdinand I, and the
Pasha asked the Hungarian Franciscan Zay whether he and his companion, Bishop
Anthony Vranic, spoke Croatian. When they acknowledged that they did, he began
speaking to them in that language.[74]
3) Francisco Bornamissa of Alsov declared under
oath on May 2, 1553, regarding Cardinal Juraj Utisinovic: "He speaks
Croatian and is a friend of the Pasha; he is a blood relative of the Pasha, who
is of Croatian origin and was captured as a child and taken to Turkey... Likewise, Muradbey (Tardic) is Croatian and a relative of Father
Gregory" [75].
4) In 1589, Hodaverdi, an envoy of the Sofi Pasha,
governor of Bosnia, made an agreement with the Venetian governor of Dalmatia,
F. Nani. Regarding this mission, Hodaverdi wrote two letters in Turkish and two
in Croatian [76].
5) Mehmed-aga, born in Zvornik (Bosnia) and
commander of the Janissaries at the Sultan's court, on the occasion of a visit
by a delegation from the city of Dubrovnik in 1631, told the delegates: "I
am proud of our language and I am happy to speak it" [77].
6) The imperial envoy Marco A. Pigafetta, during
official visits to the Turkish Begler-bey in Budapest in 1567, as well as on
his diplomatic visits to Istanbul, often spoke Croatian. In his notes on those
missions, he wrote: "In Istanbul, it is customary to speak Croatian, a language
understood by most of the Turkish administrators, especially the military
men" [78].
7) The well-known Turkish historian Mustafa Ali, an
official in the Bosnian government based in Banja Luka (1569–1577), noted in
his book that "the Bosniaks belong to the Croatian nation" [79].
8) In 1609, Mudar Musli-ad-Din ibn 'Ali wrote a
book, Munjetultalibin ve gunjetur ragasin. In the preface, he states that he is
writing his book in "the province of Croatia" [80].
9) The Turkish travel writer Evlija Celebija, passing
through Bosnia in 1660–1664, repeatedly states in his book that the people of
Bosnia speak "Croatian" and that Croatian is "the language of
the people of Bosnia and of all Croatia" [81]. During the Vienna Wars
(1683-1699), when Turkish power was definitively broken, the Bosniaks protected
Bosnia from Western powers with their own military resources. They defended and
saved Bosnia throughout the 19th century. During these confrontations and
hostilities, in which Bosnian Muslims were fighting with Croats in the Kingdom
of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, the religious zeal and national separatism
of the Bosnian Muslims became truly severe and led them to use the name Bosnia
with increasing frequency. But they also rebelled against Istanbul if they saw it
overstepping its bounds in controlling and manipulating Bosnian culture and
interests, as Hussein Gradascević did in 1832 and other Bosnian beys in
1850-1851 [82].
The Awakening of Croatian National Consciousness Among the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 19th
Century
The cultural and national renaissance in Croatia
proper—accelerated after Napoleon's intervention in the Balkans at the
beginning of the 19th century—known as the Illyrian Movement and the Croatian
National Renaissance,[83] soon spread to Bosnia and
affected not only Catholics but also Muslims. However, a genuine renewal of the
awareness of belonging to the Croatian national community did not take place
until the last decades of the 19th century.
Young Muslim students who
frequented the universities of Vienna, Prague, and Zagreb, after the occupation
of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878 by the Habsburg imperial forces, became
familiar with modern national ideas that were not based on the religious
element. When these young Bosniaks studied the characteristics of their own
language and the political and religious history of Bosnia, it became clear to
them that the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina were descendants of the
medieval Bogomili and Catholic Croats and that they themselves belonged to the
Croatian nation. These new political ideas were then disseminated by the
students first to the inhabitants of progressive cities and later to the wider
segment of the Bosnian Muslim population. This national awakening was supported
by leading Muslim journals, such as Behar and Novi Behar in Sarajevo and Biser
in Mostar.
At the forefront of this Croatian national
awakening among the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina were the following
Muslims: the poet and historian Safvet-Beg Basagic (1870–1934) from Nevesinje;
members of the old aristocratic Kulenovic and Dzinic families from Banja Luka;
and Edhem Mulabdic from Maglaj. The mayors of Sarajevo, Esad
ef. Kulenovic and Edhem Bicakcic; the poet Musa Cazim Catic of Odzak
from Posavina, Bosnia; the writer Hivzi A. Bjelavac; the Muslim religious
leaders Reis-Ulema Hadzi, Mehmed Dzemaludin Causevic (1870–1938), and
Reis-Ulema Fehim Spaho (1877–1942); the businessman and philanthropist Adem-aga
Mesic (1866–1945); Dzafer-beg Kulenovic, who was a member of parliament for
several years between the First and Second World Wars, a political leader, and
president from 1938 of the Muslim political party (JOM) in the Belgrade
parliament.[84]
When the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was
created after the First World War in 1918, and the draft of the new
Constitution was submitted to the Parliament in Belgrade in 1920, the political
party of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina sent twenty-four elected
representatives to the Constituent Assembly. Interestingly, twenty-two of the
members of this group were officially registered as Croats. Only the chairman
and the secretary of the official parliamentary party declared their
nationality as Yugoslav. This was interpreted by the political allies of these
two representatives as a way to facilitate the group's work in the Assembly,
where the majority was Serbian.[85]
Svetozar Pribicevic, one of the founding leaders of
the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes and, for some years, of the
political power of the centralist structure of monarchical Yugoslavia, makes an
interesting comment on this matter. In his book, considered his political
testament, Diktatura kralja Aleksandra (The Dictatorship of King Alexander),
Pribicevic wrote about the national consciousness of the Muslims of Bosnia and
Herzegovina: “The vast majority of their intellectuals are Croat-oriented. In
political actions, the masses follow them blindly. This is undoubtedly because
the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in terms of their aspirations and prospects,
are in complete agreement with the Croats. A Serbian
statesman who does not recognize this fact cannot be considered a political
figure of any consequence” [86].
The Origin and Settlement of Serbs in Bosnia and
Herzegovina Today
There were not many Serbs or followers of the Greek
Orthodox Church in Herzegovina until the late 12th century, when the Nemanic
dynasty came to power in Serbia. Nor were there many in Bosnia until the
mid-15th century, when Bosnia was conquered by the Turks. The rulers of the
Nemanic dynasty were the first to spread the Orthodox faith among the Catholic
Croat population in Herzegovina. During the Turkish occupation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, this practice was continued successfully by the Serbian patriarchs
and clergy, especially in regions where there were few Catholic priests or
where they had disappeared altogether.
The Forced Conversion of Croat Catholics to
Orthodoxy
The forced conversion of native Croat Catholics to
the Orthodox faith was initiated by the Serbian Duke Miroslav in 1173,
supported by the Byzantine Emperor Emanuel Komnenos, in order to govern
Zahumlje, a region that today constitutes the center of Herzegovina. Pope
Alexander III, in a letter dated June 7, 1181, complained to Miroslav for not
allowing the consecration of Catholic bishops. Furthermore, he refused to
receive the Pope's delegate or read his letter [87].
The Serbian King Stefan Uros II Milutin (1282-1321)
adopted an increasingly aggressive policy, seizing a large number of parishes,
monasteries, and churches belonging to the Catholic clergy and placing them in
the hands of Orthodox priests [88]. In the mid-16th century, as the Turks
intensified their persecution of the Catholic Church, a large number of
Catholic Croats in Herzegovina embraced the Orthodox faith. During these
persecutions, the Catholic clergy, along with some of their faithful, left
Herzegovina. Most of the Catholic Croats who remained in the region were forced
to convert to Islam or the Orthodox faith.
From the 16th century until the end of the 18th
century, a large number of Catholic Croats in Bosnia were forced to embrace the
Orthodox faith. Most of these conversions were forced, initiated by the
Patriarchs of Constantinople and Peć (Serbia), who considered themselves
the sole legal representatives of Christianity in the Ottoman Empire. These
Patriarchs endeavored, by all means at their disposal, to bring the Catholic
Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, along with their spiritual leaders, the
Franciscan friars, under their own jurisdiction.[89]
The Bishop of Bosnia, Nikola Ogramic, wrote to Rome
in 1672: “The schismatics, led by a very wicked bishop, do not cease
persecuting Catholics with the help of the Turks, forcing them to adopt their
rite and pay them tribute. To achieve this goal, they often obtain powers from
the Turkish emperors, which they use against us in the
Turkish courts to make us abandon our holy Church and submit to them” [90].
The Jesuit priest Daniel Farlati writes in his book
Illyricum Sacrum about the pressure exerted by the Orthodox clergy against the
Catholics of Bosnia and Herzegovina and states, based on information provided
by the Bosnian historian, the Franciscan priest Filip Lastric, that “they are
our enemies, greater than the Turks themselves, because they do not cease
making efforts to subject us to their power” [91].
More than a third of the Serbs currently living in
Bosnia are descendants of Croats born there. One group of these descendants
forms the Bogomili sect, who, in turn, are descended
from Catholic Croats. These Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina
have a somewhat reddish complexion" [92].
The Roman
colonization of the Moors in the Balkans and other regions of Europe. Most Serbs currently living in Bosnia and
Herzegovina have a dark complexion, inherited from the medieval Balkan Vlachs.
All historians agree that the Vlachs were not ethnically Slavic. In the Middle Ages, they spoke their own language, derived largely
from Latin. Nevertheless, historians do not know for certain why the Vlachs
acquired this dark complexion, or rather, from which black or semi-black race
they originated. In my study Postanak Vlaha (The Origin of the Vlachs),
published in 1956, I proved that the medieval Vlachs were descendants of the
Moors who lived in Mauretania, in Northwest Africa. As war veterans, they were
dispersed by the Romans throughout the The Danube River, the Balkans, and other
regions of Europe.[93]
The Roman army was composed of mercenaries, mostly
from Dalmatia, Gaul, and Mauretania. Toward the end of the Empire, many were
also recruited from Germania. Soldiers of a common ethnic and linguistic group
were grouped into separate military contingents to improve communication and effectiveness
in battle. They served for twenty-five years, and all veterans were granted
Roman citizenship and property near the camp where they had served. Roman
authorities began relocating Moors to the Balkans during the reign of Emperor
Claudius (41–54 BC), continuing this practice until the fall of the Western
Roman Empire in 476 AD.[94]
An original bronze military diploma, dated to the
mid-second century BC, mentions Moorish soldiers in Moesia, which is modern-day
Serbia.[95] Another military diploma from 158 BC speaks of Moorish soldiers
from Africa in Dacia, or modern-day Romania, as well as auxiliary troops of the
Dacian Moors.[96] A Roman document, the Notitia Dignitatum,[97] dated to the
early fifth century BC, mentions several Moorish battalions in the Balkans and
the Moorish military colony Ad Mauros, which was located on the Inn River near
Vienna.[98] There, in modern-day Bessarabia, was a town called
Maurocastrum.[99] From these documents, we can deduce that at the beginning of
the fifth century, at least 100,000 descendants of Moors lived in Illyricum, in
the modern-day Balkans.[100]
Writing about the Bulgarian colonization in 681 BC,
ancient Croatian chronicles mention the Moorish-Valakians as
"Latin-Moors" [101]. Ancient Russian [102] and Hungarian [103]
chronicles mention the Valakians toward the end of the 9th century and place
them in the Carpathians. Byzantine writers rarely mention the Valakians before
the end of the 9th century; they usually call them Moorish-Valakians [104], a
name given to them because of their Mauritanian origin.
The main settlements of the medieval Valakians were
found in the Carpathians, north of the Danube, in the Balkans, in Bulgaria,
around Mount Pindus in Greece, near the Kopaonik Mountains in Serbia, and also
in the Durmitor Mountains in Montenegro.
The Moorish-Wallachians spoke a language they had
learned from the Romans during their military service. In the Middle Ages, they lived in separate groups among the Greeks,
Bulgarians, Serbs, and other Slavic peoples. During this time, Serbs were
forbidden from legally marrying Wallachian women.[105]
Medieval Moorish-Wallachians led a nomadic life; their main occupation was
raising cattle, horses, and sheep. They had many horses, which they used to
transport goods from the cities on the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea to the
interior. During the Middle Ages, many of them fought under various governments.[106] The Moorish-Wallachians began migrating to Duclea,
now Montenegro, during the Bulgarian occupation, from 990 to 1018. From the
13th to the 15th centuries, the great trading center of Dubrovnik attracted a
considerable number of them from all parts of the central Balkans. They settled
in enclosed villages in eastern Herzegovina, where they formed many colonies.[107] Before the Turkish occupation, the Moorish-Vlachs of
Herzegovina were Catholic.
The Vlachs of the central Balkans began to move
into Bosnia along with the Turks, as their auxiliary troops. These Vlachs were
Orthodox, as Turkish documents and several chroniclers of the time often tell
us. In 1530, Benedikt Kuripesic, for example, wrote that the majority of the
population of Bosnia was Catholic: "The ancient Bosniaks were
Catholic." Regarding the Vlachs, he himself had to say: "The other inhabitants
(of Bosnia) are Serbs, called Vlachs by the local population, and we call them
Citi or Martologists. They come from Smederevo and Greek
Belgrade."[108]
General Ivan Lenkovic reported to King Ferdinand I
in 1551 that the Turks brought several thousand Mauro-Wallachians to western
Bosnia from within the European region of the Turkish Empire.[109]
In 1540 there were 9,879 Vlach families in the Bosnian sandyak, that is, about
80,000 people, mostly of the Orthodox faith.[110]
Most Serbs living in Bosnia and Herzegovina today
are descendants of medieval non-Slavic Vlachs.
The role of Bulgarians, Albanians, Greeks and
Armenians in the growth of the Serbian ethnic group in Bosnia and Herzegovina
A large number of Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians,
Armenians and other national minorities of the Orthodox religion arrived in
Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Turks and settled in the cities and
municipalities. Their main occupations were trade and crafts or performance in
the local administration of the Turkish government. Towards the end of the 18th
century and the beginning of the 19th century, Orthodox religious communities
in Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Travnik, Zvornik, Foca, Mostar and elsewhere were
largely composed of members of the Bulgarian ethnic group or other non-Slavic
groups. These foreigners, living and associating with native Croats of Muslim,
Catholic or Orthodox faith, learned the vernacular language. In the middle of
the 19th century all of them, thanks primarily to the activity of the Serbian
Orthodox Church, began to consider themselves as Serbs[111].
Colonization of Bosnia and Herzegovina by ethnic
Serbs
The first ethnically Serbian immigrants began to
move to Herzegovina, in very small numbers, during the reign of the Serbian
Nemanjic dynasty, at the end of the 12th century, because Herzegovina was more
intensely populated and had a higher cultural level than Servia. At that time
the official governments in Herzegovina were exercised by native Croats. Most
of them were Catholics and only a few of that group adopted the Orthodox
religion.[112]
A certain number of Serbs came to Bosnia and
Herzegovina seeking a better standard of living, when the Bosnian Ban Trtko I
in 1366-73 occupied the Podrinje region, which was formally a part of the
Serb-populated Serbian kingdom.[113] An indication
that Serbs had never immigrated to Bosnia and Herzegovina in considerable
numbers during Turkish rule is the fact that there is not a single community
there that spoke the Serbian Ekavian language that was formed in the territory
of those provinces.
The largest number of ethnic Serbs settled in
Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Austro-Hungarian occupation (1878-1918) and
during the periods of the first (1918-1941) and second (1945-)
Yugoslavia, either as soldiers, government employees or craftsmen. The
colonization of Bosnia by ethnic Serbs was considerably intensified after 1945,
when Serbian workers were relocated to many industrial centers.
The Serbization of the Vlachs, Orthodox Croats, and
Non-Slavs
Under the influence of the French Revolution of
1789, strictly national movements arose throughout Europe in 1830 and 1848. The
Balkan countries were no exception. In the first half of the 19th century,
first in Austro-Hungarian territory and then in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a
well-planned propaganda campaign was launched among members of the Orthodox
Church. Its sole aim was to pressure them into declaring themselves Serbs.
This campaign was initially carried out by teachers
in Serbian parish schools and in the athletic institutes of the
"Sokol" organization, but it was the Orthodox clergy who played the
most prominent role in this campaign. In 1863, under the protection of the
Serbian Minister of State, Ilija Garasanin, special committees were established
in Sarajevo and other cities throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina for the sole
purpose of systematically pressuring the Vlachs and Orthodox Croats to declare
themselves Serbs, since they belonged to the Serbian Orthodox Church.[114] Among the Vlachs, who called themselves Romanians,
this process was definitively completed not long ago.[115]
According to our research, the ethnic origin of
Serbs currently in Bosnia and Herzegovina can be expressed, in percentages, as
follows: 2 to 3 percent originate from the Bogomili Croat sect; 30 to 32
percent are Catholic Croats forcibly converted to Orthodoxy; 50 to 52 percent
are non-Slavic Moorish-Vlachs; Six or seven percent are Bulgarians, Greeks,
Armenians, Albanians, and other non-Slavic ethnic groups; and eight to ten
percent are Serbian immigrants.
Summary and Statistical Data
During the migration of European peoples, Croats
occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina. They have inhabited these two provinces
permanently to the present day. Initially pagan, they converted to Catholicism
between the mid-seventh and late ninth centuries. Bogomilism began to spread in
the late tenth century, and the vast majority of Croats in Bosnia and
Herzegovina embraced this sect from the fourteenth century onward. Dominican
missionaries began the work of converting the Bogomils back to Catholicism
around 1228 [116], and Franciscan missionaries continued this work in 1291
[117].
Approximately a century later, Pope Boniface VIII
states in a letter dated March 7, 1402 that up to that date the Franciscans had
converted some 500,000 Bogomilis to the Catholic faith[118].
In 1463, when Bosnia fell to the Turks, the population of Bosnia and
Herzegovina was composed as follows: approximately 750,000 were Croatian
Catholics (83%); 80-90,000 were Croatian bogomili (almost 10%); about 15,000
were Orthodox Croats (2%); 10 to 12,000 were Catholic; between 4 and 5,000
Orthodox Mauro-Wallachians (approximately 2%) and the rest, 25 to 28,000,
Orthodox Serbs (approximately 3%), who were mostly in Podrinje, east of the
Drina River.
With the Turkish occupation of Bosnia in 1463, the
Bogomili began to embrace Islam. In the second decade of the 16th century, when
the persecution of Catholics began, some emigrated to
free countries, but the majority, especially the peasant population, accepted
Islam, especially at the beginning. Of course, only
externally. Some Catholics, mainly in the eastern part of Bosnia,
embraced the Orthodox faith.
The Orthodox Mauro-Wallachians began to emigrate to Bosnia and Herzegovina from different parts of
the central Balkans together with the Turks, as part of the rear troops. In
such a way that the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 1624, according to
the statistics of that time, was composed of 900,000 Muslims (66.7%), 300,000
Catholics (22.2%) and 150,000 Orthodox (11.1%)[119].
Ethnically, Muslims and Catholics were descendants of Catholic Croats and
Bogomili, both constituting almost 89% of the population. The members of the
Orthodox Church were, on the one hand, Croats and, on the other, non-Slavic
Maurovalac immigrants. During the Vienna Wars (1683-1699) and subsequent
struggles, a large part of Catholics emigrated to neighboring free Croatia or
other countries.[120]
The Muslim pashas, who were large
landowners, brought a considerable number of enslaved Vlachs from Niksic and
other regions surrounding Mount Durmitor. They reinforced their ranks through
the immigration of a large number of Croatian Muslims, coming from the
neighboring provinces of Croatia, which were liberated from the Turks[121]. Despite this, the number of its population was
reduced by half between the 17th and early 19th centuries due to war losses,
famine and epidemics[122]. In Bosnia and Herzegovina
there were 39,831 Catholics in the year 1743 and 60,061 in the year 1768,
according to the list of families drawn up by the apostolic vicars[123].
To the number of 3,000 Catholics in the diocese of Trebinja the number
indicated above should be added[124]. Furthermore, in
1768, there were 400,000 Muslims (69%) and 125,000 Orthodox (20%) there.
