STUDIA CROATICA

Year XV – July – December 1974 – Vol. 54-55

The armed monkeys

Spain at the Crossroads in late November 1936 - Prvislav Weissenberger

Culture

The 450th Anniversary of Marko Marulic (1450-1524)

Chilean-Croatian Notes - Lucas Fertilio

René Marcic (1919-1971): A Croatian-Austrian Sage - Francisco Nevistic

News and Commentary

The Argentine Reality - The Dialogue Continues in an Open Society

"Why Did You Return to the Country Where Only the Dead Are Happy?" - Bogdan Radica recounts his experience with Yugoslav communism

The important thing is to affirm that the problem does not exist - Aspects of religious freedom in Yugoslavia

Political trials in Yugoslavia - Repetition of an old lie: 16 Croatian "terrorists" before the communist tribunal in Zadar

Splendid recital by the Croatian ensemble Jadran

Zdravko Ducmelic - (Wildenstein Gallery 23-9-74) - Milan Rakovac

Echoes of Ivo Rojnica's book: "Prikaz povijesti argentine i doprinos hrvata"

Book review

Ivo Andric: "Fra Petar e fra Marco", Italian translation by Prof. Franjo Trograncic

Ivo Omrcanin: "Sacred Crown of the Kingdom of Croatia" (The Sacred Crown of the Kingdom of Croatia) The Armed Monkeys - Francisco Nevistic

George J. Prpic and Hilda Prpic: "Croatian Books and Booklets in Exile"

Book Review

Prof. George J. Prpic: "Croatia and Hungary during the Turkish Era" (Croatia and Hungary during the Turkish Era)

Ivo Rojnica, Overview of Argentine History and the Croatian Contribution

The armed monkeys

Franjo Nevistic

The Power Struggle Between the Post-Religious and the "Religious" World

The issue of violence is a daily topic in Argentina and throughout the world. It concerns each and every one of us, whether as a tragic, everyday phenomenon or as a theoretical problem. Paradoxically, the more we try to understand and overcome it, the more it multiplies and acquires ever-wider dimensions.

On September 16th, I watched a televised discussion on this topic, in which Dr. Ricardo Balbín, leader of the Argentine Radical Civic Union, was interviewed by two renowned journalists. They sought, in a contrasting approach, to ascertain the opinion of this political figure, one of the most interesting on the current Argentine political scene. The purpose of the discussion was to learn his opinion and, at the same time, to make it known to the general public.

Leaving aside many nuances, certainly interesting ones, of the issue discussed, we will limit ourselves to just one, as we consider it essential. When Dr. Balbín answered his interlocutors' question about the possible purpose of the wave of violence unleashed in Argentina, he said it was the struggle for power. The journalists mentioned agreed with him. We do too. The conquest of power, it seems to us, reveals the phenomenon of violence in its entirety and its ultimate foundation.

But to better understand the depth and breadth of this insight, it is essential to analyze its fundamental aspects, intimately linked to human nature and destiny.

The conquest of power, and for the sake of power, in our time, would be an unacceptable kind of art for art's sake. The "social" orientation of thought that characterizes us does not permit any kind of art for art's sake, even in the literary field, despite it being an area of life that is inherent to it (recall the current case of abstract painters and Soviet repression). Seizing power for the sake of power would tell us very little. This would be a kind of socio-political game incompatible with a realistic era. Indeed, if an individual, a group, or an entire class disregards the inviolability and sanctity of any human good in order to seize power, even at the expense of the family or human life itself, their position is more than revealing: the possession of socio-political power is the highest, almost absolute, good.

But hasn't the possession of power been the ultimate goal of political struggle in all times and in all societies? Certainly. Weren't crimes committed for this purpose as well? We cannot deny that either. But what astonishes Dr. Balbín, his interlocutors, and all of us is the fact that today's "violent" individuals are characterized by a peculiar trait—evil, reprehensible—that was thought to have been overcome and eliminated, at least in civilized societies. This peculiar trait, according to Balbín himself, is the lack of awareness, responsibility, and remorse for the crime committed. Previously, the Argentine politician said, whoever committed a crime would confess and turn themselves in to the authorities for punishment. Today, on the contrary, the perpetrator expects to be hailed as a hero.

Herein lies the essence of the problem that concerns us and which we will attempt to subject to an analysis that we consider indispensable for understanding the phenomenon in its transcendental scope.

The observation made by the radical politician coincides, perhaps unwittingly, with the opinion of A. Camus, who, in one of his most brilliant works, points to this fact of man's ethical depravity as the most salient and tragic characteristic of our time.[1]

But can we justifiably be astonished by events of this kind? Can we simply place all the blame, responsibility, and shame on the violent? Is there not something logical and historically natural in the behavior of today's violent individuals?

Indeed, we consider the phenomenon we are examining to be a logical and final phase in the development of both scientific and philosophical thought in the modern world. Its main characteristic is the "emptying" of values accumulated over centuries, thanks to patient work and the collaboration of several factors, among which the Christian religion, due to its decisive importance, is not the least. Rationalist philosophy, therefore, has completed in this era the critique of metaphysics and religion that Marx considers the prerequisite for all critique. The critique of heaven, he said, precedes and conditions the critique of earth and politics. God is dead, man is dying, some other philosopher commented. The logical and ontological connection between the two statements is explained with crystal clarity by J. P. Sartre[2].

Despite this clear and logical vision, Sartre does not proceed logically and coherently to the end. Frightened by secular ethics, which he accurately describes in its negative consequences, yet accepting the "fact" of God's death, and in order to avoid these consequences and save society from moral and legal chaos, Sartre demands the non-existence of God, formulates a postulational atheism, and clings to his existentialism. While Kant still permitted the existence of God, grounding it as a contained and indicative possibility in the categorical imperative, the French philosopher transfers and places the foundation of all obligations, both ethical-moral and legal, onto humankind. According to him, each person must invariably act as if acting on behalf of all humanity.

The practical and theoretical consequences, the true fruit of this position, are well known. To fully clarify them, we can use an analogy provided by jurisprudence: leges imperfectae, that is, laws without a certain and firm sanction. Existentialist philosophy, unwittingly, introduces this concept into moral and legal philosophy as a whole. But the consequences are quite different. While in the legal field imperfect laws coexist, within the much broader and well-defined and sanctioned scope of the leges perfectae, with the framework of firm obligations, here, in the philosophical field, which is always a complete worldview, the door is opened to total insecurity, to absolute arbitrariness.

Neither Kant's categorical imperative with its postulational theism, nor its Sartrean modification in postulational atheism, sufficed to establish the purity and clarity of Obligation in the world. Both lack firm support, sufficient sanction for Obligation. From this position, all obligations, even the perfect laws of humankind, become imperfect laws. The former constitutes only one more step toward nihilism, where the latter ended. It is not possible to build upon Nothingness, to erect edifices of austere columns capable of sustaining the existence of humanity. A. Camus, a disciple of Sartre and his fellow teacher of existentialism, demonstrates this in his work The Stranger.

Philosophical development, therefore, has noticeably emptied the ethical heritage of the civilized world. But to better see the abyss towards which humanity is led without an ontological foundation of Obligation, and once its location in the religious-transcendental support has been denied, let us add what the eminent contemporary philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell teaches on the matter.

Indeed, while many of his contemporaries and scientific peers come to the conclusion that the positive sciences and technology leave man helpless, exposed to self-annihilation (W. Heisenberg, M. Born and others), Russell still believes in their power of salvation. We are, according to him, at the door of a "golden age" that the sciences would open to us if we "killed the dragon" that guards it and which is, precisely, "religion."

Keeping in mind the context of these ideas, we have put in the title of this work, and as its central idea, the confrontation between the post-religious world and that "religious", substituting with the term post-religious what Toynbee expresses with the concept of the "post-Christian" world, and expressing with the religious term in quotes what Russell calls the religious world without quotes. Indeed, the latter, when referring to the alleged harmfulness of religion in general, also says the following: "I believe that all the great religions of the world - Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism - are both lying and harmful" [3].

Without attempting to invalidate the statements, admittedly gratuitous, of such great authority, that wrongly places communism among religions, we, for the purpose of this article, take communism as a religion, but pointing out our disagreement, both formal and substantial, with the famous mathematician and philosopher, we put it as religion and the religious world in quotes. We all, then, know that this is a pseudo-religious world and religion, one more rationalist attempt to realize his dream of the utopian society or the "golden age", as Russell himself says.

Having made this clarifying observation, we all also know that the central and most urgent problem of current international politics is the struggle between the post-Christian or post-religious world - the Western world - and the Eastern "religious" world, that is, the communist world as Russell sees it. This struggle has become a kind of double-sided civil war. The current world being technically one, the struggle for power in it between the USA and Soviet Russia can legitimately be considered a civil struggle of global dimensions. This is its primordial ontological aspect. But, to avoid direct confrontation between the two superpowers (the "alliance" between Washington and Moscow during and after the last great war is considered the most "firm" and longest) the conflict has been transferred, partialized and converted into civil wars within the limits of nation states, for many already outdated limits.

Indeed, behind the fighting national factions and in almost all parts of the world are the two main protagonists of the general "civil war." It is developed according to the canons of a nihilistic philosophy. Remorse, conscience, responsibility. under what? Our astonishment, like that of Dr. Balbín, should not take place. The humanism of the post-Christian world has stripped itself of its true civilizational factors, it has emptied the truly cultural heritage and this void has filled communist humanism with violence.

Indeed, if truth for the post-Christian world is merely a kind of error—that is, truth is unattainable for humankind—according to Nietzsche, what is there to cling to noetically? If God is dead and everything is permitted, as Dostoevsky asserts, if we find ourselves, according to Sartre, on a plane where there are only human beings, then what is there to cling to ethically and legally? We find ourselves in the midst of a natural history of humankind. The law of this history is, according to the aforementioned German philosopher: "What humankind desires is what the smallest part of a living organism desires, namely, the increase of power" [4]. Therefore, the fundamental law of the process of this natural history is, according to Nietzsche, the following: "Do you want a word to designate this world? A solution to all its enigmas?... This world is the will to power, and nothing else" [5].

To once again offer an Argentine perspective on the problem of violence, let us return to "La Prensa" of August 11, 1974. There, Alicia Jurado, in a contribution, confirmed the dispossession, the emptying of the heritage of Western civilization, an idea we have discussed above, and which doubly inspires this work. We have borrowed the title from there, slightly altered, and its analysis and conclusion, referring to the works of Konrad Lorenz and Roberto Ardrey, has prompted us to undertake this work. Indeed, for the two scientists mentioned, according to A. Jurado, "the first act of human affirmation that has been verified is the capacity for murder." Australopithecus africanus, a species of ape, is the great-grandfather of humankind, of Homo sapiens. Contrary to the romantic idealism of many—Rousseau, for example—this great-grandfather "was not arboreal, but a born criminal... The fossil remains prove that he killed his fellow men, and that the race of Cain predates the creation of Adam."

What else, then, can we expect but violence in an age and a world governed by the total explanation of humankind and its history through biological evolution? In a world that considers humankind solely as a more evolved species of vertebrate, but one fractured by diametrically opposed conceptions of justice? One part of this world has stripped itself of religion, even proclaiming it "deceitful" and "harmful," and seeks to dismantle all traditional education of the reptilian brain, revealing its original, apelike nakedness, while the other has donned the very solemn garb of communist religion in the Russellian sense. The two conceptions, the two worlds surrounding them, are locked in a mortal, bestial conflict.

But to make reality even more dramatic, it's necessary to emphasize the well-known difference between skeptics and believers. The former (unfortunately, the free world), plagued by doubt, appear lacking in energy and will to fight, while the latter (the communist world), driven by the fanaticism of their pseudo-creed, appear resolute, bold, and ready for sacrifice. Unfortunately, they are more willing to sacrifice their fellow human beings than themselves. Nihilists, says Camus, should be suicidal if they are consistent, but, lacking all logic, they prefer killing their fellow human beings to suicide. By a strange logic, perhaps that of monkeys, today's violent people kill their fellow human beings as man once ate man, according to Croce, with a clear conscience, as if they were roasted chickens.

The power they are fighting for and the society they are dreaming of would liberate humanity, inaugurate "true history," and usher in a "golden age." Humanity, says Nietzsche, desires what every living being desires: to increase its power. To this end, the descendants of Australopithecus africanus have armed themselves; the race of Cain has perfected its weaponry to such an extent and in such a way that Homo sapiens may seem a true evolutionary misunderstanding. Homo sapiens, ironically, is capable of destroying itself, directly or indirectly, and every vestige of life on our planet. The supreme principle of its behavior is to obtain more power and might. If it does not yet use the latest inventions of devastating weapons, it is only because it is held back by the fear of its own death. To use them on a smaller scale, without regard for any kind of human good, is the logical consequence of a nihilistic position and of violence perpetrated in the name of a pseudo-religion.

Where can we place our hopes for avoiding this prospect? Alicia Jurado notes in "La Prensa": "But neither can we be entirely discouraged regarding the fate of humankind. If we are not a fallen angel, as believers in the corrupting society imagine, but, more modestly, an evolved primate, we need not see ourselves as a decadent race, but rather as quite promising mammals. If we are fortunate enough to survive until the next mutation allows the recently evolved cortex to better control the reptilian brain, it may be that the latter will not drive us to destroy the entire species with the weapons invented by the former" [6].

In another of his articles, published by the Buenos Aires newspaper on September 1st – “Man and Ecology” – A. Jurado reproduces the opinion of S. P. R. Charter, for whom “the struggle of the human species to survive today is not between East and West, nor between collectivism and freedom, but, in a most dramatic way, between man and his environment; it reminds us… that our species is not eternal… but that, like so many others in history, it will disappear completely. Total extinction, which was once God’s prerogative, ‘is now man’s own,’ and while the two titans, East and West, ‘are foolishly locked in mortal combat,’ the waters of the tide are rising that will drown them both.”

However, in the prologue to Charter's book *Man on Earth*, A. Huxley points out, according to our author, that the greatest danger that could plunge us into the common abyss is nationalist, religious, and political ideologies, along with the "thirst for power of governmental oligarchies." A. Jurado, despite her evolutionary and mutation-based optimism, allows for the possibility that our civilization and the human species may succumb before this biological-evolutionary mutation and salvation is realized, precisely as a result, among other causes, of the struggle for power.

Can we, finally, place our hope for survival, for avoiding violence, and for achieving civic and international peace in awaiting the arrival of the next brain mutation, the formation of a new cerebral cortex that would control the reptilian (de Chardin) brain "positions and superpositions" and those of present-day Homo sapiens?

The everyday violence that ruthlessly sacrifices human lives, the handling of weapons by "monkeys," the majestic march of warships across the world's oceans, and the dizzying speed of airplanes through the air concealing scientifically created, deadly weapons within their strange, deadly forms—much like certain reptiles that hide their venom behind an attractive surface—are the most pressing dangers of our time. This is far more significant than soil depletion or air pollution, issues that the scientist Charter draws our attention to. If these weapons are wielded by "monkeys," whose supreme law is: more power, the conquest of power, then we are, without a doubt, facing the danger of a continuation of relentless violence, a path that will lead us to planetary catastrophe.

Therefore, an urgent revision of human values is necessary. Indeed, centuries of human education were needed to civilize humanity, to form a conscience of a Kantian categorical nature or a universal Sartrean "engagement," but a mere few decades suffice to destroy them. These two formulas, by denying metaphysical tradition and the Christian faith, reverse the process: the categorical imperative is atomized, dissipated, and individualized without any internal consistency.

Humanity sheds the garments it had acquired by feeling itself to be a child of God or, at least, as Ortega y Gasset would say, a strange being, imperfectly incorporated into this world, becoming a purely natural being. For this reason, the question must be revisited without delay: what are the cerebralizations of humanity and the humanization of the world? Is it a meaningless, immanentist evolution, or an ascent guided by transcendental light—the thread Donoso Cortés explores—through which we can escape the labyrinth into which we have fallen, seemingly without any possibility of finding the way out?

These are the inescapable questions, and their answers—solutions—are extremely difficult. Without them, however, violence and the struggle for power that ensures our dominion over others—the fundamental yearning of living beings—will inevitably accompany the present and future of history; weapons will not be taken from the hands of the ape. Humankind, they try to teach us in the name of science, is not a fallen angel but a "born killer," as was the ape Australopithecus africanus, and therefore its history will fatally unfold under the sign of murder.

Without rejecting this teaching and its consequences as unworthy of human dignity, and without adequately answering the questions posed above, or at least undertaking the task with humility and sincerity, acknowledging both its importance and its difficulty, and recognizing that it can only be overcome in stages, we will continue to glorify "politicians" like Josip Broz Tito, for example, for whom human dignity and freedom, and the right of peoples to self-determination, serve only to conquer and maintain power, arming one part of their "monkeys" against the other, which is unarmed, persecuted, imprisoned, or shot.

"Innocence" is called upon to justify their criminal actions, according to Camus, but in the name of what value, principle, or norm? The monkeys in the fight know only the law of the strongest. In this atmosphere, there are no prospects for solving the problem of violence, before which we are often perplexed and, seemingly, without justification. If we operate solely within the realm of humans, and humans are the most evolved of the apes, what else should we expect?

Arturo Uslar Pietri, referring to the same authors whose works A. Jurado reviewed, seems to accept the idea that there are not two psychologies: one animal and one human. He completely disregards the rational psychology of man, focusing all attention on physiological-experimental psychology. Leyhausen and Konrad supposedly discovered a new science called ethology, which could save us. Educational systems, according to the Venezuelan writer, have been lost in the "ideological fog." We must return to the "powerful animal heritage that lives within us. Perhaps a good part of our civilization's failures stems from this abandonment of our animal roots, and it is the ethologists, examining fish, cats, and birds, who will show us the way back to the imperturbable order of nature, which we have so proudly forgotten."

It has been said, for a very long time, that the ideal should be: homologumenos te fiset zen, to live in accordance with nature. But what is human nature? Reducing it exclusively to the level of cats, dogs, monkeys, and birds—with apologies to the renowned Venezuelan publicist—what else do materialist-communist regimes believe and do in their "education"? They believe they can, through action "ab extra," create mechanisms that will mitigate the laws of nature, especially animalistic ones, where the law of the strongest or violence prevails, and they install more comprehensive political systems of torture. Adecuare naturam, says another astute observer today, is the most salient characteristic of dictators, incompatible with the liberal ideals that Mr. Uslar Pietri also seems to defend. (See: "La Prensa" of October 9 of this year, p. 4: A. Uslar Pietri: There is an animal inside).

Spain at the crossroads at the end of November 1936 as seen by a Croatian observer

Prvislav Weissenberger

Prologue

In his study, *The Historical Literature of the Spanish Civil War*, Professor Vicente Palacio Atard highlights the inexhaustible body of literature on the subject and, when posing the question, "Why is the topic of interest today?", explains the corresponding interest it has aroused even abroad:

"Among foreign readers, one could also identify a series of nuances in the motivations that draw them to the subject of our war, nuances that vary according to age, of course; but I believe that a common denominator can be found, general to all of them, whatever their emotional disposition, their sympathy or repulsion for one or the other of the warring sides, or for the very fact of war. This common denominator would be the surprise or astonishment they feel at the persistence of one of the few regimes of authority, prior to the Second World War, that still exist in the world today.

"These readers, at least the most intelligent and disinterested among them, wish to understand, without preconceived notions, what the reasons were that made a Spanish civil war possible and its outcome, what was the true meaning of the conflict within the perspectives of Spanish history and the coordinates of universal history" [7].

Since there are relatively few writings that deal with the Spanish Civil War as seen by observers from southeastern Europe, I hope that the report I submitted 38 years ago, in my capacity as attaché to the Legation of Yugoslavia in Madrid, to Dr. Milan Stojadinovic, President of the Government and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia from June 1935 to February 1939, may be of interest to the readers of the specialized journal Studia Croatica. I also believe it appropriate to supplement the report with some additional information regarding the relations between Spain and Yugoslavia-Croatia. In his extensive autobiographical work, Yugoslavia Between the Two Wars ("Ni rat ni pakt - Jugoslavija izmedju dva rata," Buenos Aires, 1963, Edic. "El Economista," 762 pp.; in Serbian), Dr. Milan M. Stojadinovic refers to Spain on several occasions. His ministerial activity It unfolded during a period when Spain assumed a major role on the international stage.

The fervor of Spanish social and economic forces culminated in the formation of the Popular Front and its victory in the parliamentary elections of February 16, 1936 [8].

General Duval (Les leçons de la Guerre d'Espagne. Préface du Général Weigand, de l'Academie Française, VI, Paris, Librairie Plom, 1938) also highlights the role of the President of the Spanish Republic, who, for his part, contributed to the unexpected triumph of the left: "The 7th Congress decided on the constitution of the Popular Front and halted its program. Mr. Alcalá Zamora, President of the Republic, did the rest. He thought nothing of sweeping Gil Robles and the right-wing parties away." On December 31, 1936, he appealed to the Portela Valladares government, and eight days later, on January 7, he announced the dissolution of the Cortes." Op. cit., pp. 36-37.

The subsequent development of events in Spain was the subject of much speculation in the foreign ministries, so it is rather strange that Stojadinovic did not mention Spain until October 30, 1936, in the midst of the civil war. Is this regrettable omission pure coincidence?