The population of Bosnia and Herzegovina grew in
the latter part of the 19th century, but this growth was proportionally small
for Muslims compared to other groups, due to losses suffered during the wars
with Serbia (1804-1825), the epidemic plagues of 1813-1817, and emigration to
Macedonia and Turkey between 1878 and 1910.
During Turkish rule in the 19th century, and later
during the Austro-Hungarian occupation (1878-1918), a significant number of
descendants of Bosnian and Herzegovina Catholics, who had been living in exile
in Dalmatia and other regions of Croatia, returned to their homeland. During
the Austro-Hungarian occupation, several thousand foreign Catholics arrived in
Bosnia, including Ukrainians, Poles, Slovaks, Czechs, Italians, and Germans.
Most of them left during the first and second periods of Yugoslavia. Only a
small number remained to have converted to Croatian religion. Furthermore, from
the 19th century to the present, there has been significant international
migration of people of all faiths from Herzegovina and the southwestern regions
of Bosnia to central and northern Bosnia.[125]
The population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, according
to official censuses of the last century, was distributed by religious
affiliation as follows:
|
Censos |
católicos |
musulmanes |
ortodoxos |
Totales |
|
1879 |
209.391 (18,1%) |
448.613 (38,7%) |
496.485 (42,9%) |
1.158.440 |
|
1921 |
453.617 (24%) |
588.173 (31,99%) |
829.360 (43,9%) |
1.890.440 |
|
1948 |
607.425 (23,67%) |
885.869 (34,52%) |
1.064.125 (41,48%) |
2.565.277 |
|
1953 |
601.489 (21,1%) |
917.720 (32,2%) |
1.002.737 (35,2%) |
2.847.790 |
(Other
religious groups: 15,375 (0.6%). No religion: 310,469 (10.9%).
The last census, conducted in 1961, does not
provide data on the religious affiliation of the population (*). (The original
English version of this study was published in Croatia, Land, People, Culture,
II, Toronto (University Press), 1970. Editors: F. Eterovic and Ch. Spalatin. Spanish version by F. Nevistic.)
Prof. Dr. Stjepan Krizin Sakac, CJ
In Memoriam
Milan Blazekovic
On the same day, August 23, that
Dr. Dominik Mandic passed away in Chicago, Professor Dr. Stjepan K.
Sakac died in Rome at the age of 83. With him, not only a priest of the Eastern
Rite Catholic Church is lost, but also a renowned Croatian historian,
particularly in the history of the origins of the Croatian people and the name
"Croatian."
Professor Sakac was born on October 10, 1890, in
Kapela, Croatia, where he attended primary school. He continued his studies in
Varaždin and Zagreb. From 1910 to 1915, he was a student at the Germanicum
College in Rome, where he was sent by the Archbishop of Zagreb, Juraj
Posišižić, to study at the Pontifical Gregorian University. There, he
earned a doctorate in philosophy and began studying theology. Because Italy
entered the war fighting on the side of the Allies in 1915, he had to leave
Rome and return to Zagreb. There he entered the Society of Jesus, where he was
ordained a priest in 1917.
In Innsbruck, Austria, he earned a doctorate in
theology and accepted a professorship at the seminary in Sarajevo. After the
war, he returned to Rome, attending academic conferences at the Pontifical
Oriental Institute, which had been founded in 1917 by Pope Benedict XV. From
the autumn of 1921 to the summer of 1922, he lived in France during what he
called his "third year of temptation," focusing on asceticism, the
study of spiritual exercises, the establishment of religious orders, and
pastoral issues. From 1922 to 1924, he served as rector and professor at the
seminary in Vrhbosna, near Sarajevo.
In 1924, he returned to Rome, where he earned his
third doctorate in Eastern ecclesiastical sciences.
When Pope Pius XI, driven by the desire to hasten
Christian unity, requested the supreme heads of the major Western orders to
establish branches of Eastern rites, Professor Dr. Stjepan K. Sakac became the
first Croatian Jesuit of the Byzantine-Slavic rite. At the Congress for
Ecclesiastical Unity in Velehrad, he presented a summary of his doctoral
dissertation on the "approval of the Fifth and Sixth Councils."
His pastoral work took him to Macedonia, to
Bogdanci, near Gevgelia, but the Yugoslav authorities expelled him from there
on the eve of Easter in 1926. Now, for the fourth time, fate led him to Rome,
where he remained from 1926 to 1931 as the bishop's secretary and as the
substitute for the first assistant of the Society of Jesus. During this time,
he completed his important historical work, "The Pact of Pope Agatho with
the Croats Against Aggressive Warfare" (c. 679),
which was published in the journal "Croacia Sacra," Zagreb, 1931.
For the next five years, from 1931 to 1935, Dr.
Sakac served as a professor and priest in seminaries in Western Ukraine and
Western Belarus, which at that time belonged to Poland. From 1935 to 1937, he
lived again in Zagreb, devoting himself, among other things, to historical
research, particularly on the question: "Are the Croats Goths or
Sarmatian-Iranians?" In 1937, he was called back to Rome as a professor of
Slavic ecclesiastical history at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, a position
he held until his retirement in 1966. Most of his studies and historical
articles were published in the Zagreb Jesuit journal "Zivot" (Life),
including: "The True Meaning of the Terms 'White Croatia' and 'Ruby
Croatia'" (Zagreb, 1938), and "Where Does the 'ban' with the Croats
Come From?" (Zagreb, 1939), "The historical development of the name
'Hrvat' from Darius I to Constantine Porphyrogenitus" (Zagreb, 1942),
"The vestiges of ancient Iranian philosophy in the Croats concerning the
dual five-year system (dvojno-petorni sistem) in the names of the 7 days and
the 12 months of the year" (Zagreb, 1943). Apart from these studies, Dr.
Sakac wrote the following treatises: "Who Baptized the Croats?"
(1936), "On the Caucasus-Iranian Origin of the Croats" (1937),
"John of Ravenna, the Croatian Apostle" (1938), "Krapina, kyiv,
Ararat: The Krapina, Kiev, and Armenian Tale of Three Brothers and a Sister as
Seen in the Life of the Croats in the 7th Century" (1940), and "The
Pact of Emperor Heraclius with the Croats c. 627 and 638" (1941).
The journal "La Civiltà Cattolica"
published, in 1949, a series of lectures by Professor Sakac with illustrations
on new interpretations of the genesis of the Slavic peoples, under the title
"Intorno all'etnogenesi dei popoli slavi" (On the Ethnogenesis of the
Slavic Peoples). Also in 1949, his study "Iranische Herkunft des
kroatischen Volksnamens" (The Iranian Origin of the Croatian National
Name) was published in the Rome-based journal "Orientalia Christiana
Periodica."
Throughout his life, Professor Sakac dedicated
himself to researching the origins of the Croatian people. A kind of scientific
summary of this research is represented by his study "Theories, especially
Iranian ones, about the origin of the Croats," published in Croatian in
the journal "Hrvatska Revija" in Buenos Aires in 1952. Part of this
study was published under the title "The Iranian Origins of the Croats
according to C. Porphyrogenitus" at the symposium "Croatian Nation in
its Struggle for Freedom and Independence," held in Chicago in 1955.
And to complete the overview of his published
works, it is worth mentioning that on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of
the birth of Professor Dr. Dominik Mandic, Professor Sakac... Sakac wrote,
perhaps his last scientific work, the article "Ljudovid, strategist of
Serbia and Zahumlje and his diploma of Lokrum of the year 1054", published
by the "Croatian Historical Institute" in Rome, in 1965, in the work
"Mandicev Zbornik" (Mandician Symposium).
Not only through his works, but also through his
human charity, manifested indiscriminately in all latitudes and at all times of
his life, Professor Dr. Stjepan K. Sakac has and will always have a worthy
place in the Pantheon of the greats of the Croatian nation.
Croatians in Chile
Lucas Fertilio
A report on the contribution to the culture of
their new homeland
This is neither historiography nor a scientific
account. It is merely a review, some notes, some
information. It is about reducing to the essentials, and honestly simplifying,
a feat spanning more than a hundred years: the intellectual achievements of
Croatian immigration to Chile. To document and argue this story would require
much work, much time. Data, archives, research, travel. We will simplify
things. We will stick with a bird's-eye view, which will show us some interesting
things.
Emigration and immigration are risky adventures
that defy simple and conventional understanding. They are physical and
psychological transplants and adaptations that demand great physical and
spiritual energy. To emigrate is something like disappearing and reappearing,
almost dying and being resurrected. A dangerous game.
Like a conspiracy against destiny.
The Croatian case is very peculiar and highly
sensitive (like the entire historical life of this nation). To grasp, or at
least intuit, this issue, one need only consider a rare and curious case. In
Chile, Croatians appear under various names: Croatians, Dalmatians, Slavs,
Austrians, Austro-Hungarians, South Slavs, South Slavs, Yugoslavs, and
Yugoslavs. This multitude of different names for the same nationality,
Croatian, reflects its dramatic and ancient history. But this is not the topic
of our conversation. It could be for another.
The topic that concerns us today is the spiritual
contribution of the Croatian element, or those of Croatian origin, to Chilean
culture, if by culture we understand the human activity that contributes to the
moral and material well-being of humankind.
To begin exploring this topic, I'll start with a
statement: the greatest and most valuable contribution of these Slavic
immigrants to Chilean history is the example set by their lives, their work,
and the morale of those humble Dalmatian farmers and fishermen who sacrificed
themselves for generations, working in the northern deserts and the
inhospitable southern regions of Chile. Anonymous, unknown, abandoned, without
the necessary professional training, they fought to live in peace and with
honor. And they triumphed. For their honesty, cordiality, and prudence, the
Chilean people consider them worthy of friendship and brotherhood. Chile truly
considers them its legitimate sons.
This spirit of sacrifice and goodwill is the great
Croatian contribution to Chile. From this root sprang superior human values.
This was the work of their descendants.
But let's get to the subject of this article.
The first Chilean writer of Croatian origin is
Arturo Givovich (1855-1905), author of the novel *El rigor de la trompeta* (The
Rigor of the Trumpet), published in 1888. Raúl Silva Castro tells us, in his
*Historia de la Literatura Chilena* (History of Chilean Literature), that
Givovich had taken an active part in the War of the Pacific. In the novel, he
recounts his experiences and emotions, altered by his poetic imagination. The
novel is very long, full of passionate romantic adventures. But everything ends
well. The Chilean army officer and the young Peruvian woman sanctify the union
of their souls before the altar.
Givovich also published short stories and articles.
His costumbrista short story, "El Valdiviano," was a great success.
Givovich would thus be the Homer of Chilean writers
of Croatian origin. But it seems that an ancestor of his, also named Arturo
Givovich, was the first Croatian recorded in Chile. He came in the 17th century
as a nurse on an English pirate ship belonging to Sir Francis Drake. For love
of a beautiful Chilean woman, he abandoned the pirates and stayed with the
Chileans.
Croatian immigration began steadily around 1860 in
Antofagasta and Punta Arenas. From here, we cite a small group of Chilean
writers, poets, artists, and scientists of Croatian origin.
Luka
Bonacic-Doric Bezzi. Born on Brach Island in 1884, died in Punta Arenas in 1961. Historian, writer, journalist. Works: Historical Summary of
the Strait and the Colony of Magellan, History of the Yugoslavs in Magellan
(three volumes), and the novel Cursed Gold.
Francisco
Berzovic Radonic. Born in 1913 in Porvenir, Chile. Originally
from Brach. Dentist. Professor
at the University of Chile, Santiago. He wrote his first short story,
Sheep's Blood, at the age of 16. Later, he wrote another, for young readers,
The Embrace of the South Pole. In 1956, Cruel Patagonia,
Southern Tales. In 1959, The Last Pirate of Tierra del Fuego, a novel.
His writings are saturated with the Magellanic atmosphere. The rugged south of
Chile, its sailors, its sheep farmers, and its adventurers come alive in his
work.
Zlatko Brncic Jurinic. Born in
1920 in Punta Arenas. Originally from northern
Croatia. Professor of Chilean literature at the
University of Chile, Santiago. Founder of the
Experimental Theater of the University of Chile. Creator
of the university's radio program. Author of the
surrealist novel Angela Triste (1952). Author of the History of Theater
in Chile and Chilean Theater Through Fifty Years. (He
also wrote the tragedy Heroica.) A literary and music critic, pianist, and
flautist, he musically interprets the soul of Chile.
Danko Brncic Juricic. Born in
1925 in Punta Arenas. Originally from northern
Croatia. In 1959, he was inducted into the Chilean Academy of Sciences. Geneticist. His inaugural address was on the genus
Drosophila as a model for the evolution of Chilean fauna.
Simón Eterovic Karelovic. Born in
1912 in Punta Arenas. Originally from Brach. Journalist and short story writer, with an adventurous and curious
spirit. He traveled extensively and engaged in various activities. He
sailed the treacherous southern channels to Cape Horn. He published short
stories in magazines and newspapers. He has a volume of short stories in
preparation.
Don Simon Eterovic passed away in Santiago in
November 1973. His death resonated widely throughout the Chilean press. His
colleagues—journalists and writers—bid him farewell with great affection and
respect.
Lenka Franulic Zlatar was born in 1908 in
Antofagasta and died in 1961 in Santiago. Originally from Brach, she was a
journalist, writer, and translator. She was the editor of Ercilla magazine. She
published "One Hundred Contemporary Authors." She translated works by
Thomas Mann, Virginia Woolf, Jean Cocteau, John Steinbeck, and others. She
authored an anthology of American short stories. She ventured into theater and
politics. She played a role in "The Beautiful Indifferent One." She
was a candidate for senator.
Upon her death, she received numerous tributes. The
entire Chilean elite attended her funeral mass, including the President of the
Republic, Jorge Alessandri. Lenka is considered the regenerator of Chilean
journalism. The president of the Chilean Journalists Association, René Silva
Espejo, said in his eulogy: "She had an indomitable will. A will of steel in a fine, well-crafted shell. Her lineage
combined the influences of ancient races forged in battle and even martyrdom,
and imbued with a passion for life."
The Director of the School of Journalism at the
University of Chile added: "To be a journalist is a responsibility, to be
a good journalist is a virtue, to be a great journalist an excellence attained
only by those with the courage of Prometheus, capable of stealing fire from the
gods. Lenka was a great journalist."
The Director of the School of Journalism at the
Catholic University of Santiago stated: "Lenka was a tireless seeker of
truth, an archetype."
On behalf of her compatriots, journalist Simón
Stancic said: "With Lenka, we have lost the best and the foremost among
us."
The Chilean press mourned her as one. He said that
for Lenka Franulic, journalism was a mission in service to humankind. Lenka
received the Chilean National Journalism Prize in 1957. In 1958, she received
the National Society of Journalists Award in the U.S. Pablo Neruda bid her
farewell, saying, "You were the essence of women and a lesson for millions
of men." The Lenka Franulic Prize has been established for the best
journalist of the year.
Andrés Garafulic Yankovic was born in 1905 in Brach
and died in 1956 in Santiago. An architect, he created some of the first modern
architectural works in Chile. He was the builder of the monumental Basilica of
Our Lady of Lourdes in Santiago. He also authored a novel related to the social
problems of the nitrate industry.
Juan Garafulovic Dubravcic was born in Santiago in
1905. Originally from Brach, he was a psychiatrist. He developed specialized
programs in schools for the mentally disabled, the physically disabled, the
blind, and the deaf-mute. He represented Chile at numerous international
congresses on mental health. In 1946, he served as Minister of Health. In 1963,
he published the novel "Quedamos en eso" (We Agreed on That). His
style was elegant, and his spirit sparkling.
Lily Garafulic Yankovic was born in Antofagasta in
1910. Originally from Brach, she was a sculptor and professor of Fine Arts in
Santiago. She exhibited her works with great success. Commissioned by the
Chilean government, she traveled through Europe studying the organization of
art museums. She had a particular interest in mosaics, which she studied in
Venice and Ravenna. She sought the lyrical expression of contemporary dynamism.
Lily Garafulovic once declared to a journalist: "I don't accept
impositions. Freedom is the first condition for artistic creation. Directed
artists don't create works of art, only posters. The Russian exhibitions are
the worst I've seen abroad."
Cedomil Goic Goic was born in Antofagasta in 1928.
Originally from Brach, he was a Professor of the History of Chilean Literature
at the University of Chile. He wrote: The Poetry of Vicente Huidobro; as well
as the works: Bibliography of the 20th-Century Chilean Novel (1962), The
Chilean Novel (1971), and History of the Latin American Novel (1973). He is
considered one of the leading authorities on Chilean literature.
Esteban Ivovic Matulíc was born in Antofagasta in
1912. Originally from Boka Kotorska, he was a lawyer, economist, and diplomat.
He served as Chile's ambassador to Yugoslavia and as a delegate to the United
Nations. An active and competent collaborator in the drafting of international
agreements, he published essays and articles on Chile's economic relations with
other countries.
Raimundo Kupareo O.P. was born on the island of
Hvar in 1914. He has resided in Chile since 1948. He has served as Vice-Rector
of the Catholic University of Santiago and Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy
and Education. He is a Professor of Philosophy of Art and Axiology. He founded
the Center for Aesthetic Research and the journal Aisthesis at the Catholic
University. He is the Director of the publications Anales de la Facultad de
Filosofía y Ciencias de la Educación (Annals of the Faculty of Philosophy and
Educational Sciences) at the Catholic University of Chile. Each issue of
Aisthesis addresses aesthetic issues related to poetry, architecture, art
criticism, and theater.
Kupareo published the following works: Aesthetics
of the Novel (1953), Aesthetics of Drama (1953), Axiology of Aesthetics (1954),
The Value of Art (1964). Critics opine: "This
eminent scholar has taken on the responsibility of disseminating foreign
conceptions without neglecting to make known his own aesthetic thought. A
complex discipline, such as the philosophy of art, has not been more cultivated
in Chile. Overcoming all difficulties, Dr. Kupareo, with his fruitful work in
Chile, has demonstrated a great love for teaching and culture" (Prof.
Thomas P. MacHalle). The critic for El Mercurio, F. D. V., summarizes the value
of art: "Raimundo Kupareo confers upon ethics the highest category in the
order of ultimate values, since it encompasses the totality of the human act.
As the ultimate value, within the Catholic-Thomistic perspective that inspires
the study, God is placed."
Raimundo Kupareo is in Europe for health reasons.
Ernesto Livacic Gazzano was born in Punta Arenas in
1929. Originally from Brach, he is a Spanish teacher and the author of several
didactic works. such as Friendship Pages, Medieval
Spanish Literature, and The Renaissance Era. He especially promoted the
pedagogical experiment on the application of new methods for teaching reading
and writing in primary schools, which is being implemented in several schools.
During the Christian Democratic administration, he was Undersecretary of
Education.
Roko Matjasic Martinic was born in Brach in 1900.
In 1920, he was a miner in Bolivia. He studied drawing by correspondence. From
1925 to 1929, he was a Fine Arts student in Santiago. In Valparaíso, he
organized the School of Fine Arts and the Free Salon of Visual Arts. In Europe,
he studied classical and contemporary painting. He was a professor of mural
painting in Santiago. From 1937 to 1945, he was in Colombia. He created the
Schools of Fine Arts in Manizales and Medellín. He reorganized the existing one
in Cali, where he created large mural paintings. From 1945 to 1948, he was a
professor of visual arts in Viña del Mar.
Roko Matjasic disappeared tragically and
mysteriously on November 11, 1948, in Viña del Mar. It was said that an ocean
wave swept him away while he was painting its vastness. Chile, Colombia, and
many friends mourned the friend who, with his soft baritone voice and
accordion, sang the melancholic melodies of his distant homeland.
In his oil paintings, Roko expresses himself as an
Impressionist. In his engravings and wood carvings, he displays a poignant
Expressionism. His large murals express a joyful dynamism, a great confidence
in the future of humankind. Roko was Dalmatian, Croatian, a
Mediterranean Slav. A happy blend of tenderness and indomitable
energy.
Mateo Martinic
Beros. Lawyer. During the Christian Democratic administration, he
served as governor of the Magallanes province. Founder and
director of the Institute of Patagonia, whose objective is scientific research
in the fields of history, geography, archaeology, and applied sciences.
He published: Chile's Presence in Patagonia,
1843-79; Magallanes, Synthesis of Land and People; A Brief History of the Land
South of the Beagle Channel; History of Punta Arenas; and research papers
published in Chilean and Argentine university journals. He was born in Punta
Arenas in 1931. Originally from Brach.
Nicolás Mihovilovic Rajcevic. His novel, From Afar
Forever (1966), is a simple and tender account of the struggles of the first
men from Brach in Punta Arenas. Each of those sailors or farmers, who arrived
"from afar," is a protagonist, a hero of a battle. Each
family a nest of goodwill and indomitable energy. This spiritual
alliance conquers, overcomes, all adversities. At last, they have their
independence, their own existence. That is why they had come from their distant
island. Now their children can go to school, to university. But the elders
never forget their island, and with each passing day they promise to return to
their vineyards, their valleys, and their forests. They never returned. They
came from afar forever.
Domingo Mihovilovic Rajcevic. Pseudonym
Tessier. He is a dramatic actor. He founded and is the director of the
Experimental Theater of the University of Chile, Santiago. Professor
of acting and interpretation at the Theater School of the same university.
Founder of the Theater Museum in Santiago. He has
filmed several documentaries. He has traveled and performed in theaters in
Europe, the USA, and Latin America. His play "NN" was awarded a
prize. He has enjoyed great success on the stage. He has published short
stories and essays. He was born in Punta Arenas in 1930. Originally
from Brach.
Francisco Pammer was born in Lika, Croatia, around
1860 and died in Argentina around 1940. He was a physician who practiced in
southern Chile and in the province of Santa Fe, Argentina. A generous man with
an artistic nature, he was a great friend of the poor and bohemians. With a
Franciscan spirit, he healed out of love for humanity. He distributed the many
gifts he received among the needy. Proud of his material poverty and his
spiritual wealth, he was a lover of music with a beautiful baritone voice and enjoyed
a life of celebration. His family emigrated to Croatia
from Germany several centuries ago. He wrote in the Croatian vernacular:
Savjetnik zdravlja. Napisao Dr. Franjo Pammer, ljekar. Buenos Aires, Rodríguez
Giles Printing Workshops, 1916. This book, "Health Counselor" by Dr.
Pammer, is more of a naturalist's guide, citing folk remedies practiced in
Croatia.
(Note: The last sentence about Dr. Pammer appears
to be unrelated and possibly a separate entry.) Dr. Francisco Pammer made many
friends among Croatians, Argentinians, and Chileans. Everyone loved him for his
sincere and genuine generosity.
I owe the information about this endearing
character, this "vagabond with a soul of God," to Antonio Pavisic
Jerkovic of Punta Arenas, who was his nurse for two years.
How UDBA's "Progress" (*)
"sailed" at Croatia's expense
Tomislav Zupanac
The matters discussed in this article will, in many
respects, be unusual for most of the Croatian public. It was known—it was
said—that Croatia was systematically exploited by Tito's Yugoslavia. This was a
topic of particular discussion during the "Croatian Spring" of
1970-71. But the evidence remained largely unknown to the general public. It
was known only to a small number of the highest-ranking leaders.
"The documents I am publishing here were
compiled in the spring of 1971 for the editorial staff of Vjesnik u srijedu
[Zagreb's main weekly newspaper - Translator's note]. However, the
editor-in-chief, Kresimir Dzeba, lacked the courage to publish my article,
despite having written it based on copious supporting material. Then came Karadjordjevo [Tito's "silent" coup of
December 1971 against the Croatian communist leadership, from which point the
regime once again turned towards the policy of "democratic centralism,"
that is, towards Tito's neo-Stalinism - Translator's note]. K. Dzeba was
dismissed, but with that, my obligation to the newspaper also ceased.
[Recently, K. Dzeba and other journalists were expelled from the Croatian
Journalists' Society and banned from writing for life. A
measure worthy of that totalitarian communist and hegemonic regime.] granservio. - Translator's note.]
"When the companies Progres, Generalexport,
and Interexport (Genex-Inex) were organized in Belgrade in the 1950s, few
suspected that these companies would so quickly become financially powerful and
effectively a state within a state. These companies were registered in the
existing State Registry at that time, authorizing them to handle all aspects of
international trade intermediation and the representation of foreign firms.
" "The Progres company, whose activities I
investigated, was founded in 1952. Its director was Djordje Nesic, a former
UDBA general. He enjoyed a special favor with Tito and Rankovic. When trying to
clarify the reasons for this favoritism, I was told about 'Comrade' Jovanka and
her fondness for burly men, on the one hand, and, on the other, General Jovanic
told me at a banquet in 1971 that Nesic had earned his merits in the capture of
Draza Mihajlovic [leader of the Serbian Chetniks - Translator's note], which
earned him the title of general and opened the door for him to become director.
Nesic's first assistant at Progres was Slobodan
Todorovic, also a former UDBA agent. This company was also considered a re-export
company." Regarding the usurious operations of the aforementioned
companies, Dr. H. Sosic wrote in his book Za ciste racune (Clear Accounts) (See
SC, No. 40-41, pp. 10-16), where the interested party will find a detailed
study of their dealings.
Money from the first issue
"At the beginning of its operations, Progres
carried out minor transactions, primarily to meet the needs of UDBA and
numerous party leaders. However, over time, the company's operations expanded,
as did its influence on the Yugoslav economy. This growth and influence were
facilitated by the so-called 'first issue' loans that Progres received from the
National Bank of Yugoslavia. The National Bank, responsible for issuing the new
circulating paper currency (the first issue), delivered it directly to Progres,
instead of providing it to immediate producers through banks as development
credit.
This practice by the National Bank resulted in
companies becoming dependent on Progres. If a company wanted to import or
export its products, it had to do so through a few companies, all based in Belgrade, authorized to conduct international
business. To produce for export or to be able to import, such a company needed
loans, and it could only obtain them from Progres.
" Maritime Trade Under the Progres Coup
"Progres quickly discovered that Croatia was
the promised land for its embezzlement, because it was
the country that produced and imported the most.
"As early as 1955, the first major deals with
Croatian companies began. They all ended the same way. Progres profited, and
the companies lost, having to cover their losses with already insufficient
Croatian funds. In 1958, Progres ventured into the shipbuilding industry, a
branch of the traditionally Croatian economy, which until then, due to the
consequences of the war, was almost undeveloped.
To obtain even more lucrative profits from this new
sector, Progres made extensive preparations. To this end, it signed a
cooperation agreement with the Yugoslav naval industry agency Jugoagent of
Belgrade. Jugoagent was founded in 1948 to remove similar Croatian agencies
from this branch of the economy and subject them to Belgrade's complete
control." The director of Jugoagent was Bozidar Drezga and his deputy,
Ljubo Smokvina. It is almost unnecessary to mention that both are former UDBA
agents and that, given this background, they had connections and influence at
the Yugoslav "summit."
Thus, two Belgrade companies embraced the lucrative
shipbuilding business. Jugoagent agents toured coastal Croatia during 1958 and
1959, promising mountains of gold to its impoverished municipalities if they
would establish local shipping companies. These companies would need do nothing
more than register; Jugoagent would take care of everything else. The impoverished
municipalities, and their even poorer officials, readily accepted the offer
from friends of the "brothers" in Belgrade. In this way, during 1959
and 1960, numerous tiny companies were founded from Pula to Boka Kotorska,
eager to build their first ships and reap their first profits.
"Progres, around the same time—at the end of
1958—founded two joint-stock companies: Maritenia Shipping Company Ltd. in
Liechtenstein and Maritenia Shipping Co. in Monrovia, Liberia.
Belgrade's Embezzlement
"Croatia really needed ships at that time to
use in international maritime traffic. These needs, further accentuated by
Jugoagent's agents, motivated the organization of new shipping companies or the
expansion of existing ones in almost every municipality. Since these companies
lacked the means to purchase new ships, they had to request loans from the
National Bank, which suggested they approach Progres.
" "Using its men in the state
administration, especially two corrupt Croatians—Dr. Vladimir Velebit and Rudi
Kolak—Undersecretary of State and member of the Foreign Trade Commission,
respectively, Progres obtained a vague authorization granting it the right to
purchase used ships abroad, effectively giving it a monopoly in the matter. The
letter from the Foreign Trade Commission (granting this privilege) is dated
January 30, 1959, and signed by Dr. Vladimir Velebit.
"We have already mentioned that Progres had
founded two joint-stock companies for the ship trade. This is not unusual for
the way large Belgrade re-export companies operate. Before founding these two
companies under the name Maritenia, Progres had its own network of firms abroad
under the name Interprogres." All were owned by Progres, and the right to
sign and allocate financial resources belonged exclusively to the CEO and his
deputy—Nelic and Todorovic, respectively.
Old Ships at High Prices
"Immediately after obtaining this
authorization, Progres, through its companies abroad, began purchasing ships as
follows:
"For the Atlantic Navigation company of
Dubrovnik, it bought Kolocep, formerly Rivercrest, and the ship Korcula,
formerly Muntpark; for the Free Adriatic Navigation company of Split, it bought
Matija Gubec, formerly Sao Paulo, and for Brodospas of Split, the ship Jadro,
formerly Congo; for the Adriatic Tanker Navigation company of Zadar, it
acquired Jajce, formerly Eagte; for Kvarner Navigation of Rijeka, it bought
Kumrovac, formerly Glückauf; and finally, for the Brodarstvo company of
Hercegnovi, it acquired Igalo, formerly Lucy Essberger."
Meanwhile, on July 14, 1959, under competitive
pressure from re-exporters Inex and Genex, the Foreign Trade Commission
withdrew its previous permit from January and ordered Progres to suspend the
purchase of used vessels. However, Progres disregarded these new measures.
Thus, it continued with its purchases; these were: for Mediterranean
Navigation, from Korcula, the vessels Blato, formerly Barbara Mentzen; Racisce,
formerly Kontano; and Janjina, formerly Lakteral. For Free Navigation, from
Split, the following units were purchased: Subicevac, formerly M. Conusco;
Promina, formerly M. Foscarini; Bor, formerly P. Orseolo; and Dorcol, formerly
Georgie. For Kvarner Navigation, Kraljevica, formerly Loch don, was purchased;
for Tanker Navigation, from Zadar, the vessel Kornat, formerly Navigator; and
for Lovcen, from Kotor, the vessel Krivosije, formerly H. Fischer; for Yugoslav
Tanker Navigation, based in Zadar, Ravni Kotari, formerly Tergesto, and Dugi
Otok, formerly Mar Libero, were purchased; for the Free Yugoslav Navigation
company, based in Ploce, Ploce, Ploce, formerly Aspirator, was purchased; for
Boger, based in Split, the vessel Solta, formerly Gladiator, was purchased; for
Brodarstvo, based in Hercegnovi, Nis, formerly H. Schroeder, and Niksic,
formerly S. S. Schroeder, were purchased; for Atlantic Navigation, based in
Dubrovnik, Uvala, formerly Grazia, was purchased; and for the Lovcen company,
based in Kotor, Dobrota, formerly Mar Nimitz, and Muo, formerly Tilly Bogo,
were acquired.
In summary, a total of 26 used Liberty-class
vessels were purchased, all so old that no reasonable future profitability
could be expected from them.
"To secure approval for the purchase of these
vessels from the municipalities, Jugoagent promised them long-term loans and,
to those lacking a team of experts to manage shipping companies, offered
comprehensive services. This means Jugoagent would handle all company
administration for a minimal fee, while the municipalities would only share in
the profits. In effect, Progres, through Maritenas, purchased almost all the
vessels for cash and sold them to Croatian companies on favorable terms.
Meanwhile, once the final contracts were signed, Progres, thanks to its trusted
contacts within the state administration, obtained an order from the Economic
Commission of the Federal Ministry requiring that all financed purchase
agreements be converted into cash contracts in foreign currency. In this way,
Progres ensnared many Croatian municipalities and companies.
To cope with this new situation and pay Progres the
high prices and customs surcharges in cash, these companies and municipalities
had to..." They would go into debt with Progres for the corresponding
amount in dinars, then use that money to buy foreign
currency from the State Central Foreign Exchange Fund, and use that same
currency to pay Progres for the ships they had acquired. Municipalities and
their companies were also forced to pay high interest on these dinar loans, to
be repaid in foreign currency. But this wasn't enough. Almost all Croatian
shipping companies were forced to sell all the foreign currency they earned to
Progres at the official exchange rate for the next twenty years, which meant a
further loss for them, given the gap between the real and official exchange
rates in Yugoslavia.
"Let's take a closer look at how this trade
unfolded.
"On January 20, 1959, for example, the
stevedores Stener S. Mullers A/S, of Fjonsager, Norway, sold their vessel Congo
(2,165 GRT) to Interprogres AG, of Zurich, Zweierstrasse 35 (and this company,
as we have seen, was owned by Progres), for a price of 140,000 pounds sterling.
Then, in March of the same year, Interprogres, acting on behalf of Milan
Pantelic, one of the directors of Progres, sold the Congo to Brodospas for
196,950 pounds sterling. Progres' net profit was 56,950 pounds sterling."
Godmother, the "companion" Jovanka
"The vessel Glückauf was offered in March 1959
on the London Ship Exchange for 70,000 pounds sterling." However,
Maritenia, of Progres, entered into a contract on April 11, 1959, with the
Brentag-Brenstof company of Duisburg, purchasing the vessel for 160,000 pounds
sterling, plus 4,004 pounds for credit expenses. The contract on behalf of
Maritenia was signed by H. Toncic, Navigation Director of Kvarner, of Rijeka,
the company that purchased the vessel. The actual seller of the vessel,
Brentag, was owned by the German trust Hugo Stinnes.
The intermediary in this transaction was the Comex
firm of Düsseldorf, also owned by the aforementioned trust. Progres, operating
under the name Maritenia, concluded a contract on March 18, 1959, with the
Düsseldorf-based company Comex to obtain a loan of 400,000 pounds sterling,
with 6% interest and 2.5% of the loan amount to cover processing costs.
However, this loan was conditional upon Maritenia purchasing the Glückauf from
Comex or other sellers proposed by Comex. Progres thus acquired the Glückauf at
a price significantly higher than the market value, yet did not lose money, as
it sold the same unit to the Rijeka-based company Kvarnerska Plovidba for
228,768 pounds sterling. Progres' net profit was 68,600 pounds sterling.
"But the story of the Glückauf ship doesn't
end there. It was christened Kumrovac, and to silence the voices protesting the
large price difference and other irregularities surrounding the sale, Nesic
appointed his "comrade" Jovanka as the ship's godmother. Anyone who
glances through the newspapers of that time will find many reports "about
that glorious day for the Yugoslav shipbuilding industry."
Croatian shipyards also get involved.
"The Denholm Line Steamers Ltd. shipyard in
Glasgow sold the Mountpark (5,722 GRT) to Maritenia on May 27, 1959, for
£92,000. Then, on July 14 of the same year, Maritenia sold it to Atlantic
Navigation of Dubrovnik for £133,812." The ship was renamed Korcula,
thereby gaining Progres 41,812 pounds sterling
"On January 20, 1960, Progres, through its
organization Maritenia, purchased three ships from Diamantis Pateras Ltd. of
Panama: the Aspirator (7,230 GRT), the Gladiator (7,200 GRT), and the Navigator
(7,264 GRT), for £125,000 each. On the same day, Progres sold these ships to
Croatian shipping companies for £140,004 each. But the story doesn't end there.
On January 28, 1961, Diamantis Pateras signed a contract with El 3 de Mayo of
Rijeka to build a new 14,440 GRT vessel for the latter company for a total
price of £915,000, on the condition that Progres pay £369,375 as a down payment
on the outstanding balance." Three ships were mentioned up to the end of
1960. But Progres, by bribing some of the officials at El 3 de Mayo shipyard,
signed a contract with the same company guaranteeing the postponement of payment
until March 31, 1963. In this way, the El 3 de Mayo shipyard granted Progres an
interest-free loan. Thus, Progres earned 45,012 pounds sterling in the
transaction without investing a single penny.
"On March 16, 1960, Progres, again through
Maritenia, purchased two Osprey Gulf ships from Atlantic Bulk Trading Corp. of
Montovia for $450,000 each." Their characteristics: Liberty-class ships,
each 6,753 GRT, built in 1945.
"On the same day, Atlantic Bulk signed a
contract with the Split Shipyards in Split for the construction of a new 22,000
GRT vessel for $3,000,000. The buyer agreed to pay the first installment of
$900,000 immediately, with the contract stipulating that Progres would pay an
equal amount to cover its debts for the Osprey and Gull ships. However, on
November 24, 1960, Progres stipulated separately with the Split Shipyards that
the aforementioned amount would be paid in installments over four years, that
is, until December 15, 1964. With this transaction, therefore, two Split
shipyards extended Progres a $900,000 loan over four years, interest-free. This
'deal' curiously had another purpose." The ships "Osprey" and
"Gull" were not delivered to the Croatian companies. Progres retained
them under their former Liberian flags and, in collaboration with Jugoagent,
transported weapons on them from America to Africa and Asia according to need
and profit potential.
"On June 20, 1959, the Italian shipping
industrialist Franco Maresca, of Genoa, sold the vessel 'M. Coruscó', of
6,970.25 GRT, to Maritenia, represented by Smokvina and Drezga, for the price
of 75,000 Lstg. On the same day, this vessel was resold to the company Slobodna
Plovidba, of Sibenik, for 27,000 Lstg. On June 30, 1959, the company Lloyd
Veneciano a.d., of Venice, sold the vessel 'Sao Paolo', of 6,967 GRT, to
Maritenia, represented by the same gentlemen mentioned above, for the price of
89,000 Lstg. Maritenia resold it on the same day to Jadranska Slobodna
Plovidba, of Split, for 139,125 Lstg. The profit of Progress.
50.125 Lstg."
The Plunder Continues
...The Kotor-based shipping company Lovcen
concluded a contract on December 14, 1959, with the Beirut-based company
Ibrahim Diab et Amine Gazeweni et Fills. Diab agreed
to grant Lovcen a loan of 300,000 Lehman, for four years at 7% interest, for
the construction of three ships. The Lebanese firm requested a guarantee from
Jugobanco with a mortgage on the ships. However, due to pressure from
Jugobanco, Progres intervened and, through corruption, secured the same loan
from Diab for itself under the same conditions, but this time without the bank
guarantee. Thus, in a four-day case, Progres deprived Lovcen of a relatively
favorable loan. The contract between Diab and Progres was signed on December
18, 1959.
"Progres purchased three units on behalf of
Lovcen." The respective contracts, dated January 3, 1959, indicate the
following prices: 'M. Nimitz', $448,000; 'H. Fischer', $350,000; and 'Tilly
Bogo', $308,000. The contracts presented to the state authorities list the Diab
company of Beirut as the seller of the vessels. The
contracts are fraudulent, because Diab never owned these vessels. They were
purchased by Progres, through Maritenia, from the German owners for the
following prices: 'M. Nimitz', $320,000; 'H. Fischer', $248,000; and 'Tilly
Bogo', $192,300, and then sold to Lovcen for $1,254,000. Progres' net profit on
this transaction: $492,552.
"The same story was repeated in the purchase
of the ship 'Igalo', formerly the 'Lucy Essberger', made on behalf of the
Brodarstvo company of Hercegnovi. Progres presented
the Yugoslav authorities with a contract listing Plaba as the seller and
Maritenia as the buyer. The contract was signed on January 8, 1960, indicating
the price of the transaction: 135,000 Lstg. It was later discovered that this
contract was also a forgery. The real seller was the John T. Essberger company of Hamburg. This German company sold the 'Igalo' to
Maritenia on January 10, 1960, for 94,500 Lstg. But Progres sold it to Brodarstvo
for 145,000 Lstg, meaning they made a net profit of 50,000 Lstg."