A professional economist, Stojadinovic knew very well the economic relations between Yugoslavia and Spain, which still have a political background, because thanks to the first trade treaty between both countries, concluded in Madrid on September 27, 1929, Yugoslavia obtained "the most favored nation clause" and could finally emancipate itself from the intermediaries - Italy, in the first place - in trade with Spain and establish direct ties with Spanish markets[9]. It is surprising, therefore, that he forgets to mention the fact of having reactivated the Legation of Yugoslavia (suppressed in the years 1932-1935 for financial reasons, as a result of the world economic depression), sending a plenipotentiary minister to Madrid at the time when the war between Italy and Abyssinia arose.

The economic sanctions, applied to Italy by a resolution of the League of Nations in Geneva, required that greater attention be paid to foreign markets, especially in the Mediterranean, to compensate as much as possible for the losses arising from the suppression of exports to Italy. Thus, at the initiative of Stojadinovic, committed to the matter even for reasons of internal politics, since we must not lose sight of the discontent of the Croats, due to the postponement of which they were victims in both the political and economic fields; In addition, exports to Spain came, for the most part, from the Croatian regions (wood, eggs, cement), trade negotiations were initiated in Madrid, which ended with the signing of the trade agreement of May 15, 1936, setting in it, reciprocally, the import quotas[10] for the years 1936 and 1937 and the payment agreement (clearing).

The magazine Exportación, Madrid, May 1936, publishes the full text of the agreement between Spain and Yugoslavia of May 15, 1936.

Among the writings that deal with Spanish-Yugoslav relations, the following deserve special mention:

1) José Ma. Doussinague y Teixedor: The Yugoslavian market and the possibilities it offers for Spanish exports, Madrid, 1930, Publications of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, 15 pages;

2) Luis García Guijarro, commercial advisor of Spain for the Balkans: Possibilities of the Yugoslav market for some Spanish products, in Exportation, monthly information from the Directorate of Commerce, Madrid, July 1933, No., 61, pages. 2-10, and August No. 62, pp. 7-9 and 20.

Dr. Prvislav Weissenberger: Pred obnovom nasih privrednih odnosa sa Spanijom (On the eve of the renewal of our economic relations with Spain), Belgrade, 1939, 88 pages, and Dr. Prvislav Weissenberger: Nove smjernice spanjolske trgovinske politike (New directions of the commercial policy of Spain) Belgrade, 1940, 44 pages.

Due to my previous activity in Spain (1931-1934), as a representative of the Institute of Foreign Trade of Belgrade and at the request of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Zagreb (Croatia), I was appointed, by decree of 1-VII-1936, attaché of the Legation in Madrid, but due to the military uprising breaking out on July 18, I had to postpone the trip to Madrid for a few weeks, dedicating that time to consultations with commercial and industrial circles interested in relations with Spain, since the new agreement opened promising prospects for promoting commercial exchange[11].

Before leaving for Spain, I had an interview with Stojadinovic in Bled, Slovenia, the summer capital of the Government and the Diplomatic Corps, during which he showed great interest in Spanish affairs, and especially in its economic and social problems.[12]

The Madrid City Council, concerned about the shortage of beef in the city's markets and at court, approached the Yugoslav Legation a few days after the military uprising to negotiate the purchase of live cattle. The City Council was prepared to send a commission to Belgrade immediately to finalize the deal, separate from the commercial agreement. The transport would be by sea, and it was stipulated that payment would be made in cash (in gold) upon delivery of the cattle at the ports of embarkation. News of these negotiations, which were confidential, soon spread, even abroad, through the international press (U.P.), and it was reported that "Spain had bought 5,000 head of cattle from Yugoslavia."[13]

The first shipment consisted of 2,400 head of cattle. The remainder was delivered later that same month, October. The deal was an unprecedented success for Yugoslavia.

With this background to Spanish-Yugoslav relations in 1936, we approach the moment when Stojadinovic, in his memoirs, which have an apologetic tone, addresses Spanish affairs for the first time in the context of his foreign policy, on the occasion of his official visit to Ankara.

Turkey was part of the Balkan Pact, along with Yugoslavia, Greece, and Romania. This regional pact was one of the pillars of the policy of regional integration in southeastern Europe. All members of the Pact had extensive maritime zones and, therefore, an interest in the balance of opposing forces in the Mediterranean. The events in Spain, intertwined with international problems since July 18, could have direct and indirect repercussions within the Balkan Pact itself.

After meeting with the President of the Republic, the legendary Kemal Atatürk, Stojadinović held talks with his counterparts: the Prime Minister, İsmet İnöni, and Ruzdi Aras, Turkey's Minister of Foreign Affairs. Stojadinović managed to save notes from the meeting held on October 30, 1936, while in exile. He included these notes in his memoirs "without any alteration, as a historical document," offering an overview of international politics, with particular attention to the two Balkan countries, in which Spain, after Italy, figured among the most pressing issues at the time.

Here is the translation of the relevant text (op. cit., pp. 426-427):

Dr. Stojadinovic: There is now the question of recognizing General Franco's government and our relations with the Republican government in Madrid. When a vacancy arises in the post of the current Spanish minister in Belgrade[14] or Ankara, what should we do? Receive the new minister or not?

Dr. R. Aras: England has granted its approval for the new ambassador of the legitimate (Republican) government in Madrid. We could proceed in the same way, and then, when we have decided to recognize the new government (of General Franco), that could then be of greater importance.

Ismet Inöni: The Spanish question may divide the great powers into two camps, but we must not enter into such a dispute. We have no interest in either side.

Dr. M. Stojadinovic: I would like to inform you that the problem of the new minister is already present for the government of Yugoslavia, since the government in Madrid requested its approval. This is a former museum director named Carlos Montilla.* Meanwhile, according to gossip, he is the director of those things stolen from the castles and properties of monarchists and wealthy people. In any case, in Belgrade we are not prepared to continue maintaining completely normal relations with the government in Madrid as if, of course, General Franco's national movement did not exist. Therefore, it might be appropriate to accept the proposed person for the time being not as a new minister plenipotentiary but as chargé d'affaires. This way, we could avoid the unpleasant situation of granting agreement.

Ismet Inöni: I agree with the proposal.

Dr. M. Stojadinovic: We also need to determine our stance in the event that Franco enters Madrid with his army.

Ismet Inöni, Dr. R. Aras, and Dr. M. Stojadinovic agree that in such a case, normal relations must be established immediately with the new government, as the sole de facto government, and de jure recognition should be postponed.

Dr. R. Aras: Regarding de jure recognition, it is possible that England will recognize the new government shortly thereafter, as it is not militarily prepared. Furthermore, it is under the influence of its ally, Portugal. As for France, it is still unknown how it will proceed. The Soviet Union will oppose recognition. For us, it would be best to act quickly; to follow France and England, maintaining a neutral stance in the conflict between the two factions in Spain.

Ismet Inöni: The most important thing for us is that we do not expose ourselves to the clash between the two great powers, one left-wing and the other right-wing, and that we do not reach the point of having to declare ourselves in favor of one or the other.

Four weeks later, at the end of November 1936, upon my return from Madrid, I submitted the following report on the situation in Spain, the conclusion of which, in essence, met the expectations of the Belgrade Foreign Ministry. Public opinion in the country, however, was divided. In Belgrade and the eastern regions, for the most part they leaned in favor of the Popular Front[15].

The report assumed prior knowledge of some of the points covered; therefore, now, after 38 years, I think it appropriate to provide some bibliographic information and references to later texts that corroborate, correct, or supplement the points made at a crucial moment in Spain's tragic history.

Here is the text of the report:

The current Spanish Civil War is presented both in Spain and abroad as a struggle between "democracy" and "fascism." Supporters of the Popular Front—the legitimate government in Madrid (now in Valencia)—label the "insurgents" "fascists" and fight for the victory of democracy in Spain and the world. Conversely, the "insurgents" call themselves "nationalists," and the opposing side "reds" and "Marxists"; they proclaim, like the Popular Front, the fight for freedom and a better future for Spain.[16]

At first glance, this seems to be the case, as it is easier to present typical Spanish phenomena in a European context than to delve into the very essence of the events. The Spanish Civil War, initially considered a typically Spanish event with a certain international dimension, unfolds, in the course of subsequent and increasingly larger military operations, seemingly as a struggle between "fascism" and "communism" on Spanish soil and, as such, acquires an eminently international character.

Is this a matter of "democracy" as an incontrovertible fact to which the Spanish constitutional government refers? Some facts regarding Spain's past may be useful in clarifying the question posed. Despite having one of the oldest liberal constitutions, promulgated by the Constituent Cortes of Cádiz in 1812, and being so independent of the Holy Alliance (which could be compared to the current system of authoritarian states) that its active armed intervention, suspended during the absolutist reign of Ferdinand VII, Spain, despite this liberal tradition, was a country where democracy was in its infancy.

Two forces played a decisive role in Spanish public life in the 19th century and, as events demonstrate, even well into the 20th century they have not lost their paramount importance: the army and the Church, two powerful factors that hindered the work of Parliament and, therefore, the possibilities for the realization of democracy.

The army, which should have been the guardian of order, was in Spain simultaneously a source of unrest.

The army, which is, first and foremost, a fundamental factor in any foreign policy, proved in Spain to be one of the most significant factors in domestic politics.

With the army, the liberals, when they deemed it necessary, even waged war against the Church (the Carlist Wars). It was the army itself that later shook the Monarchy (Isabel II) in 1868 and paved the way for the short-lived reign of Amadeo of Savoy. The army played a leading role in the Republic (1873-1874), and the Bourbon restoration (Alfonso XII) was once again its doing.

In recent times, the army defeated the revolutionary workers' movement in 1917 (military juntas were formed from then on, precursors to the military dictatorship in its contemporary form).

The army is largely held responsible for the defeat in Morocco (General Silvestre), as well as for the imposition of General Primo de Rivera's dictatorship to protect those responsible for the failure in Africa.

According to the army (artillery officers), Sánchez Guerra[17], the penultimate president of the Council of Ministers (1922) during the parliamentary monarchy, attempted an uprising against Primo de Rivera's regime. Republican and socialist elements also prepared a revolution in December 1930, in collusion with the army (Commander Ramón Franco)[18].

Proclamation of the Republic, April 12, 1931

The municipal elections of April 12, 1931, were an event that opened new horizons in the life of Spain. The then head of the Civil Guard, General Sanjurjo, advised King Alfonso XIII to accept the capricious verdict of the Spanish people.[19] The army was not united, and the Civil Guard did not have sufficient power to sustain a civil war.

General Sanjurjo himself rose up in August 1932 against the republican government, which had the support of a majority in the Constituent Cortes. Sentenced to death and pardoned after the amnesty, he prepared for his rehabilitation.[20]

In the 1933 parliamentary elections, the left-wing parties were left in the minority, and thus the republican regime suffered a significant setback. The Radical Republican Party (Lerroux—center), in order to remain in power, adopted a conciliatory and supportive stance toward the right wing (the agrarian reformers and Gil Robles' Popular Action[21]), thereby shaking the foundations of the Constitution.