"In its pursuit of ever-increasing profits,
Progres was undeterred by any obstacle. For example, the company presented the
'competent authorities' with a purchase agreement for the vessel 'Nis,'
formerly 'H. Schroeder.' The agreement was dated January 8, 1960, and listed
the price as 105,000 Lstg. This agreement was also forged. The vessel was not
offered for sale until June 29, 1960, and the intermediary company—Davies and
Newmen Ltd. of London—listed it for sale on July 13, 1960. The same occurred
with the transaction involving the vessel Niksic, formerly 'S. Schroeder.' On
the orders of Nesic and Drezga, the Jugoagent agent in Hamburg forged these
agreements, keeping the originals for himself.
The vessel 'Nis' was purchased for 102,500
Lstg." and the 'Niksic' for 102,000 Lstg. Progres sold them to Brodarstvo
for 150,000 Lstg. and 147,984 Lstg., respectively.
Progres' profit: 93,484 Lstg."
Foreign Loans
Progres easily obtained foreign loans. In September
1959, the Banco di Roma in Venice granted them a loan of 62,300 pounds sterling
for 18 months at 6.5% interest. In December 1959, they obtained a loan, also
from the Banco di Roma, in Lugano, Switzerland, for $897,990. Banca d'America e
di Trieste granted them a loan of 129,036,000 Italian lire for 18 months in
December of the same year. In the same month and year, Progres obtained
$243,250 for 6 months from the Schweizerische Bankgesellschaft in Zurich. We
could continue in this vein. To obtain these loans, Progres had the backing of
the Drzavni Osiguravajuci Zavod (State Insurance Institute) and the Bank of the
Yugoslav Nation, providing them with the corresponding guarantees.
Inevitable Losses
For our shipowners, the difficulties began from the
moment they received the vessel delivered by Maritenia. The monthly
installments were very high, later, so was the total price
of the vessel, and then the customs duties led them to financial ruin. We do
not have complete data on the losses of our shipowners in transactions with
Maritenia, or rather, with Progres, but a fraction of them is telling. Thus,
for example, in 1960 alone, just four vessels resulted in the following losses:
"Jadro," 9,024,756 dinars; "Solta," 13,989,180 dinars and,
in 1971, 13,491,435 dinars; "Ploce," 6,742,196 dinars; and
"Subicevac," 2,097,006 dinars. dinars...
...The extent of the losses is best illustrated by
the example of the Jugoplov company in Ploce. To cover
the losses and pay customs duties, the relevant municipality of Makarska had to
pay 90,000,000 dinars in 1962. This amount was paid from the fund designated
for the victims of the earthquake that struck that area.
The investigations were halted midway.
In mid-1961, some members of the Federal Assembly
learned of the embezzlement by Progres and Jugoagent, prompting an
investigation through the Commission for Social Control. The main driving force
behind this investigation was J. Bojanovic, an inspector with the Foreign
Exchange Inspection, who compiled numerous reports on Progres's activities. (He
did so to his own misfortune, as a month after the investigation concluded, he
was struck by a car, and the driver was never identified.) The Commission,
through its subcommittee, produced a report on the matter, which we are
publishing in its entirety.
Once the investigation began, Progres's supporters,
Jovanka Broz and Alejandro Rankovic, quickly intervened. Lieutenant General
Pavle Jakic, chairman of the Federal Assembly's Commission for Social Control,
deputy for the city of Niš, and commander of the 4th Army, was abruptly forced
into retirement, stripped of his parliamentary seat, and interned. The
Commission for Social Control was dissolved, and the Serbian Higher Economic
Court, which was handling the case against those responsible for Progres, was
ordered to cover up the looming scandal.
It wasn't until 1965 that the verdict against
Progres was issued, but without mentioning the ship purchase. Djordje Nesic,
its managing director, was also not sanctioned. In 1963, he left that position
after falling out of favor with Jovanka Broz. He was later appointed economic
representative to Bulgaria. The managing director of Jugoagent, Bozidar Drezga,
also had no problems. Rankovic transferred him, as a trusted man, a month before
the Brioni Plenum in 1966 [a meeting in which Tito eliminated Rankovic for
having planted recording devices even in his bedroom - Translator's Note], to
Split, guaranteeing him the position of managing director of Jadranska Slobodna
Plovidba. He was also entrusted with the task of carrying out a similar
operation in Dalmatia, and especially in Split, once Rankovic seized power. In
this subversive plan, Drezga was one of the 50 directors of the largest
Croatian companies appointed by Rankovic immediately before his downfall. Some
of them still hold their positions.
After the profits – cars
An article published in the Belgrade newspaper
"Vecernje Novosti" (Evening News) on February 14, 1962, briefly drew
public attention to Progres. The journalist Pavkovic learned that Progres had
given cars to its directors at a time when acquiring a car was nearly
impossible. According to Pavkovic, Progres obtained approximately twenty
Peugeot, Ford, and VW cars from its overseas clients between 1957 and 1961. Because
they were registered as temporary imports, no import taxes were paid on them.
At the end of 1961, thirteen of these cars became
the property of Progres, as the foreign companies had informed them that they
were leaving the cars at their disposal, without compensation, as a gift. In
October 1961, the Progres Workers' Council officially handed over these cars to
its eleven directors. The managing director of Jugoagent, Bozidar Drezga, was
given a Ford. It is worth noting here that this was the last article that
journalist Pavkovic was able to publish in Yugoslav newspapers.
Conclusion
Although it may seem incredible, it must be pointed
out that everything we have just published represents only a small part of the
"negotiation" of a Belgrade import-export company. Furthermore, it is
unlikely that anything more will ever be known. The major exporters obtained
their profits, essentially, through embezzlement in Croatia, which was the main
reason for their silence. Progres's profit, of around three million pounds
sterling, mentioned in the minutes, was actually much larger. The same lawyers
from Progres, during my stay in Belgrade in the spring of 1971, admitted to me
that the actual profit earned from the sale of ships exceeded 5 million pounds
sterling.
This article reveals that Croatia is in a colonial
situation. Today, as yesterday. The Belgrade
re-exporters—Progres, Inex, and Genex—invested and continue to invest their
profits in foreign companies, profits obtained in Croatia. According to some
statistical estimates, these three companies employ around 10,000 people, both
Serbs and foreigners, sometimes including a Croatian.
This is a large army with substantial financial
resources at its disposal, not only in the fight against Croatian emigration
but also against all movements within Croatia. Although these figures may seem
incredible to some, the following Progres organizations still exist and are
well known abroad: Interprogres Trading Co., New York, UA; Interprogres GmbH,
Frankfurt, M. Friedrich Str. 60, DRD; Interprogres, Milan, Via Ruggero
Boscovich, 14/I, Italy; Interprogres, Montreal, 2055 Peel Str., Canada;
Interprogres, AG, Zurich, Zweierstr. 35, Switzerland;
Maritenia Shipping Co. Ltd, Schaan, Liechtenstein; Maritenia Shipping Co.,
Monrovia, Liberia.
In addition, Interprogres has branches in Trieste,
Paris, Vienna, London, Oslo, Caracas, Buenos Aires, Hong Kong, Singapore, and
who knows how many more.
To give our readers a clearer picture, we are
publishing a photocopy of a list from the Belgrade-based re-exporter
Generalexport (Genex), which clearly shows the extent to which the network of
this Serbian trading organization, once considered more powerful than the state
itself, has branched out. The financial potential, and with it the political
influence, of this company grew and was structured in the same way as that of
Progres. The shipping trade is just one of the many examples of plunder and
extortion that form the basis of Belgrade's current capitalist power.
Despite claims that the activities of Belgrade's
import-export companies were restricted, Inex managed to establish its own
financial institution. Thus, as of September 11, 1973, Belgrade had one more
bank, which began operations with an initial capital of 4.7 million new dinars.
Furthermore, despite the extensive embezzlement, the name Progres was not
removed from the Yugoslavian Commercial Register.
On the contrary, all of Progres's subsidiaries
abroad continued to operate without hindrance, handling ill-gotten gains
illegally. The best example of this is Progres's Frankfurt branch, founded in
1956 under the name Interprogres Import und Export GmbH. Its current president
is Milorad Radisic, born in Belgrade in 1920. Slobodan Todorovic and Djordje
Negic were registered as co-owners of the company, each with 25,000 German
marks. This Interprogres company is involved in
import-export and trade intermediation, and employs 16 people. Its turnover in
1972 reached 60 million German marks.
The author of this article, Tomislav Zupanac, and
the London newspaper "Nova Hrvatska" published the photocopies
mentioned above, which we cannot reproduce here due to space limitations.
Anyone interested can find them in issues 7, 8, and 9 of the aforementioned
Croatian newspaper, published in London and written by young journalists who
emigrated after Tito's coup in December 1971. These were people who actively
participated in the public life of communist Yugoslavia and students who, with
great idealism and persistence, tried to "locate" social justice and
"equality and fraternity" as the definitive solution to the national
question in communist Yugoslavia. This document can also serve to show
communist "believers" worldwide how false the promises of communist
regimes are regarding an earthly paradise and the resolution of conflicts
between individuals, societies, nations, and states. This is the image of
Tito's communism, so often praised as a "liberal" and more humane
communism.
Translation by F.N.
Opinions, comments, perspectives
Yugoslavia, agent of international communism
Peru Imports "Social Property" from
Yugoslavia
The newly appointed Argentine academic, Dr. Manuel
Taglie, writing in "La Prensa" on August 14, 1973, referring to the
infiltration of Yugoslav communism in Peru, states: "A prestigious
Peruvian journalist affirmed a few months ago in an enlightening article that
there were two documents signed by the Yugoslav technocrat, Branko Horvat,
whose concepts were 'extensively discussed by the tripartite agreement
comprising the National Planning Institute, the National System of Social
Mobilization (SINAMOS), and CENCIRA.'
In these documents, Horvat advocates for the
progressive liquidation of the private sector, defending social property as a
system that necessarily implies the destruction of private property." To
this end, he suggests that a number of Peruvians spend time in Yugoslavia and
return to Lima with Yugoslav advisors, mentioning eight of the most qualified,
with stays of one to six months in Peru, specializing in areas such as: demographic
statistics, banking research, investment planning, self-management, public
administration reform, and advising SINAMOS on political mobilization for
self-government.
A little later, Taglie concludes, "It is clear
that in matters of social and economic organization, one cannot be original.
Whether with Western freedoms or with Eastern dictatorships... 'Social
ownership' is representative of a political identity whose features are easy to
characterize, and it barely constitutes 'another step forward' on the slope of
gradual total radicalization, advised by the need to disguise the already
notorious frustration of the experiment." The graft offers no relief to
the suffering people of Peru because the creature died long ago in the very
womb of the exporting country.”
Emissaries from Belgrade
Dr. G. Martínez Márquez, correspondent for “La
Prensa” in New York, says in the article “From Revolutionary Nationalism to
‘Titoist’ Communism in Peru,” published on October 16, 1963, among other
things: “But, as Ravines reports in his revealing interview with the Minister
of Economy, Morales Bermúdez, he determined that the Peruvian revolution should
reject the Soviet, Castroist, and Maoist paths, and instead orient itself
toward Yugoslav theory and practice.”
“Then, emissaries from Belgrade began to arrive in
Peru: Edvard Kardelj, Branko Horvat, etc.” Tito's envoys maintain that
Yugoslavia is today the best example of the success achieved in the life of a
people.
"The reality is," continues Martínez
Márquez, "that the system has led—as in Russia—to the most scandalous
process of political corruption. Tito himself recently spoke of the threat of
ideological degradation and decreed a fierce purge."
Yugoslavia leads the Comintern in Algeria.
Eudocio Ravines, in "La Prensa" on
September 9, 1973, comments: "Of the communist countries, the smallest
have been, since their origins, Yugoslavia and Albania. Both resisted becoming
satellites of the Soviet Union, a resistance that led Albania into Beijing's
orbit and Yugoslavia to try to be a big fish in a small pond, instead of a
small fish in a big pond."
The efforts of Marshal Tito, the Yugoslav dictator,
piloted and maneuvered by Edvard Kardelj, the principal ideologue of
Titoist-style communism, were directed toward the group of countries that have
come to be known as the Third World. This conglomeration of nations, bizarrely
motley and devoid of both material and spiritual ties, with opposing destinies
and antagonistic interests, is nonetheless united by the only commonality among
them: the animosity of poverty toward wealth; the resentment of inefficiency
toward efficiency; the hatred of the underdeveloped toward the developed.
These radically negative sentiments are what
Yugoslav communism has been exploiting with the aspiration of establishing
something akin to its own "Comintern." His actions are therefore
characterized by pure negativity, dating back to the days when Edvard Kardelj
manipulated and subjected figures like Nehru, Nasser, and Sukarno—all three of
whom dreamed of becoming leaders of the Third World—to relentless brainwashing.
Their deaths left a vacant throne, which Edvard Kardelj has been trying to
seize, offering it to Marshal Tito, the octogenarian dictator of Yugoslavia.
As the failure of the self-management,
co-management, social ownership, and the new communist forms created by Titoism
have deepened and the frustration of the system of self-management,
co-management, social ownership, and the new communist forms created by Titoism
has become more visible, Kardelj's efforts have intensified in the Third World.
The meeting taking place these days in Algiers, under the ideological
leadership of Yugoslav communism, must confront the new and momentous global
development of the understanding between Moscow and Washington. Yugoslavia will
propose that "this understanding be in accordance with the interests of
all the peoples of the world, avoiding the danger of becoming an instrument of
the superpowers' global hegemony." Such a statement is as noble as it is
ineffective, considering that the debt of underdeveloped countries to developed
countries has increased by more than 65 billion dollars, a factor capable of
imposing conditions... The Algeria meeting will be all the more pointless,
given that the "non-alignment" of the Cold War era has lost all
meaning. The current understanding between Russia and the United States leaves
the non-aligned with no possible alignment, since the boundaries between the
two contenders have been erased.
The Non-Aligned Movement's Fiasco
Eudocio Ravines comments in "La Prensa,"
Buenos Aires, October 12, under the title above: "Twelve years ago, when
the world experienced the heightened tension of the Cold War, the United States
commissioned Tito to stage the international farce of non-alignment. The
Yugoslav dictator obtained the cooperation of Nehru of India, Nasser of Egypt,
and Sukarno of Indonesia, and together they orchestrated this charade."
"The 'non-alignment' that its founding
fathers, Tito above all, tried to imbue with drama and theatricality suffered a
severe blow when the 'Cold War' faded into obscurity. The two superpowers
understood each other, drew closer, exchanged kisses of peace, and
'non-alignment' lost all meaning. The non-aligned no longer had anyone to align
themselves with, nor anyone to oppose. Thus, Tito's
creation became an outdated contraption, a mummified organization, serving no
one except Tito and Yugoslav communism, currently interested in expanding its
communist style in developing countries."
In mentioning the falsity of the neutrality of
Egypt and the Arab countries "subjugated by Moscow, and of India, which
signed a pact in 1971 with the Soviet Union, whose non-alignment is a
farce." Ravines continues: "The height of 'non-alignment' was reached
by Fidel Castro, who climbed onto the podium at the Algiers meeting to defend
the Soviet Union, which he described as the world leader in the fight against
imperialism. The Cuban dictator's cynicism sparked outrage among the
participants in the farce orchestrated by Tito. (...) Then Colonel Gaddafi
harshly exposed the participants. He proclaimed his decision to demystify that
meeting of comedians, stating that 'the truly neutral and genuinely non-aligned
countries of the Third World can be counted on the fingers of one
hand...'"
"Esprit", Paris, October 1973, on
problems of Southeast Europe
Jean Marmont, reviewing Paul Lendvai's book
*L'Europe des Balkans après Stalin* (Fayard, "Le Monde Contemporain"
series), says: "Following the important book *History of the People's
Democracies* by F. Fejtó, a new book by a Hungarian specialist has appeared,
making a considerable contribution to understanding the phenomena of
southeastern Europe. Its author is Paul Lendvai, Viennese correspondent for the
*Financial Times* of London. He offers the French public a very comprehensive
study of the political, economic, social, and national realities of four
communist regimes in the Balkans: Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, and
Romania."
Two fundamental characteristics define Lendvai's
study: first, he has personally experienced the realities of a socialist
regime, and second, he possesses a deep understanding of the historical,
political, and national context of those regimes. These two elements have
enabled him to provide a thorough understanding of the events in the Balkans,
which remain largely unknown to the Western public.
The main theme of his study is the awakening of
"defensive nationalism" and the liberation of the Balkan peoples.
This phenomenon, which sometimes "may seem to citizens of the old
nation-states in the West as an irritating survival of the past—and to
Americans as a ghost of the dark ages—there in Eastern Europe, it is something
quite different" (p. 12).
The general idea, which emerges throughout his
analyses, is that this "nationalism in its new communist version... is
stronger than communism" and that the "aspiration toward national
identity is more powerful than that of ideological ties." Lendvai even
goes so far as to say: "In the case of nations struggling for their right
not to be dominated from the outside by a great power, or internally by a
majority nation, it is impossible to identify the awakening of national
sentiments with reactionary causes." And further on, he states that today
in the Balkans, "nationalism is an ally of democracy and
decentralization" (p. 426).
The key region among these countries, according to
Lendvai, is Yugoslavia, a failed experiment in an artificial "melting
pot" in the Balkans. This state, which is neither a country, nor a people,
nor a nation, represents today the greatest unknown regarding the future of
this corner of Europe. Characterized, in turn, by strong internal instability
and numerous external crisis factors, Yugoslavia could well become the spoils
of a military dictatorship sponsored or supported by the Soviets. This
eventuality would also immediately and directly expose Romania and Albania,
and, less directly, Greece and Italy.
Internally, Tito's authoritarian leadership and the
already unfolding succession crisis only exacerbate national conflicts, the
most difficult of which is the Croatian problem. Externally, Soviet policy
toward the Yugoslav regime was marked by a persistent ambiguity: a tension
between the desire to reintegrate Yugoslavia into its bloc and the desire to
maintain the internal crisis in order to present a "bad example" to
its "brotherly countries." The Soviet Union actively facilitated the
neo-Stalinists' "recapture of power" and "normalization" of
Yugoslavia.
This situation is facilitated by the complete
absence of any policy, short- or long-term, on the part of Western democracies
regarding the nations that made up Yugoslavia. Western countries, as Lendvai
clearly points out, are not creating new situations; they are content merely to
offer isolated protests. Their diplomatic services are unaware of the national
and political aspirations of the oppressed peoples (Croat, Albanian) and
therefore believe that Yugoslavia could serve as an effective buffer between
them and the Soviet bloc.
Lendvai's originality is evident, among other
aspects, in his analysis of the 1948 split between Stalin and Tito: "Tito
was not the precursor of the struggle against the Stalinist bureaucracy. The
1948 battle was fought by two totalitarian parties on the terrain of 20th-century
communist power politics, not precisely 19th-century nationalism," says
Lendvai (p. 91), and continues: "One of the errors of judgment made by
superficial observers is to consider Tito as a man who pushed the party in the
direction the liberals wanted to go, instead of seeing him as someone who
imposed a rather slow pace to permanently secure the wavering support of the
old guard. This assertion is not borne out by the facts"
(p. 150). Lendvai concludes: "Tito is interested first and foremost
in maintaining the absolute power of the party" (p. 183) and of his own
power.
Immediately after the war, especially at the very
moment of the breakup, Yugoslavia's domestic and foreign policy was "more
Stalinist than Stalin himself": the repression of Croats and Albanians,
bloody collectivization, nationalizations, and persecution of the Catholic
Church. The Serbian and Montenegrin military cadres who had emerged from the
war, mostly "mountain folk and country folk," became the pillar of
the new regime. Unlike pre-war Yugoslavia, where power rested essentially with
the Serbs of Serbia, the post-war regime was based on "neo-Serbs"
from the Croatian regions. Thanks to these elements, largely rooted in the
army, the security services, and the economy, Croatian, Macedonian, Slovenian,
and Albanian national sentiment was awakened between 1967 and 1971. Lendvai
asserts that those who spearheaded this awakening—the Croatian leaders of the
Tripalo group—were "the true national spokespeople" ("port parole
nationaux") (p. 17).
The first to resist, from 1941 onward, the Croatian
communists, had little chance of recovering from the blows dealt to them in the
pre-war period, when they formed their independent Communist Party. In 1938,
their left, anti-Stalinist wing was eliminated by Tito, and in 1941, their
leadership and intellectuals perished almost entirely at the hands of the
Germans and the Ustaše after a treacherous betrayal. The sole survivor of the
Croatian party leadership of that era, Andrzej Hebrang, leader of the
Resistance and the Croatian Party, and one of the most competent communist
leaders, was eliminated and arrested by Tito and then "committed
suicide" in prison in 1948...
After thirty years of national vacuum, Tripalo's
leadership began to formulate Croatian national demands based on the concept of
self-management and calling for democratization and economic and political
decentralization. Tito allowed this movement to crash against the wall of the
Serbian bureaucracy, only to then impose himself as the arbiter. Although the
process of national emancipation was brutally halted in Croatia, this evolution
is not yet questioned in other Balkan countries.
Thus, for example, Albania, in order to free itself
from the Soviet empire, first had to free itself from the Yugoslav
"brotherhood," and it was not doctrinal differences but purely
national considerations that led a significant part of the Albanian leadership
against Yugoslav communism (p. 226). After the break with Yugoslavia, this
country, the least developed in Europe, torn apart by tribal divisions, managed
to conceal its national aspirations until 1960, when it regained its
independence by aligning itself with distant Beijing.
Less spectacular, but far more difficult, was
Romania's distancing itself, achieved through skillful diplomacy. Unlike
Croatia's, the national awakening here was not a consequence of
Ceaușescu's team's policy of independence. Despite the fact that communism
in Romania was "an imported commodity," the Romanian leader did not
fail to assert that the present was "a continuation of the historical past
and... (that) the communist leaders (are) legitimate
heirs of the past and leaders who fight for national aspirations" (p.
324). One of his deputy foreign ministers was even more "current":
"We are neither neutralists nor nationalists, we are Romanian communists.
People in Moscow and in the West, as well as elsewhere, have forgotten this
simple fact, perhaps for an abnormally long time. We must represent Romanian
national interests and, if necessary, protect them" (p. 397).
The exception to this national awakening in the
Balkans appears to be Bulgaria, where the tradition of friendship with Russia
has been transferred entirely to the Soviet Union. Unconditional loyalty to
"liberating Russia" represents considerable Soviet aid for Bulgaria:
it was and is the only socialist country that benefited from Soviet Russia and
did not experience the colonial burden of "fraternal cooperation." In
its case, it remains an indisputable truth that "no Communist party can
risk losing prestige in its own country by abandoning traditional national
claims," and thus Bulgaria reiterates its claims to Yugoslav
Macedonia whenever Soviet-Yugoslav relations deteriorate.
One critical observation: respecting the geographical
boundaries of the Balkans, Lendvai has omitted any discussion of Hungary,
which, historically and geopolitically, is part of southeastern Europe. This
omission, however, is not complete.
There is a certain Hungarian influence in Lendvai's
sensitivity to the unjust borders in the Balkans and to the situation of the
Hungarian minority in Romania; also in the distinction he makes between Croatia
and Dalmatia, the latter being the cradle of the Croatian state in the 8th
century and an integral part of the present-day Republic of Croatia;* we also
find this in his greater knowledge of the history of countries that had
historical ties with Hungary, as opposed to those that did not; and also in his
understanding of colonial mechanisms in the field of exchange and economic
cooperation between the "fraternal countries."
Despite this, this voluminous study is
well-documented in everything related to the Balkans where, "despite two
decades of declared adherence to the social gospel known as Marxism-Leninism,
the search, the yearning for a national identity has proven stronger than
ideological ties" (p. VII).
(*) The same applies to Bosnia: the
"Bosniaks" who converted to Islam belonged to the Catholic or Cathar
religion, but were Croats by nationality. (Also an observation
by Mr. J. Marmont.)
Where the communist parties in power "raise
the banner of national independence and sovereignty to gain popular support and
oppose Soviet hegemony" (p. 430) or that of the "majority nation...", the spectacular, sometimes quite frenetic, revival
of national sentiments and antagonisms constitutes the most important change,
without a doubt, that has occurred in Balkan politics since the communists took
power. The essential factors—historical, political, economic,
cultural, and sentimental—that affect national interests operate more
profoundly than current regimes or doctrines" (p. 424).
(Translated by F. N.)
About Tito's Yugoslavia
Israel and Croatia
The Croatian weekly "Danica," Chicago, in
its 45th issue of November 7th, in a lengthy letter-information piece that
arrived clandestinely from Croatia, states, among other things: "The
world, perhaps, forgets that this very criminal (Tito - Translator's note)
instigated Nasser back in 1967 to attack Israel and thus throw that imperialist
creation into the sea, as he himself put it. Tito actively favored that war, as
he does now, this being a consequence of that war. We Croats, who have been
fighting for the restoration of our own state for some centuries, know well
what it means to live without one's own state, without freedom and
independence.
Just as Miko Tripalo (the number one communist in
Croatia before Tito's coup in Karageorgevo in 1971 - Translator's note) used to
say, as if to excuse himself before the Serbs, that the Croats had no other
place in which to restore their state than..." Croatia
itself, and the Jews as well. They cannot and do not wish to found and
have their state anywhere other than in their homeland. The Israeli people are
the oldest in that part of the world. For more than three thousand years, the
Jews struggled for their survival, wandering the world. We know how Hitler
proceeded against them in Germany and throughout Europe, but we do not consider
Tito any worse than Hitler when he calls for the extermination of the Jews in
their Israeli homeland.
This persecuted people must have, in accordance
with divine and human law, their state and their peace in their own homeland,
just as we Croats do. The Palestinians are Arabs who arrived there later, but
nevertheless, that region is also their homeland because they have no other,
and this obliges us to guarantee them a space for the restoration of their own
state so that they can live there in happiness. The instigators of war and
bloodshed rejoice in the mutual destruction of those peoples. The small Israeli
people must shed blood for so many years in struggle with the poor and
abandoned. Arabs, who lost thousands of dollars due to the closure
of the Suez Canal." (We find this voice, which reaches us from
occupied Croatia, to be just.)
Workers: The Vanguard of Yugoslav Socialism?
"Studentski list," the mouthpiece of
university students in Zagreb, in its June 19th issue of this year, reports on
the proportion of students according to their social origin: in 1953, workers
constituted 26.3% of the active population and their children 8.3% of the
students. At the same time, unproductive "workers" constituted 41.6%
of the population and their children 68% of the students. In 1971, the
unproductive constituted 18.6% of the population, but their children 81.3% of
the students. At the end of 1953, 64.2% of the population
were farmers and 14.8% of their children were in university. In 1971,
peasants made up 37.8% of the workforce, while their children in university
constituted only 9.3%. Can we, then, believe that communism is a revolution of
workers and peasants? We need to think twice.
Where does the dinar go?
In the city of Mostar (Herzegovina), a precise
calculation was made over six months to determine where the workers' dinars end
up. According to these calculations, the workers earned 13,936 dinars, but only
5,599 dinars remained with them. That is to say, out of every 100 dinars, only
48. But this remainder dwindles even further: "local self-contributions
are becoming more frequent..." says "Vjesnik u Srijedu," the
Yugoslav weekly news magazine, in its issue 1110 of August 15, 1973.
Tito with Moscow
Lajos Lederer writes in "The Observer" of
November 18: "Russia is facing the prospect of a conference of world
communist parties next year—the first since the autumn of 1968, after the
Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. This decision was made after talks between
Brezhnev and Tito last week. According to Belgrade sources, Brezhnev had
considered organizing a similar conference last year, hoping to solidify the
solidarity of other communist parties against China. What he lacked was the
assurance that Tito would also attend.
After After twenty-five years of constant struggle
between Tito and the Kremlin, the Yugoslav Communist Party decisively aligned
itself with Soviet policy, both on international and ideological issues. Tito
did not attend the World Communist Conference after his break with Stalin in 1948.
With this renewed solidarity with Moscow, Yugoslavia's role as an example for
Soviet bloc countries seeking to escape total Moscow subjugation came to an
end. This Yugoslav step suggests that such a measure was taken, supposedly,
without Soviet pressure and will have major repercussions both within and
outside the country.
Tito came to terms with Moscow, apparently
spontaneously, as he now felt he had more common interests with Russia than
with the West.
In line with reports from Belgrade, his decision
may have been influenced by Washington's role in the Middle East war,
especially by the Americans' disregard for the perspectives of Third World
countries. Tito was deeply affected by the strong American protest at the
beginning of This month, in Belgrade, regarding Soviet
air raids over Yugoslav territory, as this directly challenges Yugoslavia's
position as a non-aligned country. It was also affected by Kissinger's refusal
to receive the Yugoslav Foreign Minister, Mr. Minic, at the United Nations."
Tito conveys Soviet wishes to Gaddafi
David Floyd writes in the Daily Telegraph of
November 15: "Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi arrived in Belgrade yesterday
for a five-day visit and spoke with President Tito about the Middle East.
The visit, announced only on Sunday, is the Libyan
leader's first trip outside the Arab world since he came to power in 1969.
Officially, Colonel Gaddafi is responding to an
invitation extended by President Tito when the two leaders met at the
Non-Aligned Movement conference in Algeria last September.
But the lack of preparation for the visit suggests
that the final arrangements were only made during President Tito's meeting with
Soviet Communist Party leader Leonid Brezhnev in Kyiv last week.
Colonel Gaddafi was more outspoken in his criticism
of Soviet policy and the most extreme among the Arab leaders in his demands for
war against Israel.
Diplomatic sources in Belgrade indicated yesterday
that President Tito wanted to convey to Colonel Gaddafi the Kremlin's latest
views on the situation and suggest that he also reach an agreement with the
other Arab governments.
The meeting should also offer the Yugoslavs the
opportunity to maintain their oil supply.
Marxism and Electricity
Lenin said that the progress of humanity consists
of socialism, and this is Marxism plus electricity. Belgrade, declaring itself
ever more faithful to the patriarch of Leninism, accumulates other people's
money to add electric power to its particular brand of Marxism-Leninism. The
following data illustrates that Serbian-socialist enlightenment: "...Thus,
from 1965 to 1972, electricity production in Serbia increased from 4 billion
kWh to 14 million, while in Croatia, during the same period, it rose from 3.4
billion to 5.5 million kWh. Meanwhile, in Slovenia, production increased from
3.5 billion to 5.4 billion kWh. That is to say, while in 1965 Slovenia and
Croatia had a total of 6.9 billion kWh, seven years later—in 1972—Servia had 14
billion, and Croatia and Slovenia together only 10.9 billion kWh." (Data
according to "Nova Hrvatska", No. 10, 1973, London)
Poet-carpenters and carpenter-statesmen
D. Floyd writes in "The Daily Telegraph"
of November 13, 1973: "Next Tuesday, the communist regime in Yugoslavia
will mark its 30th anniversary, and for this reason, there are rumors that
President Tito will declare an amnesty for those imprisoned. Will this amnesty
extend to political prisoners, whose numbers have increased in recent years? We
have the case of Vlado Gotovac, the Croatian poet and former editor of Hrvatski
Tjednik, who is currently serving a four-year sentence. I just received this
report on his conditions in Stara Gradiska prison: Vlado is working in the
carpentry workshop, so that when he gets out, he will be able to make furniture
for all of us."
He has no opportunity to read or write because he
is a 'political criminal' and therefore cannot do either. He is allowed to
write his wife a 30-line letter per month and receive one of the same length from her. His wife can visit him once a month for 20
minutes in the presence of a guard. Every other month he is allowed to receive
an 8-pound food parcel. “Depriving a writer,” D. Floyd continues, “of reading
and writing material is worse than forcing him to perform physical labor. Even
A. Siniyavsky, the Russian author, now free in France, was allowed to write and
take his 'prison notes' with him from the Soviet prison, which are now being
published in the West. Marshal Tito was also a political prisoner in the 1930s.
But prison conditions in monarchical Yugoslavia were such that Tito was able to
use his penance to study Marx. It is remarkable that, 30 years after seizing
power, he himself does not allow his political prisoners such privileges.” -
Any comment seems unnecessary.
A contributor to "La Opinión" posing as a
"historian"
Mario Jorge Escalante will never be recognized as
either a good historian or a good journalist who would inform his readers with
a thirst for truth. In the November 30th edition of "La Opinión" in
Buenos Aires, he dedicated an article to the 30th anniversary of communist
Yugoslavia, which fully justifies what we have just said. The biggest
"inaccuracy" in his article is that Sarajevo was a "Serbian
village." In fact, Sarajevo is the capital of Bosnia, and from the 7th
century until 1102, Bosnia was an integral part of the Kingdom of Croatia.
From 1102 until 1463—the Turkish occupation—it
existed as an independent Croatian state, opposing the sovereignty of both the
vice-kings of Croatia proper and the Hungarian-Croatian kings. There were no
Serbs there before the Turkish occupation. The current professor of Serbian
history at the University of Belgrade, Dimic, says: "We must not lose
sight of the fact that in the real Bosnia—...there were no Orthodox Christians
in Tvrtko's time (fourteenth century, n.p.). For us, this question is
definitively settled." And what about the current
situation of the "Servian village" of Sarajevo? Despite
Belgrade's policy of favoritism for more than half a century of Yugoslavia's
existence, the last official population census, conducted in 1971, states:
Sarajevo (center or "village," according to the "historian"
Escalante), 58.7% Muslims, 21.9% Serbs, 10.2% Croats, and 5.9%
"Yugoslavs." To what nationality do Muslims belong? We urge Mr.
Escalante to read Dr. Mandic's article, which we published in this volume of SC
on pp... This will help him salvage the "reputation" of both the
historian and the decent journalist who only ventures into unfamiliar territory
by "chance."
Escalante says it's unknown whether Tito is a
communist or a nationalist, but it is known "that he is 81 years
old." Mr. Escalante forgets that reality has disproven the notion that
nationalism and communism are antithetical concepts, and anyone who treats them
as such is far removed from reality. Furthermore, it is known that Tito is a
ruthless dictator, a bon vivant who led a revolution that cost over a million
human lives, and that currently "his" working class is
"wandering" the capitalist world—another million or so—looking for
work they cannot find in their "socialist" homeland. Clearly, there
are bad statesmen, but there are also many bad historians and journalists.
Orwell was right...
In his famous book 1984, the British writer
accurately predicted, with "a fantasy realism," the equality that would
prevail in the future communist society and that there would be some "more
equal" among them. We don't need to wait for 1984. Here we have the
"ratification" of Orwell's prophecy. It can be considered of
unsurpassed value because it comes to us from communist Yugoslavia, a country
with a "liberal" communist orientation that, under this label,
"swallowed" more billions of dollars of American taxpayer money than
all of Latin America.
Indeed, the newspaper "Slobodna
Dalmacija" (Free Dalmatia), the official organ of the Yugoslav Communist
Party in Split, wrote in its October 5, 1973 issue: "Thanks to the State,
in educational and teaching institutions prior to the 21st Assembly of the
Presidency of the Yugoslav Communist League (Tito's coup from Karadjordjevo was
in December 1971 - SC Editorial Note), the criteria for admitting candidates to
positions in education and teaching were clearly established in the city of
Split. It was stipulated that, under the same conditions of the competition,
the advantage belonged to the candidate affiliated with the Communist
League."
After noting this, the same newspaper reported the
following case. A primary school in Kastel-Novi (near Split) held a competition
to fill a teaching position. Two candidates applied,
each receiving 12 votes. To break the tie, someone noticed that one of the
candidates was affiliated with the Communist League. When the vote was taken
again, the non-communist candidate received 21 votes and the communist
candidate only 3. "Slobodna Dalmacija" expresses its displeasure in
this regard, without telling us what happened to the two candidates.
Despite the uncertainty, the news provides us with
at least two things: Orwell accurately predicted the reality of the future
communist society precisely where his "fellow travelers" least
expected it: in Yugoslavia. Furthermore, he offers a clear example of the
degree of "popularity" of Tito's communism: 21 votes to 3 for the
non-communist candidate! And young people throughout the free world continue to
proclaim, ignorant of the reality of communist society, that Marxism would mean
the liberation of humankind, its dignity, and its progress. Observe what
happens in practice, dear young people, to your fellow human beings! According
to Marxism, practice is the only source of knowledge about life in society. And
what does it say? If this cognition-experience is not accepted, can one believe
in the good intentions of those who, nevertheless, employ violence to impose a
regime in accordance with Marxist philosophy?
Secret communist agents in Belgrade in action
After the exposure of Tito's communist agents
within the Croatian community in Australia, who were organizing attacks and
then blaming them on the Croatians themselves, the European press now confirmed
the same behavior of these agents in that part of the world. The major German
weekly "Der Spiegel," in its October 1, 1973 issue, and the Swedish
daily "Expressen," in its October 14, 1973 issue, referred to this
subversive activity by Belgrade agents. For example, one of Tito's agents
managed to obtain the position of secretary of the "National
Resistance" organization of Croatian exiles based in Sweden.
Drago Draskovic, as this "secretary" was
called, was an agent of the Yugoslav secret police. After his numerous trips to
Belgrade to report to his superiors on the activities of the Croatian exiles,
he was arrested by the Swedish police and sentenced to eight months in prison
for espionage. The same thing happened with Tito's agent, Adolf Logarusic,
whose police headquarters were in Sarajevo, from where he received his orders.
He is currently under arrest by Swedish authorities. Consequently, we must be
wary of the "revolutionary" rhetoric of so-called Croatian extremists
who spread the idea of revolution. Clearly, the wolf is often
disguised as a lamb.
Europe and Croatia between two giants
Bogdan Radica
A deep and unsettling feeling of anxiety—not to say
fear—seized Europe this summer (1973). And since Croatia, more than any other
South Slavic nation, is politically, spiritually, and
geographically linked to free Europe, it too was affected by this feeling of
uncertainty and fear. (...) Where did this fear come from, and why? The meeting
between the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, and the General
Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev, is the
main and essential cause of such feelings.
The representatives of the two greatest world
powers did not meet randomly and alone, far from the rest of the world's leaders,
but rather conversed for long hours, whether in Washington, at Camp David, or
in St. Clement, on the American West Coast, about issues that affect the very
essence of the world's existence and profoundly impact relations between
powers, large and small, without any public disclosure of what was discussed.
In both Europe and America, people are asking:
Doesn't this signify the end of the Cold War and the beginning of a new era of
cooperation between two diametrically opposed systems, such as democracy on the
one hand and totalitarianism on the other? Doesn't all this perhaps mark the
end of dogmatic communism, at least for this time, and the end of hopes that
communism would destroy capitalism or vice versa? Isn't this, possibly, a more
stable and solid arrangement between East and West? Wouldn't it finally be
"the last tango" in the relations between the communist and
capitalist superpowers, or rather, between freedom and totalitarianism? After
this "tango" would come the apocalypse of
atomic hail, which would rain down upon humanity.
While Europe continues to grapple with its fears,
it is necessary to examine the nature and manifestations of these concerns on
the world stage, and why free command trembles at the prospect, not because it
could be a perpetual peace, but because it represents the beginning of a new
balance of power decided by only two giants. France, the only country speaking
out, is not the only one worried; England, which merely whispers, is also
concerned.
Italy, too, is worried, adopting the stance of
someone powerless to act, merely hoping and believing that, despite everything,
all is not lost. Meanwhile, Germany is content, not only because it is the
world's strongest economic power alongside the United States and Japan, but also
because Brandt is deepening the agreement between his country and the Soviet
Union, an agreement feared by everyone on the European continent, especially
the Western countries. This policy is creating a mood of a certain
"Finlandization," which no one desires but which everyone accepts.
At least for this stage, until a new balance of
power emerges, one that is contrary to this current situation and strong enough
for Europe to become a new center of power. Europe, which before the
Nixon-Brezhnev meeting not only adopted anti-American stances in the style of
De Gaulle, but also, losing its composure and almost descending into hysteria,
demanded the withdrawal of American troops from its territory, now almost
trembles at the thought that Washington might do so. It is not easy to say or
explain whether this reaction stems from the enormous expenses it would have to
bear for maintaining its own troops or because the presence of American
soldiers on its soil provides it with security against any attack from the Soviet
Union.