When Popular Action entered a coalition government with the Radicals in October 1934 (Gil Robles himself would be part of the second Radical government, taking charge of the Ministry of War: from this moment the old movement of military juntas began, operating under the name of the Spanish Military Union), a revolution erupted in Asturias as a reaction against the Lerroux government—and the right wing. It was brutally suppressed by General López Ochoa, with the help of the Foreign Legion. Meanwhile, in Catalonia, General Batet, with a total of 400 soldiers, is confronting the revolution promoted by the Catalan left (Companys, president of the Generalitat of Catalonia).

In the parliamentary elections of February 16, 1936, the left, united in the Popular Front, won an absolute majority. Socialists, communists, and anarcho-syndicalists did not participate in the government but supported the Popular Front government, formed by leftists, that is, by bourgeois republican parties. The Popular Front government thus had to defend the "legality" of the procedures that unfolded outside of Parliament. The situation played out in the streets.

Strikes erupted in the cities and anarchy reigned in the villages, where the rural proletariat had no patience to wait for the commission's actions regarding the implementation of agrarian reform. Street battles were commonplace. The assassination of José Calvo Sotelo, a member of Parliament and former minister under the monarchy, the "alleged dictator," was like a warning signal. [22] The right wing withdrew from Parliament.

Immediately afterward, on July 17, the military uprising erupted on the Peninsula in Seville, Burgos, Zaragoza, and Pamplona. The uprising in Barcelona and the eastern maritime regions, with the exception of the Balearic Islands, was suppressed shortly after it began, as was the case in Madrid, Badajoz, and the Cantabrian coast. General Sanjurjo prepared, from Portugal, to assume command of the "nationalists," but perished en route in a plane crash.

How did the movement of the "nationalist" insurgents differ from similar undertakings in Spain's past? As already mentioned, the political history of 19th- and 20th-century Spain is interwoven with "military pronouncements." As the very word "pronouncement" reveals, it was enough to "proclaim" the new state and thereby confront any wavering elements of the opposing side with a fait accompli.[23] From that moment on, a new period of legality and order began. In the current situation, things are not unfolding smoothly, as planned, and therefore a certain lack of security is perceived; however, there is no insecurity regarding the prospects for victory, which lean toward the side of the militarily organized armed forces[24], but rather regarding the potential complications, which would have been insignificant if the "pronouncement" had been achieved through a swift process.

Causes of the Civil War

What factors provoked the uprising? In addition to the economic and social problems, which will be explained below, there was discontent in almost all branches of the army due to the previous policies of the leftists. The army was particularly affected by the pacifist policy pursued by the President of the Republic, Azaña, during his tenure as Minister of War from 1931 to 1933. This pacifist policy also stems from the Republican Constitution itself: Spain renounces war as a means of its state policy. This modern "capitis deminutio" of the army, which, moreover, after the liquidation of the overseas possessions lived off its former glory and greatness, was a hard blow, for the mere fact that the possibility of war disappears from the horizon, does it not pose a problem for the maintenance of morale, discipline and the prospects of any military undertaking?[25]

If one considers the army's role in domestic politics and its somewhat excessive use of the national budget, not to mention the expenditures in the budget for Morocco—which served as a springboard for rapid promotions, decorations, and the allocation of courtesy and representative titles—it is understandable that the military opposed its expropriations through the supposed "pacifist policy" of the leftists. There was also a clear tendency, especially after the Popular Front's victory, toward the formation of republican and workers' militias, which would gradually replace the elements that did not inspire sufficient confidence, elements trained in an outdated, monarchist-conservative spirit.

The "nationalist" movement can, in a certain respect, be compared to the movement of General Primo de Rivera, which was skillfully and successfully prepared by the army in 1923, but under different circumstances. Nor did the Cortes enjoy any prestige in the nation at that time.[26] General Primo de Rivera's government lasted for almost seven years; initially as an authoritarian military regime and later in collaboration with prestigious civilian figures (José Calvo Sotelo, Minister of Finance), even favoring, to some extent, the socialist trade unions (Largo Caballero). Thus, the Primo de Rivera regime—which would probably have remained in power longer had the country's economic situation not worsened—offers further proof that democracy had no roots in the nation.

Rafael Sánchez Guerra, son of the prominent politician José Sánchez G., in his book Dictatorship, Indifference, Republic (Cía. Ibero-Americana de Publicaciones, S.A., Madrid, with a prologue by Niceto Alcalá-Zamora, written in the Modelo Prison of Madrid, in January 1931), p. 81 observes in this regard: "The people, out of hatred for the old politicians—to deny it would be foolish—welcomed the military uprising with sympathy."

Characteristics of Political Parties in Spain

The traditional division of political parties in Spain between liberals (Romanones) and conservatives (Maura), when put into practice, was regularly reflected—before the dictatorship of General Primo de Rivera—in the electoral results, such that the party that received the electoral mandate was assured a majority for the next Cortes. The parties, as such, did not represent an effective political force. At the heart of the parties lies a political factor—political in the pejorative sense of the word—: "Spanish caciquismo" [27]. This factor did not influence the Socialist Party, which gradually extended its scope of action according to the course of economic development and the awakening of class consciousness among the workers of the city and the countryside, grouped in the socialist unions (General Union of Workers: U.G.T.), establishing itself as a positive value in Spanish political life.

For this typically Spanish phenomenon—"caciquismo"—we lack, as we do for the term "pronunciamiento," an adequate translation, but it roughly corresponds to the power of the provincial bourgeoisie—merchants, industrialists, landowners, most of them also usurers—who profited from their power in elections thanks to the actions of professional politicians residing in Madrid.[28] "Caciquismo" was strongly attacked during the dictatorship, given the absence of Parliament. The regime's authority at that time was not as flexible as before and inevitably clashed frequently with "caciquismo," which, when given its first opportunity in April 1931, voted against the dictatorship (monarchy), but by no means out of devotion to republican principles.[29] This same "caciquismo" (local political bossism) was threatened by the experiments of the early Republic and voted for the center and right (monarchy) in the November 1933 elections. "Caciquismo" played a significant role in the left's victory in February 1936, since in towns under the control of these bosses, it was not uncommon for voting to be delayed, foregoing the second round in contested circumstances.

Continuing on the same topic, he notes (op. cit., p. 183): "The owner of a plot of land or a factory who boastfully exclaims, 'I pay so many wages and I get so many votes,' is unworthy of living in a free country. He has the spirit of a slave trader and should be expelled from Spain. To prevent vote-buying, we return to the same point: the cacique must be persecuted with true ferocity. The cacique is always to blame for everything."

Results of the February 16, 1936 elections

The electoral government of Portela Valladares was expected to occupy the center ground in the new Parliament—in its role as the representative of the head of state, Alcalá Zamora—[30] striving to regulate domestic policy. However, it had suffered a complete defeat and lacked the patience to even await the results of the supplementary elections in some electoral districts. Thus, on the very day the results were announced, it handed over the government in Catalonia to the left.

[30] Because of a rather pronounced leftward shift in the electoral atmosphere—under the banner of amnesty for the victims of the October 1934 revolution and the backlash against the right wing, which was poised to win an absolute majority, still engaged in open conflict with the President of the Republic himself—[31] a phenomenon almost common in Spain also emerged: the local political bosses (caciques) shifted their support at the last minute to the candidates who promised to win a majority, hoping to later capitalize on this stance. This explains why the Republican Left (81) and the Republican Union (36) gained 50-60 seats at the expense of the Radical Party, which in the last elections was reduced to just 8 seats out of the 107 it held in 1933. The rise of the socialists was due to the same reasons.

The first, approximately exact, results of the February 16, 1936 elections, published in "La Vanguardia" of Barcelona on February 19, awarded, out of a total of 461 seats, 240 to the left, 45 to the center, and 176 to the right. Comparing the final results of the 1936 parliamentary elections with those of 1931 and 1933, respectively, we obtain the following table:

Diputados:	1931	1933	1936
Izquierda	291	104	267
Centro	136	173	64
Derecha	42	194	143

In support of the prominent role of caciquismo (local political bossism) in Spanish politics, one can cite the statements of several prominent politicians, made on the eve of the election, from which it can be deduced that their predictions did not even come close to being fulfilled. Thus, the Count of Romanones, one of the oldest (75) and most experienced politicians, expected the right wing to obtain an absolute majority, which would open new horizons for Spanish politics. He was probably referring to the civilian dictatorship of Gil Robles, with the support of the army.[32] The Count of Romanones acknowledged the value of the Socialist Party, but considered that, confronted with the Catholic and conservative traditions and spirit of the right wing, it was not powerful enough to decide the fate of Spain.

The President of the Council of Ministers, Portela Valladares, had no doubt whatsoever that the (center) government would obtain at least slightly more than 90 seats.[33]

Similarly, the editorial in "Le Temps" of Paris, dated February 12, emphasizes that it is difficult to predict which side has a greater probability of victory.

Largo Caballero, leader of the Socialist Party, declared to members of the press on February 14 that the balance of power would remain roughly the same, with some modifications regarding the Radical Party, which would largely be replaced by the centrist faction of Portela Valladares, while the smaller groups (the agrarian groups, the independents around Maura, Melquíades, Álvarez, etc.) would suffer a major setback, at the expense of which the Socialists and the right wing, led by Gil Robles, would gain ground.

Only Besteiro, one of the leading ideologues of the Socialist Party, who, due to his illness, was not in contact with the electorate, as if he had foreseen current events, considered that the February 16 elections did not address the question of Spain's political stability. According to him, new difficulties would arise, both from within and without. "War is at the doorstep, and that is a tremendous problem for all the peoples of Europe," he declared. However, regarding the balance of power in the future Parliament, Besteiro believed that the left would be strengthened, although not to such an extent, since the majority, as a whole, would be on the center-right side. Therefore, the results of the February elections, invoked by the Popular Front government, although won from the opposition,[34] do not reflect the true sentiment and strength of the people. Because of the factors highlighted, it can honestly be asserted that Spanish democracy is more of a fiction.[35]

The Popular Front Government

Below is a synoptic table of the Popular Front parties, those that emerged victorious from the elections for the Cortes on February 16, 1936:

Partidos republicanos de izquierda	Número de escaños obtenidos
Unión Republicana	36
Izquierda Republicana	81
Izquierda Republicana de Cataluña	20
Federalistas	2
Acción Republicana de Cataluña	5
Partido Republicano Nacionalista de Cataluña	2
Unión de Colonos (Rebassaires) de Cataluña	2
Izquierda Valenciana	1
Galleguistas (Federalistas de Galicia)	3
Agrarios de izquierda	1
Independientes de izquierda	7
Total	160

Partidos obreros
Socialistas	88
Comunistas	15
Frente Proletario de Cataluña	1
Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista	1
Sindicalistas (Angel Pestaña)	1
Sindicalistas independientes	1
Total	107

At the time the "nationalist" insurrection broke out, from July 17 to 19, the workers' parties were not represented in the Popular Front government. This can be explained by the fact that within the Socialist Party there were two opposing currents: a moderate one, led by Indalecio Prieto, the current Minister of the Navy and Aviation, and the other, radical, led by Francisco Largo Caballero, now Prime Minister and Minister of War, as well as Secretary General of the socialist trade unions (General Union of Workers). Prieto had the support of most of the veteran socialists and the Party newspaper, "El Socialista." The masses in the provinces were divided. Largo Caballero controlled the evening newspaper "La Claridad" (Madrid) and had the support of most of the socialist youth. It has not been possible to accurately assess the strength of the moderate or radical wing of the Socialist Party within the Cortes itself. However, Prieto's inclination towards a moderate-opportunist policy, that is, active participation in power, was evident. Largo Caballero, however, refused to take part in the government of the Republican parties and, as soon as the bourgeois parties of the Popular Front suffered a defeat, he would demand the government exclusively for the Socialist Party, considering that in such a case there would be no other solution than the dictatorship of the proletariat.[36] In view of this objective, and preparing the ground for the future dictatorship of the proletariat, his efforts were directed towards the formation of a united proletarian front.