However, one thing is clear: Europe, like Croatia,
fears the possibility of becoming a kind of expanded Finland or a closed space
within the imperial power of the Soviet Union. This sentiment will remain alive
until a free Europe forms its own unity and thus becomes the suspensive factor
in the current balance of power—that is, a factor that could limit it and make
it one of the giants itself. There are high hopes in this regard, but also much
pessimism. Uniting Europe seems to some a remote possibility and to others a
Kantian utopia of perpetual peace.
If we delve a little deeper into the heart of this
movement, there is no doubt that there is a certain contradiction in the
current course of American politics. President Nixon, as a politician, was from
the beginning of his career not only a conservative with anti-communist
leanings, but, even during the Cold War, one of its protagonists. If the
current course had been decided by another liberal and democratic political
figure, there is no doubt that Nixon would have been the first to condemn it.
But a similar case is not a paradox for American politicians.
Moreover, this behavior is understandable and even
justified. The war in Vietnam and all that followed certainly contributed to
the shift in American foreign policy. Extending a hand to Mao's China and the
Soviet Union was not only a realistic step, that is,
an acknowledgment of reality, but also the most effective response to all those
forces within the US itself, weary of an incomprehensible war, demanding a way
out of the crisis. The American people had never been enthusiastic about war,
especially colonial and imperialist expeditions. From the outset, they disliked
intervention in Southeast Asia because they were an anti-colonialist people who
had emerged from colonialism by achieving their own independence. President
Nixon understood all of this well. What happened later
was interpreted by the majority of the American people as a constructive
diplomatic approach.
But for those in the know, it was clear that
Kissinger's doctrine did not represent a victory for American diplomacy.
Comparing Kissinger to Metternich, as the American and global media often do,
doesn't seem entirely accurate. Winning a major war—World War II—having the
world's largest military force at one's disposal, suffering defeat in a war of
modest proportions simply because the right course of action wasn't taken, and
then agreeing to a settlement with two major communist powers, cannot possibly
have the same significance or importance as what Metternich achieved in Vienna.
In other words,
halting the spread of revolution on the European continent. From 1814 until the national and social
revolutions of 1848, Metternich had curbed the revolution and re-established a
rejuvenated monarchical system that gave post-revolutionary and post-Napoleonic
Europe peace until 1914. In the Kissinger-Nixon case, it is really a recognition of the communist victory, not only in Russia,
but also in southeastern Europe and China.
Totalitarianism was not only not
eliminated, but it was not even stopped, because once strengthened, it can
initiate further expansion. When all of Europe and the United States consented
to the convening of the Conference on Cooperation and Security in Helsinki, a
grave error was committed, both politically and diplomatically. The Soviet
Union was responsible for convening this conference and setting the agenda for
discussion, intending to reaffirm all that it had gained at Yalta in 1945,
whether through aggression or at the expense of Western indecisiveness.
While representatives from England and the United
States emphasized the need to exchange ideas, the voices of France, and even
Romania, were stronger and more significant. In our opinion, if Croatia were,
by chance, an independent communist state, its voice would have been heard more
clearly than that of Yugoslavia, because there, as throughout Europe, the
conviction prevails that the spiritual forces within the communist world will
lose the possibility of survival if the United States does not increase its
pressure on the Soviet Union to further their liberation. Meanwhile, the visit
of US Secretary of State W. Rogers to Prague (this article was written before
the change in the conduct of US foreign policy, when Kissinger replaced Rogers
- Translator's note), had a very negative impact in Europe, because the
memories of the Soviet occupation of 1968 are still very fresh and because
there thousands of intellectuals languish in prisons, just as in Croatia, for
the sole reason of having offered all they could to achieve the goals of
humanizing communism devised by Dubcek.
The New York Times was quite right when it said
that Rogers' optimism in "opening a new chapter" in Prague-Washington
relations was ironic, knowing that Soviet military forces are still in
Czechoslovakia. This type of policy is a real denial of everything that liberal
circles in the United States insisted on for the last two decades.
In this way it seems that within the official
perspectives of the United States it does not include carrying the torch of
freedom, reserving it for others. Thus, suddenly, France emerges as the bearer,
not only of independence from the two giants, but also as the defender of the
subjugated peoples. Premier Messmer's visit to Sofia and Todorov's declaration
that "all the people of Europe should say their own word" are not
only a characteristic of the general climate that is spreading in the Soviet
part of Europe, but this was the first time that Bulgaria also felt stronger
and began to speak as Ceaucescu's Romania has been speaking for years.
It is symptomatic that in all this the voice of
Tito's Yugoslavia has no echo. His voice is simply not heard. All those
elements in the country that defended the policy of greater support for the
West were eliminated. (...) Tito's Yugoslavia in this phase of its obscurity
even avoids celebrating the 25th anniversary of its break with Moscow, which in
turn was celebrated by almost all important journalism in Europe. (...)
The fact that Tito does not allow himself to speak
and write about his conflict with the Kremlin does not mean that he does not
want to violate the memory of his benefactor Stalin, but rather all this
ratifies our old conviction that Tito leaves the Yugoslav communists in
ignorance so that they do not distance themselves from the Soviet Union, the
only guarantor of the maintenance of the communist system in Yugoslavia.
However, this does not mean that Tito, at the same time and from time to time,
cannot highlight his "non-alignment" or receive the Shah of Iran,
King Baldwin. (...) As a good Viennese, Tito is in love with the protocol of
the Habsburgs, with meetings with kings and important people,
although all this does not mean that he plans to abandon his firm adherence to
the communist conception of the Kremlin.
After a focus on the constitutional crisis caused
by the Watergate "affair", which he presents as further testimony to
the health of American democracy because, despite the faults of groups or
individuals invested with power, it can be seen in the discussions, accusations
and dismissals of some high-ranking officials that in essence it is about the
fight for the integrity of democratic and constitutional institutions, where
the institution of the presidency is much more important than any person who
could hold the position, the Croatian publicist says also the following:
"Concluding our reflections at the moment when the problem of the
existence of Europe, or rather, of all its peoples, and among them that of
Croatia, who find themselves between two giants, arises,
The United States and Russia have made it an urgent
necessity to reactivate all Croatian forces. During the First World War, as
during the Second, few Croatians felt the duty to raise the Croatian question
within the broader context of world politics. Today, we are almost a million,
perhaps even more! The prospects for change in that part of the world, where we
have lived for so long, are neither rosy nor bleak. A total war is no longer on
the horizon because it is not in the interest of the two giants.
However, all this does not mean that, within the
framework of peace, the mistakes made at Yalta or other
conferences—opportunities where the fate of small nations was imposed by the
three major powers—could not be rectified and remedied. Speaking of Yalta, it
must be remembered that Western influence, especially in Croatia, was never
truly implemented. This must be emphasized to achieve peace, cooperation, and
security both in the Mediterranean and in Central Europe. Present-day
Yugoslavia is of no interest to either East or West,
whereas an independent Croatia would help the Mediterranean powers to
strengthen and become more powerful, thus completing the Mediterranean
totality. The path we must take, although arduous and complicated, also offers
opportunities that our new generations must not overlook because the future of
the Croatian people depends on successfully harnessing these opportunities.
(Translated from the Croatian in the "Croatian Review - Hrvatska
Revija", Munich, September 1973, pp. 399, 440, 43, 351, 2.
Translation by F.N.)
Book review
Jure Petricevic: Nationalnost stanovnistva
Jugoslavije
Branko Kadic
(The
Nationality of the Population of Yugoslavia. Ed. Library of the Croatian Review,
Munich-Barcelona 1973, pp. 63).
Jure Petricevic, a prominent Croatian writer on
political and economic topics, in the study under this heading, subjects to an
exhaustive examination and analysis the provisional results of the population
and housing census in Yugoslavia, carried out on March 31, 1971, as published
in Statistical Bulletin, No. 727, in April 1971. The number of people employed
as temporary workers in Western European countries is also recorded. According
to this census, the total population of Yugoslavia amounted to 20,504,516
people, and the published data are of particular interest because they refer to
the national composition of the population in each republic (except Slovenia),
in each province, and in each municipality. In 1961, the total population of
Yugoslavia was 18,549,291, meaning that the growth over 10 years was around two
million people, or 10.5%, or 1.1% annually.
It is well known worldwide that statistics are
highly flexible and lend themselves to different interpretations and
conclusions, as long as rigorously scientific and correct criteria and methods
are not used in their compilation. Yugoslavia is a multinational state where
Serbia predominates, tending to absorb and assimilate other peoples and
national minorities. Therefore, to date, all population censuses carried out in
both monarchical, pre-war Yugoslavia and the current communist Yugoslavia
suffer from serious flaws, as they pursue the same objective: to inflate the
number of Serbs in their respective republics and provinces at the expense of
other nationalities.
In previous censuses (all prepared and compiled in
Belgrade in 1921, 1931, 1948, 1953, and 1961, respectively), different methods
and a wide variety of criteria were used to determine the national affiliation
of the population. Yugoslavia is home to various nationalities, each preserving
their respective languages, cultures, and religious beliefs, namely: Serbs,
Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and numerous national minorities,
such as Albanians, Hungarians, Italians, Germans, Roma, Czechs, Turks, Slovaks,
Jews, and others. In several censuses, only Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian
nationalities could be declared.
During the partial liberation that followed the
fall of Alexander Ranković in 1966, and until the forced removal of the
Croatian communist leaders in December 1971, the census in question was
conducted, employing more appropriate and accurate methods and criteria to
determine the national affiliation of the population. This census yielded
results unfavorable to Serbian imperialist policy, and thus, as would have been
logical and natural, they were not published in the Statistical Yearbook.
The data suggests that the policy of servitude
pursued against Albanians, and against Muslims in general, has failed in Kosovo
and Metohija. The concept of "Muslim" was introduced in 1961 to
determine ethnic and national affiliation, and it was only in the 1971 census
that those concerned could use it to define themselves with some freedom.
Bosnia and Herzegovina constitute the bone of contention between Croats and
Serbs, who dispute these historically and geographically Croatian provinces. In
the new census, also rife with fraud and falsification, Serbs make up 37.2% of
the population in these provinces, while Muslim and Catholic Croats comprise
60.2%. Despite the absolute Croatian majority, almost all political, civil,
military, police, and economic power is in the hands of the Serbs. This is a
crucial document and the demographic and ethnic foundation that justifies
Croatian demands for the incorporation of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the
Republic of Croatia.
The same applies to the Albanian minority living in
contiguous territory with their mother country, Albania. According to official
data, in 1961 there were 914,733 Albanians in Yugoslavia, and ten years later,
1,310,000—an increase of 395,267 people, equivalent to a 43% rise (4.3%
annually), a more than excessive growth. These figures are based on previous
falsifications and distortions that have been detrimental to the Albanian
population. According to Albanian experts, the number of their compatriots
living in Yugoslavia could reach two million.
Serious reservations should also be made regarding
the number of Croatian seasonal workers residing in Western European countries.
While the census states that their number as of January 31, 1971, reached
224,722, other reliable sources speak of up to 800,000 people. Another
reservation that must be raised concerns the percentage of Serbs in Croatia and
Bosnia-Herzegovina. There, after the war, Serbs from other republics
disproportionately occupied public offices and positions. These included
intruders in various economic sectors, state officials, police officers,
military personnel, employees, and technicians.
In the census, they are counted as part of the
permanent population, thus increasing the total number of Serbian minorities in
these republics. The author compares the last four censuses of Muslims,
pointing out their falsified and abnormal results, reaching the absurd point
that their numbers "statistically" increased by 7.8% annually from
1961 to 1971. All of this is due to the colonial measures of political
oppression, economic exploitation, national extermination, and forced
eradication practiced by Belgrade to the detriment of Croats, Muslims, and
Albanians.
The author also reproduces the statistical tables
that reflect the national composition by republics, provinces, and
municipalities. In addition, a valuable two-color geographic-statistical map is
included, facilitating the study of the population according to national
criteria.
Any impartial reader will have no choice but to
conclude that the state conglomerate of Yugoslavia does not serve the interests
of the peoples that comprise it and that it is imperative to seek another
solution and alternative to ensure peace, security and stability in this nerve
center of southeastern Europe and the Adriatic.
Roko Remetic: Feature
Milan Rakovac
(Salzburg, Austria 1973)
The hero or antihero of this study-chronicle is
named Roque Remetic. Reading this book reveals that it is not a simple
chronicle or novel, nor is it merely an account of childhood and school
memories, but something more significant and decisive. Ultimately, the reader
must recognize that the devil is blacker than he appears, and the environment
in which Roque Remetic spends his youth is far too cruel to be accepted, even
without the few men he presents or those supposedly capable of remedying or
alleviating the situation. Does his "comrade," Professor Dolinar,
belong to this latter group? Does his intimate confession—that "it is time
to do something to try to survive"—convince the reader and the author
himself, that it is finally necessary to "assimilate the contemporary
language, the phraseology, and everything else" of those with whom we must
coexist? Are there truly "many good things" in the society in which
Roque Remetic lives? Is there much that can be accomplished within this
framework?
Having finished reading the study-novel-chronicle,
as the author subtitles his recently published book "Characteristic,"
many readers will unwittingly adopt the author's tactic for organizing their
impressions: starting at the end, since everything presented revolves exclusively
around that central, important, and dramatic problem. Therefore, his
"Characteristic" turns out to be a chronicle
of protest and critique against the oppression and physical, verbal, and
spiritual violence exercised for three decades against the small nation to
which the author belongs, the Croatian nation.
It rises up against the terror and violence in the
service—not of a better and more promising future for humankind—but of
maintaining the status quo and the prevailing despotism. Consequently, the
education Roque Remetic receives, the educational system, and the despotism
imposed upon him—all at odds with the most basic principles of any humane
educational system—tend toward a single purpose: the intellectual, imbued with
Marxist-Leninist doctrine, exclusively at the service of the ruling class and
the regime.
Everything is subject to this objective, so that
the classes and the education Roque Remetic receives are reduced to a single
denominator. Hence, all discussions posed as philosophical analysis are nothing
more than political debates aimed at denying or rejecting any form of
anti-communism.
This is precisely the reason for the hidden,
irritating, and sometimes very sharp irony that permeates the entire book,
radiating an undeniable sadness for what is happening around us and, even more
so, for what we will inevitably have to endure after so many sins of the past.
As we have already emphasized, this
study-novel-chronicle by Roque Remetic is not merely a recounting of his
childhood and school memories, but something far more significant. Despite the
common opinion that life is not just about ideas and dreams but also about
facts, we deliberately refrain from analyzing the narrative aspect of the book.
For Roque Remetic's life, like that of many Remetics in any country behind the
Iron Curtain, holds no novelties, but rather repeats itself monotonously and
boringly every day. Much more important is that other aspect that truly defines
the protagonists of his book and provides us with a realistic picture of the
life and society he describes.
The story begins one afternoon in October 1949, and
all the characters in this chronicle speak at length and loudly, not only about
a social revolution, but about a radical spiritual revolution that must be carried
out. And despite some idealistic, theoretical revolutionaries, all these
concepts and principles seem somewhat exaggerated and rather artificial.
However, the true importance and essential characteristic of these heated,
youthful discussions lies in the fact that their opinions on communism, on
humanity, life, and society differ greatly, and that these differences, though
veiled and not expressed as protest or accusation, are highly symptomatic and
significant, for they faithfully characterize the protagonists of this
chronicle and the society in which they move and live.
Reading this book, the author strongly reminds us
of the traveling angel in "Little Flowers of Saint Francis," who one
night, after a long and exhausting journey, arrived at the door of a convent.
Tired and surprised by the darkness, he began to knock so loudly that the
doorkeeper, angered, rebuked him in the following terms: "Where have you
come from, and who are you to rouse us from our beds in this dark night and in
such a precipitous manner?" To the traveling angel's question about how he
should knock, the doorman replied: "Always, every time, you must knock
three times, leaving brief intervals, and then wait, for you must give the
person who opens the door the opportunity and enough time to say an Our Father.
If they still don't open the door after that, you must knock again." "But
I'm in a great hurry..." the angel answered.
Despite certain initial fears and insecurities, the
author's narrative style is spontaneous and direct, driven by countless
memories and recollections, and written with the utmost care, "of a
selfless fighter and a builder of a better future." While current general
interest is focused on books with explosive content, the value of Roque
Remetic's work lies in the fact that it compels us to think and reflect,
forming an indivisible unity with the author and his thoughts. In addition to
its literary merit, the book has the value of being a document of the turbulent
times we are living through. We therefore believe that the author should
continue on the path he has set and give us the second volume of his memoirs
and experiences very soon.
Gert Fricke: Croatia 1941-1944. The Independent
State seen by the plenipotentiary general in Zagreb, Glaise v. Horstenau
Bozidar Latkovic
(Rombach
Edition, Freiburg, 1972, pp. 206).
When the war spread to southeastern Europe in the
spring of 1941, Yugoslavia, this Versailles-like creation of the end of the
First World War, not only collapsed in a few days but also disintegrated. The
Croats, one of the three main peoples that constituted Yugoslavia, seized the
opportunity to declare their long-desired separation from that multinational
state and proclaim their independence. The Independent State of Croatia was
thus born in very turbulent times: the war was not yet over and, on the
contrary, was about to spread eastward, penetrating into Eurasia. Furthermore,
Italy, one of the major powers, had territorial claims on the historically and
ethnically Croatian territories. Finally, guerrilla movements were soon to be
organized against the Axis powers and against the fledgling State of Croatia:
the communists on one side and the Serbian Chetniks on the other.
As the book's subtitle suggests, it focuses on the
perspective of the German Forces' representative in Croatia, General Glaise V.
Horstenau. The author, a well-known German publicist, faced a twofold task:
first, to present the events in a way that made this complex political and
military reality understandable, without emphasizing some factors at the
expense of others; and second, to select the judgments and actions most
representative of General Glaise's true thinking and attitude toward them. This
was no easy task, but it was undertaken with seriousness and, it seems to us,
quite successfully. The author's primary sources of information are documents
from the federal and military archives, some of which are still unpublished, as
well as a wealth of literature.
Before beginning to recount the events of the years
covered by Glaise's judgments, the author succinctly describes Croatia's
difficult situation within Yugoslavia since its inception and points out that
the union of Croatia with Serbia was not approved by the Croatian masses, who never recognized it. He then mentions Serbian hegemony,
the gradual Serbization of non-Serbian territories, and other acts against
Croats and other peoples of Yugoslavia, violence that culminated in the
assassination of the Croatian political leader Esteban Radić in parliament
in Belgrade in 1928. This was followed by the dictatorship of King Alexander,
who banned the Croatian flag and anthem and enacted several measures that
favored Serbian domination and weakened the Croatian position within
Yugoslavia. With these methods, the Serbs created "a genuine feeling of
hatred against themselves, which the Serbian population living in Croatian
territory had to suffer to an unexpected degree in 1941, after the creation of
the Independent State of Croatia."
A good description of the events related to the
dissolution of Yugoslavia and the creation of the State of Croatia follows. The
author states that this state encompassed "the Croatian territories
proper, to which Syrmium, Bosnia, and Herzegovina were added." That needs
to be corrected, because Syrmium, Bosnia and Herzegovina were always Croatian
lands, even though they were separated from Croatia during the Turkish and
Austrian occupation, and partially also in Yugoslavia.
The author dedicates a large part of the book to
Italy's behavior toward Croatia. To define and legalize its aforementioned
demands on Croatian territory, Italy pressured for the conclusion of the
treaties known as the "Treaties of Rome." Regarding their signing,
Glaise has made some rather harsh observations (which Fricke, in turn, has
emphasized strongly), observations that would require more documented
argumentation to be accepted as an objective assessment. But he is surely
correct when he says that these treaties "have assured Italy political,
military, and economic predominance in the part of Croatia that it, in
agreement with Germany, has considered to be the area of its
interest."