Within the ranks of the proletariat, after the elections of February 1936, there was always little discipline. The repeated strikes and street riots, instigated by extremist elements, created an increasingly difficult situation for the Popular Front government. On the one hand, it could not tolerate such widespread actions outside the law, and on the other, it could not violently confront the masses of voters whose trust had brought it to power.

The anarcho-syndicalists—belonging to the National Confederation of Labor (CNT)—who were otherwise apolitical, were the ones who, in the last elections, voted for the Popular Front, contributing to its victory in contested districts such as Cádiz, Zaragoza, Huesca, and others.

They took advantage of the discord between the Socialist Party and the socialist unions (UGT), seized the initiative, and incited several workers' unions to provoke conflicts of all kinds. In making exaggerated demands, they rivaled the supporters of socialist trade unions. Generally, the anarcho-syndicalists agitated more radically and strove to gain new followers with exorbitant and unrealistic promises.

Both trade union organizations, however, agreed on demanding the dismissal of workers who did not belong to one or the other. The mobilization of labor conflicts systematically shifted from the cities to the countryside. An example of this was the demand for a daily wage of approximately 12 pesetas (60 dinars in Yugoslavia at the time) for agricultural workers, and this at a time of poor harvest prospects.

The construction workers demanded a salary that ranged between 14 and 16 pesetas; Work was limited to 36 hours per week and the worker had to be granted a three-week paid vacation per year. In the merchant navy, a branch of the economy that is exposed to international competition, and in which the tremendous repercussions of the world economic depression were still being felt, the government, at the request of the navy, presented absolutely unacceptable conditions to the employers, with the result that the shipowners declared that they would be forced to dismantle the ships if the Government insisted that the respective demands be accepted.

When the Government realized that the objections raised by the shipowners were valid, it decided to bring together the representatives of the shipowners and the crew in a joint conference, in which the problem would be exhaustively discussed. However, on the eve of the uprising, many ships were moored in ports, especially those of free navigation, since the crew also did not want to go to work until the crew members who did not belong to the large unions (U.G.T. or C.N.Y.) were disembarked.

A difficult situation also reigned in railway transport, especially in a few companies that worked with a deficit or state subsidy. An increase in tariffs, in a time of general economic depression, could not be a successful measure to achieve greater income. The Popular Front government also had many difficulties in this regard, given the demands of the workers and employees, who asked for greater remuneration.

Thus, for example, by rejecting the request of the employees of the Compañía Central de Aragón, the Government justified said resolution by highlighting that, if workers and employees of other railway transport companies that were in a worse situation raised similar demands, this would involve an increase in expenses of more than 200 million pesetas per year (1,000 million dinars). Against the exaggerated demands of some unions belonging to the General Union of Workers, "El Socialista", a newspaper addicted to Prieto, reacted in the most decisive way, highlighting the inconvenience of the requests and the danger to the fate of the Popular Front government itself.

Prieto was one of the members of the Popular Front who supported the idea of a coalition government between left-wing Republicans and socialists, which, in practice, would represent a dictatorship against the right and the extremist elements of the left. With correct vision, since subsequent events did not disprove it, Prieto started from the assumption that a coup d'état had to be prevented, which was attributed to the preparations of the "fascists" (rightists) in connivance with the dissatisfied military circles.

There was an attempt to modify the Regulations in the Cortes in such a way that the Government could actually work without Parliament, but such an initiative collided with the opposition of Largo Caballero; Nor did the Constitution offer facilities for an adequate reform. The only way to achieve that purpose was a special authorization from the Cortes so that the government could carry out its efforts without the control of Parliament. But the government could not become strong because of the opposition of Largo Caballero and, also, due to the danger that the Popular Front would crumble due to such opposition.

Anticipating that the majority of the Socialist Party would oppose Prieto's opportunism, Largo Caballero demanded the convening of the Party Congress. Prieto, however, managed to get the executive council—the Party's central body—to postpone the congress until the autumn in order to avoid the vote; by doing so, he managed to maintain his personal prestige and, consequently, thwart the socialists' chances of collaborating with the Popular Front government. Meanwhile, Largo Caballero was determined that the Party congress be convened immediately in an extraordinary session.

Such was the situation on the eve of the "nationalists'" uprising.

The Formation of the Popular Front's Coalition Government

Neither the socialists nor the communists were represented in the government, and even less so the anarcho-syndicalists. But the rapid advance of the insurgent troops from the South toward the railway line linking Madrid with Portugal—the capture of Badajoz—as well as the movement of the "Nationalists" toward Irún[37] and San Sebastián, with the aim of cutting off communication at the French border and Bilbao—thus preventing supplies by land from France and forcing a detour to connect with the industry of Catalonia and other regions of Spain—worsened the situation for the government in Madrid, which no longer controlled the events unfolding in the streets; it was the era of terror: assassinations, looting, burning of churches and convents, etc.

Thus, at the beginning of September, the Socialists took over the presidency of the Government—Largo Caballero[38] was also Minister of War—and occupied strategic positions: the Ministries of the Interior, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Commerce, and Industry. The left-wing Republicans were left with only three ministries: Justice, which became insignificant; Public Works, in a time of ruin, and with a minister without portfolio, the former president of the Council, probably to maintain the appearance of government continuity. The communists, for their part, received two important ministries: Public Instruction and Agriculture. The trade unionists (CNT), faithful to their apolitical principles, still resisted participating in power.

Why didn't the socialists join the government immediately, that is, at the moment the uprising broke out or even a few days later? They joined the government at the most critical moment, when France had already raised the issue of non-intervention in Spanish internal affairs; thus, all the efforts of the legitimate government in Madrid became futile, since, de facto, the prohibition on supplying arms would only be applied against it, as it was the only party recognized as responsible in the legal proceedings. The newly formed government's decision to resist the "fascist" attack at any cost coincided with the arrival in Spain of the Soviet ambassador, Marcel Rosenberg, accredited to Madrid, with a retinue of 42 people. Rosenberg soon became an advisor to Largo Caballero.[39]

The anarcho-syndicalists proposed the creation of a National Defense Council in which their representatives (National Confederation of Labor) would have the same number of delegates as the socialist unions (General Union of Workers), but this offer was not taken into consideration. Why? If the defense against a common adversary was at stake, why should the CNT's request not be granted, especially since the CNT magnanimously renounced any participation in the government, despite having the most resolute supporters—and being, in terms of membership, roughly on par[40] with the UGT—of the "anti-fascist front"?

The relatively significant participation of the communists in the government—they hold a total of 15 seats in the Cortes, mostly "ad personam," since the number of seats likely does not correspond proportionally to their core supporters—is manifested through the Ministry of Public Instruction, from where Marxist propaganda can be most effectively carried out: theaters are directly under the ministry's control, and cinemas are saturated with Soviet films ("The Sailors of Kronstadt," "Ckapayev," "Battleship Potemkin," etc.); Ambassador Rosenberg attends premieres with the President of the Republic (Azaña); the Internationale is played instead of the national anthem on the radio, at public conferences, and in assemblies; newspapers and propaganda pamphlets are distributed from the State Printing Office, etc., and the Ministry of Agriculture proposes a systematic organization of the rural proletariat.

Meanwhile, the postponement of the anarcho-syndicalists' proposal leaves the impression[41] that the Party's interests are more important than national defense. It is likely that Soviet policy was interested in this plan, if Russia (the USSR) wished to achieve a moral victory amidst the defeat of the legitimate government in Madrid.[42] This could explain why the socialists, at the suggestion of the USSR's diplomatic representative, rejected the anarcho-syndicalists' proposal, since the establishment of the National Defense Council would effectively be a government alongside the constitutional government.

The course of events in Catalonia

In Barcelona (and in other regions of Catalonia) the uprising was suppressed from the outset. The autonomous government (the Generalitat) of the Popular Front was composed of elements of the Catalan Esquerra (left), a party without a long tradition; apolitical elements; anarcho-syndicalists (who had contributed to the victory in the 1931 and 1936 elections); and groups loyal to the Republican Nationalist Party (Estat Català), who attempted to implement a "particularist" policy during the most critical moments. However, they made a fatal error: in the early days of the conflict, they sent the best contingent of the army to suppress and "annex" the Balearic Islands, thus losing a large part of the army on a secondary front.[43] Furthermore, when Largo Caballero's government was formed, troops withdrawing from the Balearic Islands were sent to support Castile, prompting a request for help from Madrid.

[43] When, in early October 1934, Popular Action (Gil Robles' party) joined the government in Catalonia, a revolution erupted in protest against Lerroux's coalition with the right wing ("the gravediggers of the Republic"). Supporters of Estat Català convinced Companys to solemnly proclaim "Independent Catalonia within the Spanish Federation." The anarcho-syndicalists could not be enthusiastic about a policy of "federation" at that time—there was a particularly heated exchange with the opponents of Estat Català, who were pursuing a fascist-leaning policy—since they could gain nothing concrete from it, and they did not come to the aid of the Catalan left.

The government of the Generalitat then surrendered to the army, which obeyed only the orders of Madrid. This time, however, although the anarcho-syndicalists were not concerned about the efforts of the Catalan left to carry out, via facti, the transition from autonomy to the federation of Catalonia (this process took place without anyone objecting to a possible violation of the Constitution), they nevertheless took advantage of the opportunity offered to them to take power into their own hands: through some unions they formed Control Committees, which exercised not only control of the economy[44], but in fact held all the power.

Alongside this regime emerged the Economic Council, in which the anarcho-syndicalists (CNT) also played a decisive role. The government's situation was becoming untenable. Negotiations were underway, and the anarchists—for the first time in history!—entered the government. This step undoubtedly improved the situation of the Popular Front as a responsible government, but only in Catalonia.

The example of Catalonia for the Madrid government

The example of Catalonia served as a model for the Madrid government. Meanwhile, Barcelona completely emancipated itself from Madrid. At the beginning of October, the Basques also obtained autonomy for three provinces: Álava, Gipuzkoa, and Biscay, of which only Biscay remained under the control of the Popular Front. Basque autonomy, however, under these abnormal circumstances—the Madrid government was forced to grant broad freedom to the Catholic Church (the "preliminary draft") even stipulated the freedom for the Basque government to establish relations with the Vatican, similar to Bavaria during the German Reich—and respect for private property—did not represent much, since the aforementioned provinces, and even Navarre as a whole, already enjoyed a certain degree of financial autonomy, which essentially exhausted the autonomist tendency.

The practical consequence of Basque autonomy was that the fighting in the North ceased. The offensive force of the Basques did not put pressure on the positions of the "nationalists," who did not attempt any new action in the North until they had broken Madrid's resistance, as they had already managed to strengthen their positions and restore order to the railway line to the French border (Irun).

Finally, the situation also matured in Madrid. General Franco's troops are approaching, and there is a danger that Madrid will be encircled. Rumors are spreading that the government will abandon Madrid and move to Valencia. The President of the Republic has already left for Barcelona. The anarcho-syndicalists agree to join the government, but demand to be represented on an equal footing with the socialists. Largo Caballero bargains, but finally agrees[45] and, on November 4, grants the anarcho-syndicalists (CNT) four ministries: Justice, Commerce, Industry, and Health (Ms. Montseny).

Offensive on Madrid

Two days later, General Franco's major offensive on Madrid begins. The government retreats to Valencia; in Madrid, the Defense Council is formed, in which all the parties of the Popular Front are represented, under the command of General Miaja. Madrid is surrounded on all sides except the east, through which the advance to Valencia begins. Due to the bombings and fires in the suburbs of Carabanchel, the University City, and the San Bernardo district, Madrid is overflowing with refugees, and the evacuation commissioner, a member of the Junta, works tirelessly to transport the population to the Levante regions.

The defense of Madrid falls primarily to the 5th Volunteer Regiment[46] (specially trained assault groups) and the International Brigade[47] (Captain Renn, author of the acclaimed novel "War and Postwar," commands a battalion). Troops from Catalonia also arrive to help, well-dressed but poorly equipped. The leader of the Catalan militia, Durruti[48], a renowned anarchist, falls victim to a mysterious attack[49] attributed to the "fifth column"[50] (nationalists within Madrid), dealing a severe blow to the Catalan militia. The militia is still resisting, but according to the opinion of foreign military experts (including the US military attaché), it will not be able to do so for much longer, as the fortifications are primitive.

General Franco's troops fought cautiously, and tank attacks in the narrow passes, after the losses of the first few days, were not repeated.[51] This was because it was known that groups of miners from Asturias—"dynamiters"—had arrived and mined all the main access routes to the city, laying mines under the bridge on the road to Toledo (Puente de Toledo), which leads directly to the center of Madrid, the Puerta del Sol. There is a neutral zone in Madrid in the area around the Paseo de la Castellana, where almost all the diplomatic missions are located, but it is likely that future attacks will be directed there, as the area is flat and access is via wide streets, unlike the narrow streets of the University City, where fierce fighting is currently taking place. The "Nationalists" left the field open towards the eastern part of Madrid, in the direction of Vallecas, to facilitate the evacuation of the civilian population and to allow the defenders of Madrid to retreat, since, according to this tactic, this eventually weakens the defenses.[52]

In Madrid, several versions circulated regarding his sudden disappearance; among them, that he was a victim of the internal struggles between anarchists and communists. Koltozov commented on this: "A stray bullet, or perhaps one deliberately aimed, mortally wounded Durruti as he was getting out of his car in front of his headquarters. What a shame, Durruti! Despite his errors and anarchist missteps, he was undoubtedly one of the most brilliant men in Catalonia and in the entire Spanish workers' movement."

The Program of the "Nationalists"

In the first week after the coup, General Franco, already emerging as the future leader of the Nationalist faction, declared:

"The current movement stems from the yearning of all Spaniards who dedicate their love to the homeland and is directed against internal and foreign enemies. The situation in Spain is becoming more acute every day, and anarchy reigns everywhere. The country is threatened by foreign forces. In the very heart of Spain, we hear foreign emissaries predicting the destruction and division of Spanish land. The revolutionary spirit of the people has been inflamed, and this has been exploited with deceit by Soviet agents who wanted to establish that regime at the expense of 25 million souls. I do not wish to defend certain interests, but rather to guarantee citizens a common life like all free men..."

General Mola, for his part, as head of the Nationalist forces in the North (Pamplona), gave the following statement to the correspondent of the "Daily Mail":

"I can tell everyone that the movement that Franco and I lead is not a movement It is not selfish, nor does it aim to gain prestige for its leaders. It is a national movement directed and prepared by Army generals and has the support of the true Spanish people. Its purpose is to eradicate, once and for all, everything that represents Marxist organizations and principles. We wish to establish order and peace on purely Spanish foundations....” From the statements of the leaders of the “movement,” it can be deduced that their program essentially includes: 1) state and national unity, which means that their efforts are directed against the “particularism” of the Catalans and the Basques (and the Galicians), not only in terms of curbing the further structuring of their autonomy, but also in limiting their previous emancipation from Madrid; 2) the establishment of order under an authoritarian regime; in this aspect, the agrarian reform law and the modification of labor legislation are of paramount importance; and 3) religious freedom for the Catholic Church.

At this point in the program, the "nationalists" are allies of the Catholic Church (and the Vatican), and not only as friends in times of misfortune, that is, during the republican regime. The actions against the clergy have shaken, but not destroyed, the foundations of ecclesiastical constitutions, established over centuries. In Spain, where the Church was almost indistinguishable from the State, a clear and rapid delimitation of their respective spheres of influence could not be achieved without clashing with the most solid social unit: the family. When considering the role of the Catholic Church in Spain, one must not lose sight of its prominent activity in education, particularly at the primary and secondary levels. But the Church—like the army, which also intervened in domestic politics—was an adversary of reforms, such as the reorganization of education; it also opposed, as a landowner, the agrarian question, one of the most difficult problems to resolve. This is how the Church and the Army thwarted any serious attempt at democratization in Spain.

The "nationalist" insurgents still undoubtedly enjoy diplomatic support from Vatican circles.

It is also worth noting the mission they entrusted to the former ambassador in London, Merry del Val, brother of the late cardinal, Secretary of State of the Holy See, to initiate talks with England on the basis that the "nationalists" would guarantee respect for the status quo.

Portugal's attitude, which, moreover, went so far as to sever diplomatic relations with the government in Madrid, is clear evidence of an irresolute approach, revealing an open contradiction with the policy of loyalty to England—a policy applied for centuries—had there not been tacit agreement on this point from the government in London.

The legality of the Madrid government is, therefore, an outward form that must be respected, but if new events create a different situation, one must reconcile oneself to fate and look for ways to make the most of the newly created situation. From this perspective, England's policy of non-intervention is understandable: the risk of such a policy is less than that of favoring leftist experiments, from which it could gain more harm than good.[53]

As for the economic and financial aspect, Spain tends toward close collaboration with England and France. Relations with Germany and Italy offer no possibility of compensating for the losses that would occur in its economy if it were to abandon its traditional collaboration in this field with England and France.

Pre-World War II Spanish foreign policy did not lean toward the Triple Alliance. During the war, neutrality was the most natural course of action for Spain. The people's sympathies lay with France, while military circles, as well as the clergy and nobility, made no secret of their preference for the German Reich and Austria-Hungary. Spain was divided, as it is today, into two factions.

The Italian historian Francesco Guicciardini, who in his youth was ambassador to the court of the Catholic Monarchs, in a report from Spain, asked King Ferdinand of Aragon: "How is it possible that a people as warlike as the Spanish have always been conquered, in whole or in part, by Gauls, Romans, Carthaginians, Vandals, and Moors?" To which the king replied: "The nation is quite capable of warfare, but disorderly, so that only he who knows how to keep it united and in order can accomplish great things with it" [54]. This statement also reveals the reason for the success of King Ferdinand, who achieved the unification of Spain by combining the Mediterranean orientation of the Kingdom of Aragon with the continental policy of the Crown of Castile.

The program of the insurgent "nationalist" generals is imbued with the same historical imperative: "Unity and Order." However, will the success of the "nationalists" disrupt the balance of power in the Mediterranean? If they limit themselves to "order and unity" internally—under the assumption that everything will unfold smoothly and without complications regarding Catalonia—[55] is there not a possibility that Spain could become yet another authoritarian regime in Europe? Perhaps the example of neighboring Portugal, in terms of its internal state organization—with the support of Gil Robles, the Spanish Salazar, in Popular Action—is something the "nationalists" will consider worthwhile. The framework of Spain's realist policy also includes the question of the "status quo" [56], and the attitude of military circles toward domestic policy issues justifies the expectation that any eventual changes can be perfectly implemented simply by safeguarding "unity and order," while avoiding undesirable complications in international relations. Economic Conditions in the Territory of the Popular Front

The legitimate government controlled all of Catalonia (the provinces of Barcelona, Girona, Lleida, and Tarragona), the eastern regions (Valencia, Castellón, Alicante, Murcia, and Almería), and parts of Aragon, Castile, Andalusia, Biscay (Bilbao), and Asturias.

The "nationalist" insurgents occupied almost half of the Iberian Peninsula and also controlled Morocco (the Spanish zone), the Balearic Islands (excluding Menorca), and the Canary Islands.

The Popular Front government, for its part, primarily controlled peripheral regions, which exhibited a centrifugal tendency in their political and administrative aspects (Catalonia, the Basque Country), but not economically. These characteristics of the different regions determined their strength of resistance, as well as their future relationship with the rest of Spain.

If the "nationalists" alongside General Franco advocated a policy of Spanish integration and fought to transform into reality the idea that opposed the process of disintegration, accelerated during the leftist republican regime, the economic factor—that is, the fact that the various Spanish regions are economically intertwined—leads in favor of their movement.

Economic characteristics of the different regions:

1) Catalonia: textile and cotton industry; 2) Valencia: orange monoculture (and rice); Almería: winter grapes; Málaga: potatoes and sweet wine; 3) the Castilian highlands: wheat; 4) Asturias: mining; 5) Biscay: blast furnaces.

1) The Spanish cotton industry, which operates for the domestic market under strong tariff protection, and only to a small extent for export, is concentrated in Catalonia, primarily in Barcelona and its province. All the difficulties this industry faces are not yet apparent in these times of deceptive prosperity (inflation!). The population's purchasing power has increased. Soldiers receive 10 pesetas a day and a full meal allowance, while their families receive the corresponding subsidy.