The author considers the "Treaties of
Rome" to be the burden that has weighed on the new state from the very
beginning. Glaise reported the day after their signing: "The Treaty of
Rome, published last night, has produced dejection in Croatian circles...
Everywhere one goes, one encounters threats against the Italians."
In addition to the aforementioned Italian
"mortgage," the young state was also burdened, according to Fricke,
by the Serbian mortgage—that is, all that hatred, as well as all the
difficulties of state organization due to a lack of experienced and capable
officials, and the shortage of officers for the Croatian army. All of this was
a result of Serbian policy in Yugoslavia, which prevented Croats from accessing
high positions in the administration and the army. The third mortgage weighing
on Croatia, Fricke says, was the Ustaša national revolutionary movement.
Regarding the role played by the Italians and the
consequences this had for the development of the political, military, and
economic situation in Croatia, Glaise has made a correct assessment, which his
reports detail extensively. When, in July 1941, the communists provoked an
uprising in part of Croatia, the Italians used this as a pretext to occupy more
Croatian territory, with no prior warning other than a note from Mussolini to
Pavelić. Glaise says that he rejected it "because he could not accept
it before God or his conscience." The Croatian response also states
"that in large parts of the coastal territory now annexed by Italy, there
never existed an insurrectionary movement. Where such a movement did exist,
Croatian troops were prevented from suppressing it by the Italians. This new
act by Italy against Croatia will give the insurrectionary movement new support
from the communists and the Chetniks. It should also be complained that Italy
has thus far fostered this movement instead of combating it."
The Chetniks were a Serbian paramilitary
organization that emerged from the struggle of the Serbs against the Turks in
19th-century Serbia, and in Yugoslavia, they advocated for the idea of
a Greater Serbia. When Serbia was occupied by the German army,
the Chetniks began fighting the occupiers, also organizing the Orthodox
population in Croatia against the new state in order to revive Yugoslavia and
Serbian hegemony within it after the defeat of the Germans and Italians. This
distinctly Serbian organization considered itself the continuation of the
mission of the Yugoslav army in exile. Despite this, Italy has supported the
Chetniks in their struggle against Croatia.
“The Italian army and even the fascist organization
are inciting violence against everything Croatian,” said Professor Loesch of
the Institute for Border and Foreign Studies in September 1941. Glaise, in
turn, reports that “the Serbian insurgents are receiving very broad support
from the Italian occupation authorities—for political reasons—as is the
Orthodox population in general, who are receiving preferential treatment.”
Not only in the political and military spheres, but
also in the economic one, Italy’s attitude toward Croatia was hostile. Glaise
has compared the effect of Italian economic measures to that of “a suction bomb
that would eventually prevent even a brilliant economist from fulfilling his
mission.” In his letter to Marshal Keitel, dated March 1942, Glaise expressed
his concern that Croatia's economic situation could pose a threat to the German
military position in the Balkans. He wrote: "...but the most
insurmountable obstacle to a rational Croatian economic policy is Italy's
attitude toward Croatian economic problems," and continued: "...it is
almost impossible for a young state to organize a planned economy when there
are 700 km of open border with a commodity-hungry and ruthless exploitative
power like Italy."
Glaise naturally had many opportunities to take a
stance regarding the actions of the Croatian government and its armed forces,
especially those of the Ustaša movement, which held power. Glaise was certainly
not sympathetic to the Ustaša, and his criticisms were quite strong, even
harsh. These were often based on reports from his German agents, who were not well-disposed
toward the Croatians and the Croatian government. Therefore, although many of
these criticisms are largely undeniable, they are unacceptable in their
entirety and lack proper distinction. Fricke highlighted the negative
expressions in this context, but admitted, in the interest of objectivity, that
it was surprising Glaise did not mention the atrocities committed by the
communists against the Croatian population.
Fricke adds that, contrary to Glaise's silence, the
Italian general Mario Roatta, commander for a time of the Italian forces in the
occupied parts of Croatia, emphasized in his book the fact that the communists
killed hundreds of people and entire families—including young children—who were
completely peaceful and apolitical, but who "had the great flaw of not
being communists or communist sympathizers." Roatta, of course, does not
mention similar criminal acts committed by the Serbian Chetniks of Draza
Mihajlovich, since the Italians collaborated with them against the Croatians.
But in Fricke's book, we read on several occasions about this collaboration,
based on reports from General Glaise.
Germany's attitude toward Croatia was not always
clear. From a certain disinterest at the beginning, when it essentially gave
its ally free rein, which caused Croatia considerable harm, this attitude went
through several phases until it finally settled into a definitive support for
the existing regime. Glaise, like the other Wehrmacht commanders on this
southeastern European front, held a different view on this matter from that of
the German ambassador in Zagreb and the German Foreign Ministry. This hesitation, this German vacillation regarding whether or not
to give its definitive support to Croatia, especially in light of Italy's
stance, is well presented and documented by Fricke.
When, at the end of 1944, Glaise's disagreements
with his government's policies became too great and the political and military
situation took on dramatic proportions, he was forced to resign.
Fricke also provides numerous references to the
Croatian army. While he does quote Glaise as speaking of "good Croatian
military predispositions, which can only be expressed to a lesser degree due to
unfavorable circumstances," he does not omit negative assessments that
paint a distorted picture of the Croatian soldier. He failed to highlight, for
example, the idealism and heroism of the Croatian soldier, qualities known and
appreciated even by many German commanders who had the opportunity to fight
alongside the Croatian army. Undoubtedly, there must be records of this in the
archives. In this way, justice would have been done to the courage and honor of
the Croatian soldier.
Glaise's role was to represent the interests of the
German Armed Forces before the Croatian government, a role of paramount
importance. Hence the particular interest of this book. The value of the
testimony is further enhanced by the fact that Glaise was very familiar with
Croatia and the Croats. This circumstance means that his criticisms should be
received with respect, though not without reservations. Therefore, Fricke's
book, while contributing significantly to clarifying the political and military
relations in Croatia during those war years, should not be accepted without due
caution.
The errors committed, for which Glaise and the book
hold the nascent Croatian state responsible, must be judged within the context
of the events of that time and the complexity of the situations. It is hoped
that the reader of the book will understand this, as well as recognize that it was
the predominant external factors that prevented the Croatian people from
safeguarding their state and consolidating it on the democratic principles so
deeply rooted in the spirit of the people.
Dr. Smail Balic: "Ilmihal" for youth and
adults
Franjo Nevistic
(Vienna 173, pp. 47)
The author, a Croatian Muslim from Mostar,
Herzegovina, recently published this work as a manual for Croatian Muslims in
exile. Concerned about the religious education of his fellow believers, Dr.
Balic, a university professor in Vienna, despite his professional duties, never
misses an opportunity to help Croatian Muslims who are forced to live scattered
across the continents of the free world as a tiny minority in the Christian
world. In this small book, presented in correct Croatian, those interested will
find a clear explanation of the Islamic religion, reproductions of the most
essential prayers in Arabic and Croatian, as well as the corresponding rites—an
integral part of the prayers—and everything intended to ennoble the believers,
followers of the Muslim faith. Dr. Balic is recognized as a devout believer,
even with mystical leanings.
We recommend that all interested parties contact
Muslimische Bibliothek (Dr Balic) A -1030 Wien. Fach 115,
Austria, Europe, or to Instanbul Bankasi Aksaray Subesi, Hesap nr. 2164, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Dr. Asaf Durakovic: The Place of Muslims in the
Croatian National Community
Milan Blazekovic
(Toronto, Canada, 1972, p. 32, Frank Vedrina
Printing)
The author, current president of the Croatian
Islamic Center in Canada, finished writing this
pamphlet on June 2, 1971, that is, at the height of the so-called
"Croatian Spring" and within the deceptive liberalization of the
Yugoslav communist regime. In this tiny political-historical work, to which he
adds a list of consulted bibliography, the author addresses the problem of the
national identity of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In reality, the author is addressing his fellow
Muslims in order to make them aware of the danger that current and previous
policies, aimed at creating a separate Muslim ethnic entity distinct from the
Croatian national identity, represent for them. To this end, he discusses
Bosnia and Herzegovina as a constituent part of the Croatian state during the
Croatian national dynasty, the Christianization, Bogomilism, and Islamization
of the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina following the Turkish occupation in the
15th century, before drawing the reader's attention to the manifestations of
Croatian consciousness among the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina throughout
that period.
The author emphasizes that there is no significant
difference between nationalist Serbs and communist Serbs regarding the Croatian
nationality of Muslims, with the latter at least attempting to create a
"distinct ethnic grouping." In this respect, Dr. Durakovic criticizes
several national and foreign authors who support the current government's
attempts to prevent the majority of Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina from
identifying with the Croatian people. He also elaborates on the relations
between the Higher Islamic Community of Sarajevo and the Islamic Community of
Zagreb—a relationship that must have undergone significant changes in favor of
Sarajevo, now dependent on Belgrade.
Dr. Durakovic concludes that Bosnia and Herzegovina
historically and geographically form a single unit with the other Croatian
provinces and that the Muslim population of these two provinces is 95% of
ethnic Croatian origin. He warns that the identification of religion with
nationality must be vigorously combated, especially within the Catholic segment
of the Croatian nation, as it has already caused enormous harm. "This
issue," the author concludes, "is of vital importance, not only with
regard to the fate of the national identity of Muslims in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, but also for the future of the entire Croatian people."
[1] La Prensa, October 18, 1973, in the feature
article: Soviet Participation in the Levant War.
[2] The hardliners in the party envision a bleak
future for socialism, especially for the "red bourgeoisie." And in
its defense, they have deployed the most acerbic Cold War rhetoric and the
harshest principles of Stalinist ideology. Brezhnev has defended himself by
countering Stalinist objections with Leninist concepts. Solemnly, he proclaimed
exactly what Lenin wrote half a century ago: "We, Russia, have a great
need for the technical assistance of the USA and Canada. If the Americans keep
their promises, the advantage will be enormous for us... The agreement and the
concessions to the Americans are of exceptional importance to us. Personally, I
consider it of enormous importance to attract American capital to build the
Georgia pipeline. Hammer's son and associate are in Russia. He visited the
Urals and is ready to restore our industry. We not only need to interest Hammer
in the electrification plan so that he will provide us with bread, but he must
supply us with the equipment on credit..." Summarizing
the current policy of détente, conceived by Nixon-Kissinger on the one hand and
by Brezhnev on the other, Ravines comments: "Never has socialism paid a
greater tribute of recognition to capitalism, and thus Leonid Brezhnev has
established himself as a true Leninist leader in the face of all the Stalinist
reactionaries." In "La Prensa" of August 15, an article
titled "Brezhnev Invokes Lenin in Defense of His Policy."
[3] "Visions of sugarplums dance in the heads
of Soviet planners and Western businessmen. Detante, of course, does not have
the same purposes for all concerned, and some may find its fruit bitter or the
sugarplums unripe." In "Insecurity and Cooperation: Yugoslavia and
the Balkans," in "Foreign Affaires" for July 1973.
[4] Campbell, Ibid., p.
788. His article was written before the recent Arab-Israeli War.
[5] See "Yalta ou le Triomphe des
Illusions" by André Fontaine, "Le Monde" of February 4, 1965.
[6] See: Studia Croatica, Vol. XIV, pp. 42-46,
where Ivicevic exposes Belgrade's unitarist policy, both in monarchical and
communist Yugoslavia.
[7] See: Studia Croatica, vol. XIV, pp. 77-78.
[8] See: Violence and Blackmail, Salvador Madariaga
in "La Prensa" of October 8, 1972. There Madariaga says, among other
things: "Tupamaros, Palestinians, Ustaše, IRA soldiers, who are, if not
pilgrims who have fallen behind on the path to understanding life, then
impatient, reckless men, certain of their faith, ready to kill and even die for
it."
[9] René Marcic, From the State to the
Constitution, Law as the Force of Power, Thoughts on the Democratic and Social
State, Vienna 1957, pp. 4, 5, 88, 89, 90. See also "Tizonia," July
1973, No. 44, Viña del Mar, Chile, which addresses the specific case of the
Chilean people's struggle against the increasingly illegitimate power of
President Allende, which was sliding toward abusive and tyrannical rule. Read
especially two articles by J. A. Widow and the article by the Spanish professor
F. Elías de Tejada entitled: "Resistance to the Tyrant."
[10] See the bibliography at the end of the
article. (For technical reasons, we have omitted it. Edited
by S.C.)
[11] V. N. Zlatarski, "Die Besiedlung der
Balkanhalbinsel durch die Slaven," Revue internationale
des études balcaniques, II (1936), 358–75; M. Vasmer, Die Slaven in Griechenland,
Abh. der Preus. Akad.,
Phil.-Hist. Kl. 12 (Berlin, 1941), 1-350; D. Mandic, "Migrations of the
Slavs to the Danube Basin and the Balkans," Croatian Review, II (Chicago,
1959), 46-64.
[12] L. Hauptman, "Prihod Hrvatov" (The
Arrival of the Croats), Bulicev Zbornik (Bulic Symposium), (Zagreb-Split,
1924), 515-545; D. Mandic, Rasprave i prilozi iz stare hrvatske povijesti
(Studies and Contributions to Ancient Croatian History) (Rome, 1963), IV,
"Dolazak Hrvata na Jadran" (The Arrival of the Croats on the Adriatic
Sea), 51-76.
[13] C. Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, Cap. 32, ed. Gy. Moravesik
and R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949), 152-160; K. Jirecek and J. Radonic,
Istorija Srba (History of the Serbs), I (Beograd, 1922), 43-115; Mandic,
Rasprave i Prilozi, 226-254.
[14] V. N. Zlatarski, Istorija na
b´lgarskata d´rzava (History of the Bulgarian State), vol. I part. I (Sofija, 1918), 123-246.
[15] "The Croats who now live in the region of
Dalmatia are descended from the unbaptized Croats, also called
"Whites," who live beyond Turkey (Hungary)... according to the
recommendation of Emperor Heraclius, these same Croats defeated and expelled
the Avars from those parts, and in accordance with the order of Emperor
Heraclius, they took possession of the same region of the Avars, where they now
dwell..." Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio,
chap. 31, 147-149. "A portion of the Croats who came to Dalmatia
separated and occupied Illyricum and Pannonia..." Porphyrogenitus, op.
cit., chap. 30, p. 145.
[17] "I bi kraljevstvo njegovo Bosna i
Valdemin deri do Polonije, tako primorsko kako i zagorsko kraljevstvo", in
"Kraljevstvo Hrvata" (The Kingdom of the Croats). cn.
3 of Sisic (ed.), Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina (Chronicle of the
Priest of Dioclea), (Beograd-Zagreb, 1928), 388.
[18] F. Sisic, Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina (Chronicle
of the Priest of Dioclea), ch. 9. pp. 305-308, 398-401.
[19] Op., 7 loc. cit., Mandic, "Crvena
Hrvatska u svijetlu povijesnih izvora" (The Croatian Rubra in the light of
historical documents) (Chicago, 1957), 1-38.
[20] V. Klaic, Povijest Bosne do Propasti
Kraljevstva (The History of Bosnia to the End of its Kingdom) (Zagreb, 1882),
42-54; V. Corovic, Historija Bosne (History of Bosnia), I (Beograd, 1940),
126-164; A Mandic, Bosna i Hercegovina, I (Chicago, 1960) 47-53; D. Mandic,
Etnicka Povijest Bosne i Hercegovine (Ethnic History of Bosnia and Herzegovina)
(Rome, 1967), 33-35; S. Cirkovic, Istorija sredjnovekovne bosanske drzave
(History of the Medieval State of Bosnia) (Beograd, 1964), 37-43.
[21] "Esti dé he Bósthna oú tó Serbíon
árchizoupáno kaí aúte éikousa, all' éthnoidía pará taúte kaí zon kaí
árchómenon." Ioannes Cinnamus, Historiarum epitome III 7
(ed. A. Meinke; Bonn, 1836), 104.
[22] "The emperor Heraclius sent and brought
priests from Rome, appointing from among them an archbishop, a bishop, a
deacon, and a subdeacon, who baptized the Croats; at that time the Croats had
Porga as their chief ruler." Porphyrogenitus, De
administrando imperio, ch. 31, p. 149; D. Mandic, Rasprave i prilozi, VI,
Pokrstenje Hrvata (The Baptism of the Croats), 109-144.
[23] "Interea summus pontifex misit quendam
legatum Johannem nomine, patria Rauenatum, qui partes Dalmatiae et Chroatie peragrando... per dominum papam consacratione
suscepte... Ipsi concessum est a sede apostolica, ut totius dignitatis
privilegium. quod Salona antiquitus habuit, obtineret ecclesia
Spalatensium." Thomas Archidiaconus, Salonitian History, cap. XI (Ed. F.
Racki, Zagreb, 1894), 33; D. Mandic, Rasprave i prilozi, V, "The
establishment of the archdiocese in Split" (Spalaturn), 77-108.
[24] Ch. Schmidt, Histoire et doctrine de la secte
de Cathares ou Algigeois (2 vols.; Paris and Geneva, 1948-9); F. Racki,
Bogomili i Patareni, 2nd ed. ("Special Editions of the Serbian
Academy", 87; Belgrade, 1931); D. Obolensky, The Bogomils (Cambridge,
1948); D. Angelov, "Der Bogomilismus auf dem Gebiete des byzantinischen
Reiches", -Bogomilism in the Regions of the Byzantine Empire, in Yearbook
of the University of Sofia, vol. 44, book 2 (Sofija, 1948); vol. 46, book 2
(Sofija, 1949-50); D. Mandic, Bogomilska Crkva Bosanskih kristjana (The
Bogomila Church of Bosnian Christians) (Chicago, 1962).
[25] D. Mandic, op. cit. 166-180.
[26] "... per requests et
continuas fratrum dicti ordinis in eadem vicaria existentium predicaciones et
inductiones quigenta milia personarum infidelium, vel circiter, cinguium
veritatis amplectens ad orthodoxe fidei sinceritatem unanimiter... conversa ore
noscuntur." The Papal Bull of Boniface IX of March 7, 1402, Arch. Secr. Vaticanum, Reg. Lat. vol. 104, f. 101r; Mandic, op. cit., 456.
[27] Mandic, Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine,
134-136.
[28] Mandic, op. cit., 360-362.
[29] Op. cit., 150 et seq.
[30] "History of the peoples of
Yugoslavia" Zagreb, 1959, 121.
[31] Kanuni i Kanun-name za Bosanski, Hercegovacki,
Zvornicki, Kliski, Crnogorski i Skadarski sandzak (Decrees and laws for the
Sandyacados of Bosnia, Herzegovina, Zvornik, Klis, Montenegro and Skadar)
"Monumenta Turcica", I; Sarajevo 1957, 31.
[32] D. Mandic, Etnicka povijest Bosne i
Hercegovine (Ethnic History of Bosnia and Herzegovina), 153-162.
[33] Op. cit., 367 et seq.
[34] Omer Lufti Barkan, "Les deportations
comme methode de peuplement et di colonization dans l'Empire Ottoman",
Revue de la Faculté des sciences économiques de I'Université d'lstambul, XI
(Istambul, 1949-50), 129; D. Mandic, "Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatian
provinces" Studia Croatica, VI (Buenos Aires, 1956), 176.
[35] "La Provintia di Bosna hauera appresso
trecento Milla Catolici", K. Draganovic, "Izvjesce apostolskog
vizitatora Petra Masarechija" (Report of the apostolic visitor Peter
Masarechi, in Starine (Yugoslav Academy) XXXIX (Zagreb, 1938), 8. "...de Turchi saranno tre parti et
a pena de catolici una, Schismatici saranno per la meta di Catolici, de quali
saranno cento cinquanta mile anime in circa", op. cit., 43.
[36] D. Mandic, Etnicka Povijest Bosne i
Hercegovine (Ethnic History of Bosnia and Herzegovina), 216-241.
[37] "Cum multi fideles adulti baptisentur et
credunt in Christum firmiter, tamen minime publice audent preache ambore
(timore) poene", Relatio ep. bos. F.Balicevic an. 1600. Arch.Vat.,
Borghese Fund III 124 D, fol. 282 r.