The demands of the war industry absorbed the available workforce. Prices of manufactured goods in stores, controlled by the respective unions, are regulated, which fuels consumption to such an extent that goods that run out cannot be restocked, as raw material reserves are dwindling. Spinning mills have almost ceased operations, while weaving factories have limited production due to the growing shortage of yarn. The reduction in working hours brings with it a decrease in wages or an increase in overhead costs. Considering that over 80% of textile workers belong to anarcho-syndicalist organizations (CNT) and that, faithful to the tactic of direct action to achieve better living conditions, they have thus far refused to participate in the political struggle, the future outlook is quite bleak. Faced with the specter of hunger and unemployment, the anarcho-syndicalists recalled only the relatively high standard of living which, while not achieved through class collaboration, as would be the case in an authoritarian regime, was the result of direct struggle, always mindful of specific interests, within individual companies or groups of companies in the same sector. Thus, this orientation of the anarcho-syndicalists, in its essentially individualistic nature, imprinted a special character on this vigorous social movement in Catalonia.

The left-wing republican government in Catalonia relied—in addition to the unstable, apolitical votes of the anarcho-syndicalists—on the small rural landowners, the former tenant farmers ("rebassaires"), who formed the main support of the Catalan Left (Companys). These landowners were now severely threatened by the demands of the war.[57] The harvest, livestock, and poultry products were being seized for the city and the militia. The government pays in bonds, with which the farmer cannot buy either fertilizers (primarily phosphates, which come from abroad) or feed for livestock and poultry farms (mostly imported corn). The war has ruined the reserves of the rural landowner, who, as is precisely the case with the sharecroppers, after the resolution of the agrarian problem in Catalonia, has nothing more to expect from the class struggle and desires only peace and class collaboration. Therefore, the situation in Catalonia, considered the strongest bastion of resistance to "fascism," is not as rosy as it is often portrayed.

2) Valencia is the richest region in all of Spain. The monoculture of oranges, in addition to rice cultivation, is the main source of income and its most important export product: the strongest item in the trade and payments balance. English capital has a strong interest in this business, as it is customary for the English importer to advance funds to the Spanish exporter, who in turn extends credit to the orchard owners against the upcoming harvest. The fate of the orange season is currently in the hands of a few "local councils" [58], and only a relatively small number of smallholders can sell freely on the market, independent of the "local council." No export business depends as much on private initiative as the orange trade: speculation regarding quality, prospects in foreign markets, fluctuating commodity prices, mode of transport, freight rates, quality labels, and so on.

Until now, large exporters had their own trademarks, which offered sufficient guarantees of quality in international markets, competing freely with products from other countries. Will it now be possible to sell the same merchandise under the same trademarks if the owners are imprisoned, expelled, or their businesses liquidated? Nowhere else have the well-to-do suffered as much persecution as in Valencia. Would countries with capitalist systems, which respect private property, protest against the importation of oranges from Spain? The difficulties faced by ships in Spanish ports, aggravated by high insurance premiums for vessels and cargo, make the already desperate situation in Valencian markets, saturated with oranges, even more difficult. I passed through the Levante region at a time when the harvest was supposed to supply the maximum number of boxes for export, at the beginning of the season, when prices usually reach their highest levels under normal circumstances. I have the impression that the orange problem is one of the major factors that could contribute to ending the war as soon as possible. Everyone is aware that the matter is of vital importance, since the war would have to end quickly if the orange harvest were to become a source of capital. The same argument, although on a smaller scale, applies to the winter grapes of Almería, the raisins and sweet wine of Málaga, etc.

3) In the high plateau of Castile, the region mainly dedicated to wheat production, there is a shortage of fertilizers (phosphates); livestock has suffered significant damage due to requisitions, as has the last wheat harvest, which was below average.

4) and 5) Mining operations in Asturias have partially ceased, as iron ore is no longer being exported to Germany, and ships are threatened by the Nationalist navy. Meanwhile, in Biscay, the blast furnaces have been partially shut down due to a lack of imported coke.

These events are of great importance at present, as they provoke a feeling of pusillanimity among the broadest segments of the working population. It is my impression that this mood in the regions under the control of the Republican government could be compared to the situation in Italy on the eve of Mussolini's rise to power, when the socialists in Italy effectively held power but were nonetheless impotent, unable to carry it to its ultimate conclusion—that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Just as Italy was dependent, albeit on a larger scale, on the international economy (importing coal, iron ore, timber, wheat, cotton, etc.), so too was the part of Spain under the Popular Front government economically dependent, on the one hand, on other regions and, on the other, oriented toward the international market to safeguard its export and import interests.

Conclusion

Given the aforementioned events, a shift can be expected among the apolitical elements, the anarcho-syndicalists, who represent the majority of the working class in the territory under the control of the legal government. Their return to their old tactics, after their brief collaboration in the political arena within the "proletarian front," may be the only path to an agreement with the "nationalists."

The repeated and systematic emphasis on the international factor—the incident involving the sinking of the warship "Cervantes," the notes to the League of Nations, to England, etc.—supports this prediction. Now in retreat, the narrative must be created—surprisingly, it is being promoted by the Government itself!—that the Popular Front—essentially, the "proletarian front"—was not defeated by the Spanish "nationalist" elements, but by the abundant and active support of the "fascist states." Future events may well confirm this relatively optimistic prediction regarding the end of the fighting in the Spanish Civil War.[59]

Julio Alvarez del Vayo, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Spanish Republic, in his work *The War Began in Spain* (Spanish version; Seneca Publishing House, Mexico, 1940, 366 pages), written at the beginning of World War II, blames the failure of the Republican government almost exclusively on foreign intervention (p. 9): "If the armed intervention of Germany and Italy in Spain had not been tolerated, Austria would probably not have been annexed, nor Czechoslovakia invaded, nor Poland attacked."

Consistent with his pro-democracy stance throughout his time in Spain, Mr. Bowers (a historian by profession and a close friend of F. D. Roosevelt!) places particular emphasis at the end of his work on the following points:

"1) That after the initial days of considerable confusion, it became clear that this was a war waged by the fascists and the Axis powers against the democratic institutions of Spain.

2) That the Spanish Civil War was the beginning of a meticulously planned scheme for the extermination of democracy in Europe and the start of a world war.

3) That the Non-Intervention Committee was a shameful and cynically unworthy deception, and that Germany and Italy were constantly sending soldiers, aircraft, tanks, artillery, and ammunition to Spain, without any real interference or protest from the signatories of the pact." Op. cit., p. 423 ff.

The English publicist Burnett Bolton, who lived in Spain during the Second Republic and later dedicated several years to intense and meticulous research on his work, points out (op. cit., p. 171 ff.) that "Moscow remained convinced that England and France would change their policy of neutrality, and to that end instructed the Spanish communists and the communist-dominated government of Negrín (Largo Caballero's successor) to continue the struggle in the hope that the latent antagonisms between the Western powers would finally provoke a conflict."

The German historian, Hellmuth Guenther Dahms, in his "arduous undertaking" of presenting The Spanish War of 1936 (Ediciones Rialp, S.A., Madrid, 1966, 443 pages; includes extensive bibliography, pp. 405-427, photographs, and maps), in an objective and impartial manner, having found useful "publications of minutes, discoveries of documents, and investigations carried out in the United States of America, France, Portugal, Italy, and Germany, as well as photographs of archived sources in the Soviet-occupied part of Germany" (p. 8), at the end of his book reaches the following conclusion (p. 404):

"If both sides in the Spanish Civil War had fought from the outset solely with their own forces, the tragic conflict would have been resolved quickly—probably by the end of 1936—and it might even have been possible to reach an agreement, something that by 1939 was practically impossible."

"The war was And it remained primarily a matter for the Spanish. Mussolini and Hitler did not secure victory for Franco; rather, each time Franco-Soviet aid tipped the scales in favor of the Republicans, they simply reinforced the Nationalist Army with Legionary troops and war materiel to enable it to regain the offensive. This policy is evident in official documents, although the total volume of aid provided is nowhere recorded.

(We publish this report from our contributor without altering or changing his opinions, which are largely confirmed by subsequent events or the assessments of national and international observers. We especially wished to avoid addressing Spain's internal national issues. - SC Editorial Staff)

Spain at the Crossroads in Late November 1936 as Seen by a Croatian Observer - Epilogue

Prvislav Weissenberger

Epilogue

Impact of the Spanish Civil War on the Foreign and Domestic Policies of Yugoslavia and Croatia, Respectively

On April 1, 1939, at the end of the Spanish Civil War, Stojadinovic, President of the Council and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia, no longer held his posts. Seven weeks earlier, on February 4, he had been unexpectedly replaced as President by a Serbian politician from the same governing coalition, Dragisa Cvetkovic, while the Foreign Ministry was taken over by a career diplomat, Alejandro Cincar-Markovic.

From his first statement on Spanish affairs, Stojadinovic, as evidenced by his memoirs,[60] had displayed remarkable activity in the field of international politics; Its domestic policy, however, stagnated, despite the fact that its mission apparently consisted of guiding the internal regime toward normalization, that is, the gradual return to representative democracy in order to end the dictatorial era inaugurated on January 6, 1929, by King Alexander I Karageorgevic (assassinated in Marseille on October 9, 1934). The royal dictatorship had dissolved the National Assembly (Narodna Skupstina) and simultaneously suspended political parties.

The name of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was changed to Yugoslavia, and the use of the respective national flags was prohibited, with the exception of the Serbian flag, which, as a symbol of Serbian preeminence, remained confined within the Serbian Orthodox Church. This Church, moreover, clinging to the medieval Caesaropapist tradition of Byzantine origin, embodied the idea of Greater Serbia under the mantle of Yugoslavia. Later, in 1931, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate were created, but on the basis of a single party and with a few dissenting members who kept the innocuous debate alive in the Assembly.

On the same day that Stojadinovic outlined his foreign policy to his hosts of the Balkan Pact in Ankara, on October 30, 1936, Benito Mussolini declared, in a public speech in Milan, that "the necessary and sufficient moral, political, and economic conditions exist for the relations of real friendship between Italy and Yugoslavia to be placed on a new foundation" (Stojadinovic, op. cit., p. 449 ff.). This thinly veiled invitation to dialogue was followed by efforts to clarify mutual relations, culminating in the Belgrade Pact on March 25, 1937, signed by Stojadinovic and Ciano.[61] On that occasion, at the official banquet held at the Royal Guard Home, Stojadinovic toasted the health and prosperity of the King of Italy and Emperor of Abyssinia, thus anticipating his colleagues in the Little Entente and the Balkan Pact in recognizing Mussolini's empire.

Meanwhile, in late November 1936, Prince Paul of Yugoslavia made contact with the leader of the Coalition Opposition, Dr. Vladimir Macek, president of the Croatian Peasant Party (successor to the charismatic Croatian statesman Esteban Radic, who was assassinated in the National Assembly building in Belgrade on June 20, 1928). Following the instructions of the Prince Regent, Stojadinovic himself met with Macek for the first and last time in January 1937. The talks yielded no practical results, as Macek consistently insisted on fundamental changes to the Constitution of the dictatorial era, advocating for Croatia to have a status of autonomy within the multinational Yugoslav state. This, he argued, was necessary to safeguard the individuality and interests of the Croatian nation, which had been subjected against its will—expressed through all relatively free elections until the establishment of the dictatorship—to Belgrade's centralism in the wake of the First World War and the Vidovdan Constitution. (Saint Vitus, June 28, 1921), approved by a simple majority in the Constituent Assembly[62].