[38] "In Bosnia i frati batezzano, et non s'astengonon'anco fuori
della Prouincia di betezzare lizigliuoli de Turchi." K.
Draganović, "Izvjesce apostolskog vizitatora Petra Masarechija,"
14.
[39] The Papal Bull of Urban VIII Cupientes of
September 23, 1925, in "Izvori" by Julian Jelenic, "Glasnik
Zemaljskog Muzeja", IV (1942), 446 ff. J. B. Chaumette des Fosses, head of
the French consulate in Travnik between 1807 and 1808, studied the religious
and social condition in Bosnia up to that date. He states that the native
Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina were "poturice" of Catholic
descent, who, in many ways, follow Catholic customs. He was especially able to
verify that always in serious cases of illness,
Muslims usually call Catholic priests to administer baptism and extreme
unction. J. B. des Fosses, Voyage en Bosnie dans les années 1807 et 1808 (Paris, 1816), 53-56, 74, 88; M. Samic, Les
voyageurs francais en Bosnia (Paris, 1960), 240-246.
[40] "Negotia... Turcarum
eandem fidem (catholicam) occulte profiteri volentium ab Episcopo Stephanensi
signata, ad Sanctum Officium fuerunt remissa." Report
of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda of the Faith, April 8, 1628, D.
Mandic, Acta Franciscana Hercegovinae, I (Mostar, 1934), 17.
[41] "... post
expugnationem castri Brad, una cum his, qui misere praeda facti sunt, plusquam
quadraginta millia animarum a fide christiana defecerunt, et desciscent in diem
praeter numerum..." E. Laszowski, Monumenta Habsburgica, II (Zagreb,
1916), 311.
[42] "... et un numero grande de Poturi, li quali a un tempo sono
stati christiani, et dalla grande tirannide de nemici fatti Turchi, et questi
non sono ne Turchi buoni ne christiani" Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja, XXI
(1909), 60.
[43] "Molti christiani di queste prouincie e della Bosnia istessa
si sono fatti Turchi." Croatia Sacra, IV (Zagreb, 1934), 250.
[44] "In the territory of Sutieska nei andati
mancarano dalla fede christiana appresso sei o sette mile anime." Draganovic, "Izvjesce apostolskog
vizitatora", 45.
[45] "...dette anime vanno traboccando nella scisma et turcismo...
et gia tutti sono cascati nella scisma et turcismo." Relatio P. Blassi de
Gradac, an. 1624. R. Pandzic, De diocesani Tribunensi et Mercanensi, (Rome,
1959), 115.
[46] "Delli Turchi poi e molto maggior numero delli Cattolici e
Scismatici; but s ha qui notare, che li Turchi che lavorano la terra, pouchi si
trovano che parlano lingua turchesca; e pero se non temessero il fuoco, quasi
tutti quelli si farebbero Christiani sapendo bene che li loro maggiori sono
stati Christiani". M. Batinic, "Relatione data all'imperatore dal
Sign. Athanasio Georgiceo del viagio fatto l'anno 1626",
Starine (Yugoslav Academy), XVIII (Zagreb, 1885), 128.
[47] "Talking but generally if it has che siano al presente doi
terzi d'habitanti Turchi, quasi tutti di race Christiana, et
un terzo di christiani." "Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja," XXI
(1909), 357.
[48] "Caeteri sunt omnes in gravi numero Turcae et schismatici, cum
ante parvum tempus ferme omnes catholici fuerunt." J. Jelinic,
"Spomenici", Starine (Yugoslav Academy), XXXVI (1918), 149.
[49] "Li christiani d'Antivari... but not to lose life and robba,
have professato la setta Mahometana vedendo l'occisione de 74 christiani per
ribelli et tradittori..." B. Pandzic, "De Donato Jelic, OFM,
Missionario Apostolic (1600-1676)", Arch. Franc. Historicum, LVI (1963),
8, ft. 5.
[50] L. Katic, Pregled Povijesti Hrvata (A study in the history of the
Croatians).
[51] A. Solovjev, "Trgovina bosanskim robljem do god. 1661" (The Slav trade in Bosnia until 1661), Glasnik
Zemaljskog Muzeja, N. S., I (Sarajevo, 1946), 139-146; V. Vinaver. "Trgovina bosanskim robljem tokom XIV veka u Dubrovniku"
(The trade of the Bosnian Slavs in the 14th century in Dubrovnik), Anali Hist.
Instituta, (Yugoslav Academy), II (Dubrovnik, 1953), 125-147; Mandic, Etnicka
povijest Bosne i Hercegovine, 242-251.
[52] D. Mandic, op. cit., 253-271.
[53] D. Mandic, op. cit., 271-274.
[54] K. Jirecek and J. Radonic, Istorija Srba, II,
73-104; Historija naroda Jugoslavije, I (Zagreb, 1953), 469-487; II (1959),
175-185, 818-828, 1118-1121.
[55] D. Mandic, "Herceg-Bosna i Hrvatska" in "Hrvatska
Revija" XIII (Buenos Aires, 963), 454-456.
[56] O. L. Barkan, "Les déportatons comme méthode de
peuplement", 129.
[57] Mandic, Crvena Hrvatska, see Index of names mentioned.
[58] D. Mandic, Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine, 285-446.
[59] L. Eaddingus, Annales Minorum, ad an. 1512, No. 6.
[60] Op. cit., ad an. 1514, No. 6; F. Glavinic, Origine della Provincia
Bosna Croatia (Udine, 1648), 11.
[61] D. Mandic, Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine, 293-305.
[62] "I Bosnesi sono l´istessa natione con i Croati, e tale e anco
il linguaggio loro", Glavinich, Origine dellaprovince Bosna Croatia, 1.
[64] "640. Doidose z priko Babini (h) Gora Hrvati najprvo u
Dalmaciju, i ove sadasnje hrvatske i slovinske strane... I od nji Dalmacija,
koje od mora do Dunava dosegla, hrvatsko ime prima i zove se do danasnjega
dneva." J. Jelenic, Ljetopis fra Nikole Lasvanina (Chronicles of Nicholas
Lasvanin, Sarajevo, 1916), 22.
[65] "1131. Stipan ugarski kralj... Ovi zadobi Ramu u gornjoj
Hrvatskoj zemlji, koja se sada Bosna menuje, i zato svi njegovi namisnici zovu
se kralji Rame, t.j. Bosne." Jelenic, op.
cit., 31.
[66] Evlija
Celebija, Putopisi, Itineraries, Croatian translation by H. Sabanovic
(Sarajevo, 1957), I, 207, 211; II, 177, 226. Regarding the
meaning and use of the term Hrvatski junaci, see Mandic, Etnicka povijest Bosne
i Hercegovine, 354-357.
[67] Mandic, op. cit., 332-4.
[68] Mandic, op. cit., 360-5.
[69] F. Spaho,
"Narodni nazivi mjeseci" (National Names of the Months), in Kalender
"Napredak" (Sarajevo, 1935), 42-45.
[69] [70] Regarding the Croatian Cyrillic script
called Bosancica, see: C. Truhelka, "Bosancica. Prilog
bosanskoj paleografiji" (The Bosnian Script. A
Contribution to Bosnian Paleography), in Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja, I
(Sarajevo, 1889), 65-83; M. Tentor, Latinsko i slavensko pismo (Latin and
Slavic Script), (Zagreb, 1932); Mandic, Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine,
50-61.
[71] Regarding the abduction of the Adzemi Oglan
people in Bosnia and Herzegovina, see Mandic, Etnicka povijest Bosne i
Hercegovine, 346-348.
[72] H. Lamb, Suleiman the Magnificent (Garden City
N.J., 1957), 53.
[73] Contemporary sources do not agree on
Rustam-pasha's birthplace, see: Mandic, Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine, 337 et seq.
[74] "Conversus passa ad Zay: Tu inquit,
sceisne croatice? Scio, responder. Et
is collega tuus? Respondit: Ipse quoque.. miratusque
quod tan bene ea lingua loqueretur Zay", "Actio Antonii Verancii etc.
apud principem turcarum anno 1553, mense Augusto." Mon. Hung.
Hist. Scriptores, IV pars II, vol. 4 (Pest, 1858), 66.
[75] "Ille et linguam Croaticam noverat, et
erat familiaris cum Bassis, et etiam saguine junctus Mehmed Bassae, qui natione
Croatus erat et puer captivus in Turciam ductus; id quod fr. Georgius ipsi,
testi, dixit, ac praterea Murad Begum esse quoque Croatum et consanguineum
ipsius fr. Georgii." A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium
historiam illustrantia, II (Zagreb, 1875), 29, N. 57,
[76] "Za to mi receni caus, hotismo... dvoje
knjige gallinati turske, a dvoje hrvatske..." Starine (Yugoslav Academy), X (Zagreb, 1878), 14.
[77] "Ja se ponosim
nasim jezikom i uzivam razgovarati ovim jezikom." Historija naroda Jugoslavije, II, 240.
[78] "...parlar in Croatian... et cio usassi parimenti a
Constantinopoli... in Croatian lingua parlavano, la quale é familiare a tutti
quasi i Turchi, et especialmente a gli huomini di guera." A. Pigafetta,
Itinerary (London, 1685); Starine (Yugoslav Academy), XXII (1890), 88.
[79] Tá rikh i Ali, IV, I, 12 s; S. Basagic. Bosnjaci i Hercegovci u islamskoj knjizevnosti (Bosniaks and
Herzegovinians in Islamic Literature), Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja, XXIV (1912),
6 s.
[80] H.
Bosnjanin, Hrvati i Herceg-Bosna. (Croats
and Bosnia and Herzegovina), (Sarajevo, 1940), 27.
[81] Celebija, Putopis, I, 49, 136, etc.
[82] Mandic, Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine,
408 et seq.
[83] D. Surmin, Hrvatski preporod (Croatian
Renaissance), I-II (Zagreb, 1903-4); F. Fancev, Dokumenti za nase podrijet1o
Hrvatskog Preporoda (1790-1832) (Documents on the Origin of Our Renaissance)
(Zagreb, 1933); J. Horvat, Politicka povijest Hrvatske (Political history of
Croatia) (Zagreb, 1936), 88-197: F. Sisic, "0 stogodisnjici Ilirskog
pokreta" (On the occasion of the centenary of the Illyrian Movement),
Ljetopis Jug. Akademije (Chronicle of the Yugoslav Academy, 49) (Zagreb, 1937),
99-130.
[84] Mandic, Etnicka povijest Bosne i Herzegovine,
412-426.
[85] Op. cit., 423; See also R. Bicanic, Ekonomska
podloga hrvatskog pitanja (The Economic Basis of the Croatian Problem) (Zagreb:
Dr. V. Macek, 1938), 3
[86] Sv.
Pribicevic, Diktatura kralja Aleksandra (The Dictatorship of King Alexander)
(Belgrade, 1952), 28 et seq.
[87] "Alexander episcopus... Miroslauo
comiti... nec legatum nostrum recipere nec nostris
parere litteris voluisti... Accepimus etiam, quod loca illa, in quibus
cathedrales sedes olim fuese noscuntur, ordinari libere non permittas..." The letter of Pope Alexander III to Miroslav, Duke of Zuhumlje.
T. Smicklas, Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et
Slavoniae II (Zagreb, 1904), 176, n. 174.
[88] "...monasteria, ecclesias, insulas ac
villas... nonnulli reges Rassiae predecessores tui... suis temporibus
occuparunt et tu nunc ea occupas et detines occupata." The letter of Pope
Clement VI to the Servo king Stefan Dusan in 1345. T. Smicklas, Cod. dipl., XI (1913), 179, n. 134; Theiner, Vet. Mon. Slav. Med.,
I, 215, n. 280.
[90] "Schismatici... cum nequissimo suo
Vladica seu ritus eorum episcopo, non cessant catholicos nostros acerrime coram
Turcis expugnari eosque ad ritum suum cogendo et ad tributum; in quem finem
frequentissime adversus nos Turcarum imperatoris districtissima deferunt
diplomata, quibus nos in tribunalibus Turcicis urgent sanctam N(ostram) E(cclesam) deserere eique subiici". Relatio ep. bos. N. Ogramic an.
1675. J. Jelenic, "Spomenici", Starine (Yugoslav Academy), XXXVI
(1918), 138.
[91] "Plerumque catholici promiscue domos
hobent cum Turcis et schismaticis Graeci ritus, et quidem hos infestiores
hostes toleramus, quam turcas ipsos. Nunquam enim nobis non
insidiantur, quo nos suae jurisditioni subujiciant, sunt autem in hac patria
numero et opibus majores catholicis duplo." D. Farlati, Illiricum
Sacrum IV (Venetis, 1769), 87.
[92] Mandic, "Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatian
provinces", 192-204.
[93] D. Mandic, Postanak Vlaha prema novim
povijesnim iztrazivanjima (Origin of the Vlachs in the light of the latest
research) (Buenos Aires, 1956). The second edition in Mandic,
Rasprave i priloze, 515-567.
[94] Digesta
XLIX, 16, 1-16; Code Just. XII, 35, 1-18; FI. Vegetius Renatus, Epitome rei militaris, ed. C. Lang (Lipsiae,
1885); M. J. Roman, L'Organisation militaire de l'empire romain (Paris, 1867);
Mandic, Rasprave i prilozi, 519-528.
[95] "...Mauris equit(ibus)
et pedit(ibus), qui sunt in Moesia Super(iore) equitum Maurorum..." Diplomata militaria. Corpus inscriptionum
Latinarum, XVI Berolini, 1936, n. 114.
[96] "...et vexil(laris) Afric(ae) et
Mau(r)et(aniae) Caes(arinensis), qui sunt cum Mauris gentilib(us) in Dacia
Super(iore) et sunt sub Statio Prisco leg(ato)...", Diplomata militaria. Registered Corp. Lat., XVI, 98, n. 108.
[97] O. Seeck, Natitia dignitatum accessunt Notitia
urbis Constantinopolitanae et Laterculi provincialum
(Berolini, 1876).
[98] "Sub dispositione uiri spectabilis ducis
Pannoniae et Norici Ripensis: Equitus promoti, Ad
Mauros." O. Seeck, Notitia dignitatum, Occidentis 34, n. 31, p. 197.
[99] Mandic, Rasprave i prilozi, 526.
[100] "Sub dispositione uiri spectabilis ducis
Foenicis: 18. Equites Mauri Ilyriciani, Otthara... 21. Equites Dalmatae
Ilyriciani, Lataui." 0. Seeck, Notitia Dignitatum, Orientis 32, 67 et seq.
Same Orientis 33, 34, 35, 37, pp. 70, 73, 75; 81.
[102] D. S. Lihacev, Povest' vremenyh (History of
ancient times II) (Moskva-Leningrad, 1950), 11 and 21.
[103] E.
Szenpetery, Scriptores rerum hungaricarum, I (Budapest, 1937), 45, 48, 65 et
seq., 162 et seq.
[104] S.
Dragomir, Vlahii si Morlacii (Valacians or Mauro-Valacians) (Cluj, 1924); R.
Lee Wolf, "The Second Bulgarian Empire," Speculum (1949), 167-206;
Mandic, Rasprave i prilozi, 533-537.
[105]
"Sr'bin da se ne zeni u Vlaseh'; ako li se ozeni, da ju vede u
merop'he", Decanska povelja, 1330, A. V. Solovjev, Odabrani spisi srpskog
prava (Selected Documents of Serbian Law) (Beograd, 1926), 114. povelja" Solovjev, op. cit., 93.
[106] K. J.
Jirecek, "Die Wlachen und Maurowlachen in den Denkimalern von
Ragusa", Sitzungsber. Boehm. Gess.
der Wiss. in Pra. Jahrg. 1880, 109-125; Dragomir, Vlahii si
Morlacii; Mandic, Rasprave i prilozi, 537-564.
[107] M. Vego,
Naselja bosanske srednjevjekovne drzave (The Villages of the Medieval State of
Bosnia) (Sarajevo, 1957), 127-132; Mandic, Rasprave i prilozi, 554-558.
[108]
"Item wir haben in Berürtem khünigreich Wossen dreyerley nation und
glaubens volkher gefunden. Die ersten sein die alten Wossner; die sein des
Roemischen Christlichen Glaubens... Die anderen sein Surrfen, die nennen sie
Wallachen und wir nennens Zisttzen oder Marthalossen.
Die khamen von dem Ort Smedravo und Khrichisch Weissenburg... Die drit nation
sein die rechten Türggen..." B. Curipeschitz, Itinerarium... nach Konstantinopel 1530, ed.
Lambberg-Schwarzenberg (Innsbruck, 1910), 34.
[109] "...
aus der tyeffe des Turgkhey rnit soul tausendt Morlagkhen oder Walachen pesetzt
worden." E. Laszowski, Monumenta Habsburgica III (Zagreb, 1917), p. 114.
[110] Historija naroda Jugoslavije, II, 141.
[111] Mandic,
Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine. 513-518.
[112] Mandic, Bosna i Hercegovina, I, 300-318:
idem, Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine, 508-519.
[113] Mandic,
Etnicka povijest Bosne i Herzegovine, 125-7.
[114] Vl. Skaric, Sarajevo i njegova okolina
(Sarajevo and its surroundings) (Sarajevo, 1937), 223 et seq.
; Mandic, op. cit., 515-518.
[115] See
censuses of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 1910, 1921, 1948 and
1953.
[116] N.
Pfeiffer, Die ungarische Dominikanerordenprovinz von ihrer gruendung 1221 bis
zur T'atarenverwuestung 1241-1242 (Zürich, 1913), 50-74; J. Sidak,
"Ecclesia Sclavoniae i misija dominikanaca u Bosni" (Ecclesia
Sclavoniae and the Dominican mission in Bosnia), Zbornik Fil. fakul. u Zagrebu, III (Zagreb,
1955), 11-40; D. Mandic, Bogomilska crkva bosanskih krstjana, 149-162.
[117] J. Sidak,
"Franjevacka 'Dubia' iz god. 1372-73",
Istor. Casopis, V (Beograd 1954-55), 207-231; Mandic,
Bogomilska crkva, 262-280.
[118] See note 17.
[119] See note 26.
[120] Julijan
Jelenic, Kultura i bosanski franjevci (Culture and the Franciscans of Bosnia),
I (Sarajevo, 1912), 202-204.
[121] Mandic,
Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine, 253-274.
[122] Mandic,
op. cit., 521.
[123] D. Mandic, Chroati catholici Bosnae et Hercegovinae in descriptionibus annis 1743 et 1768
exaratis (Chicago-Rome, 1962).
[124] B. Pandzic, De Diocesi Tribunensi et Mercanensi (Rome, 1959), 120,
131 and 146.
[125] Mandic, Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine,
404-407, 521.
* According to the official census data of 1971, the distribution of the
population of Bosnia and Herzegovina by nationality is as follows: 1,482,439
Muslims (39.6%), 1,393,148 Serbs (37.2%), 772,491 Croats (20.6%), and various
"Yugoslav" or undeclared minorities, constituting 2.6%. (Source:
Statisticki bilten 727, Savezni zavod za statistiku -Federal Statistical
Institute-, Belgrade, April 1972, cited in: The Nationality of the Yugoslav
Population by Dr. Jure Petricevic, Croatian Journal Edition, Munich-Barcelona,
1973, p. 31).
Furthermore, Dr. Petricevic comments: "From these estimates of the
number of Muslims, based on the 1961 and 1971 censuses, we are compelled to
conclude that the number of Muslims in 1961 was underestimated, or rather, that
a portion of the Muslim population was concealed. Given the strong presence of
Great Serbian elements in the communal and municipal administrations of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, it is highly probable that the numerical status of the Muslims
in 1971 also did not correspond to reality; that is, that this time too it was
underestimated according to the census results." Ibid.,
p. 32. According to the results of the last official census, despite all the
Great Serbian manipulation of the numbers, to the detriment of the Croats,
Muslims and Croat Catholics constitute 60.2% of the total population in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, as we have seen throughout this excellent study by the
recently deceased Dr. D. Mandic. (Translator's note)
* Communist Yugoslav secret police - (Translator's note)