This meeting, which could have potentially changed the fate of Yugoslavia at a time of great international tension, was wasted, amounting to a mere exchange of views. Only a verbal promise remained that the next parliamentary elections (the last ones were held on May 5, 1935) would take place at the end of 1937. The dictatorship offered no guarantee of serious debate in the National Assembly, since the ruling party had already secured two-thirds of the seats in every constituency in the country if it obtained, as was to be expected, more than 50% of the votes cast.[63]

The unilateral revision of the Treaty of Versailles by the government of the Third Reich suggested that other nations, dissatisfied with the peace arrangements around Paris, would eventually assert their claims. Revisionists. Yugoslav foreign policy faced serious problems. Stojadinovic himself aptly pointed this out, stating that Yugoslavia was surrounded by "precuriosities," or "brigama" in Serbian, corresponding to the initial letters of Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, Greece, Albania, Hungary, and Austria—that is, mostly revisionist states, with the exception of Greece and Romania. Given this highly unfavorable geopolitical situation, how could Stojadinovic postpone resolving internal affairs and fail to clean house while simultaneously managing a coherent foreign policy? In the long run, a bitter opposition—perpetually excluded from power—posed serious economic and social problems, in addition to political ones, which would inevitably have disastrous repercussions.

From the standpoint of domestic—and even foreign—politics, it was imperative to consider another important factor: the historical background regarding the nations and nationalities marginalized under the rule of Yugoslavia, since its very founding in 1918. Therefore, resolving the Croatian question was of utmost urgency, and one should not underestimate the fact that Croatia, within its ethnic and historical borders, occupies more than a third of the multinational state, with a fairly developed economy and the enormous potential offered by its location along the Adriatic: tourism, fishing, shipping, shipyards, etc.

Allowing time to pass without taking the necessary steps, and this, note well, at a time when the principle of self-determination—revisionist—of peoples (Austria, Sudetenland, Slovakia, etc.) and broad autonomy (Catalonia-Basque Country) were gaining ground, would have been highly counterproductive; subsequent events provide clear evidence in favor of this thesis.[64] The annexation of Austria—the "Anschluss"—in March 1938 brought the Third Reich to the northern border of Yugoslavia (Slovenia), where the seeds of Nazi propaganda were already being sown.[65] At that time, more than 500,000 prosperous German settlers lived in the Yugoslav part of the Pannonian Plain (Vojvodina), in a land privileged by its lush natural beauty, which attracted the eager gaze of the theorists of the Lebensraum doctrine.[66]

With the problem of the "Eastern March"—the new name for Austria, which dated back to the Carolingian era—successfully resolved, the principle of self-determination was extended to the Sudeten Germans and would soon achieve the desired success, although the crisis that began in Czechoslovakia was just a short distance away from plunging the world into a global conflagration.

The Munich Agreement between the Big Four (the Soviet Union conspicuously absent, as at Versailles), signed at the end of September 1938, was accompanied by the hope that a period of fruitful peace would follow, at least for a generation. Stojadinovic fully shared this optimism regarding the appeasement inaugurated by Munich, to such an extent that he now believed himself to be in an advantageous position to participate in the parliamentary elections and thus consolidate his role as a "Balkan Prussian" and guardian of peace and security in southeastern Europe during the next legislative term. Given his economic and financial background, Stojadinovic's thinking was dominated by economics, to the point of believing that an agreement could easily be reached with the "legitimate Prussians," already firmly established along the country's borders: close economic collaboration with the Third Reich would give a bold boost to the development and diversification of the economy, which until then had been primarily agricultural, thus eliminating previous tensions, which, in his exaggerated optimism, he considered insignificant compared to the major problems of the New Order that loomed for the near and long future.

Given the policy of acquiescence towards the Berlin-Rome Axis powers,[67] it is not surprising that Yugoslavia established normal relations with the Burgos government before the other members of the Balkan Pact (Turkey, Greece, Romania) recognized Nationalist Spain and, certainly, long before France and England normalized their outstanding issues with the Nationalists. On a special mission, Captain (Ret.) Darko Mažuranic, from a distinguished family on the Croatian coast, was sent to Burgos.[68] It is unusual, and Stojadinovic makes no mention of it, that the Burgos government recognized him, just as he makes no reference to the instructions given to the representatives of Yugoslavia on the Non-Intervention Committee in London and to the respective Yugoslav delegates along the Pyrenees border, who were monitoring the implementation of the control measures recommended by the London Committee.[69]

Stojadinovic also neglects to mention the role played by Yugoslav volunteers in support of the Popular Front in Spain, even though their presence often required diplomatic intervention through the legation in Madrid and kept the Foreign Minister in Belgrade very busy due to the violations caused by the Popular Front's supporters and sympathizers. According to the Spanish publicist Antonio Padilla, editor of the magazine Historia y Vida[70] "to defend the Republic, and to learn, come the 1500 Yugoslavs who, personally recruited by Tito and Milovan Djilas, travel on the 'ghost trains' that link Perpignan and Albacete. They are men of trust and solid training, mostly university students who, grouped in the 'Djuro Djakovic' and 'Dimitrov' battalions, show cold blood on the front line" (p. 41).

From the standpoint of domestic—and even foreign—politics, it was imperative to consider another important factor: the historical background regarding the nations and nationalities marginalized under the rule of Yugoslavia, since its very founding in 1918. Therefore, resolving the Croatian question was of utmost urgency, and one should not underestimate the fact that Croatia, within its ethnic and historical borders, occupies more than a third of the multinational state, with a fairly developed economy and the enormous potential offered by its location along the Adriatic: tourism, fishing, shipping, shipyards, etc. Allowing time to pass without taking the necessary steps, and this, note well, at a time when the principle of self-determination—revisionist—of peoples (Austria, Sudetenland, Slovakia, etc.) and broad autonomy (Catalonia-Basque Country) were gaining ground, would have been highly counterproductive; subsequent events provide clear evidence in favor of this thesis.[64] The annexation of Austria—the "Anschluss"—in March 1938 brought the Third Reich to the northern border of Yugoslavia (Slovenia), where the seeds of Nazi propaganda were already being sown.[65] At that time, more than 500,000 prosperous German settlers lived in the Yugoslav part of the Pannonian Plain (Vojvodina), in a land privileged by its lush natural beauty, which attracted the eager gaze of the theorists of the Lebensraum doctrine.[66]

With the problem of the "Eastern March"—the new name for Austria, which dated back to the Carolingian era—successfully resolved, the principle of self-determination was extended to the Sudeten Germans and would soon achieve the desired success, although the crisis that began in Czechoslovakia was just a short distance away from plunging the world into a global conflagration.

The Munich Agreement between the Big Four (the Soviet Union conspicuously absent, as at Versailles), signed at the end of September 1938, was accompanied by the hope that a period of fruitful peace would follow, at least for a generation. Stojadinovic fully shared this optimism regarding the appeasement inaugurated by Munich, to such an extent that he now believed himself to be in an advantageous position to participate in the parliamentary elections and thus consolidate his role as a "Balkan Prussian" and guardian of peace and security in southeastern Europe during the next legislative term. Given his economic and financial background, Stojadinovic's thinking was dominated by economics, to the point of believing that an agreement could easily be reached with the "legitimate Prussians," already firmly established along the country's borders: close economic collaboration with the Third Reich would give a bold boost to the development and diversification of the economy, which until then had been primarily agricultural, thus eliminating previous tensions, which, in his exaggerated optimism, he considered insignificant compared to the major problems of the New Order that loomed for the near and long future.

Given the policy of acquiescence towards the Berlin-Rome Axis powers,[67] it is not surprising that Yugoslavia established normal relations with the Burgos government before the other members of the Balkan Pact (Turkey, Greece, Romania) recognized Nationalist Spain and, certainly, long before France and England normalized their outstanding issues with the Nationalists. On a special mission, Captain (Ret.) Darko Mažuranic, from a distinguished family on the Croatian coast, was sent to Burgos.[68] It is unusual, and Stojadinovic makes no mention of it, that the Burgos government recognized him, just as he makes no reference to the instructions given to the representatives of Yugoslavia on the Non-Intervention Committee in London and to the respective Yugoslav delegates along the Pyrenees border, who were monitoring the implementation of the control measures recommended by the London Committee.[69]

Stojadinovic also neglects to mention the role played by Yugoslav volunteers in support of the Popular Front in Spain, even though their presence often required diplomatic intervention through the legation in Madrid and kept the Foreign Minister in Belgrade very busy due to the violations caused by the Popular Front's supporters and sympathizers. According to the Spanish publicist Antonio Padilla, editor of the magazine Historia y Vida[70] "to defend the Republic, and to learn, come the 1500 Yugoslavs who, personally recruited by Tito and Milovan Djilas, travel on the 'ghost trains' that link Perpignan and Albacete.

They are men of trust and solid training, mostly university students who, grouped in the 'Djuro Djakovic' and 'Dimitrov' battalions, show cold blood on the front line" (p. 41).

To support and justify his own policy regarding Albania, he believed it appropriate, according to his memoirs, to first consult the Yugoslav General Staff on this matter. Given the Serbian Army's annexationist tradition, its tendency toward westward expansion, and its particular focus on access to the sea—the Adriatic and Aegean—the General Staff's viewpoint of "not allowing Italy to enter Albania alone under any circumstances and seeking compensation from it, which, for example, could be in the extreme north of the country (Albania), that is, that Scutari, with the port of San Giovanni di Medua, be awarded to Yugoslavia," is not surprising.

Ciano arrived in Belje by train on January 20, 1939, and the following day (the dates do not coincide in the respective memoirs), in the middle of the dense forest and alone with Stojadinovic, he explained the plan for Albania's participation (op. cit., p. 570). Furthermore, "he enthusiastically told me about the successes of General Franco, who at that very moment was rapidly occupying the last strongholds of the short-lived Spanish Republic. He spoke openly about the number of Italian volunteers in Spain and boasted of their military successes.[75] He complained about the French government, which showed no understanding of Italian demands, particularly regarding the railway in Abyssinia and its access to the Red Sea."

Count Ciano also presented the plan for the partition of Albania to Prince Paul of Yugoslavia[76] during his official visit to Belgrade, where he was received with great honors, including at the headquarters of the Yugoslav Radical Alliance Party.

A few days later, the sessions of the new National Assembly resumed, in which Stojadinovic held a comfortable majority. All pending matters seemed to be proceeding normally when suddenly, on the night of February 3-4, Stojadinovic received, via a messenger from the Ministry of Public Works, Dr. Miha Krek[77], a letter with the following content (op. cit., p. 576):

"Mr. President,

"In today's debate in the National Assembly, and especially in the speech by Mr. Bogoljub Kulundcic, Minister of Education, it has become clear that there are several opinions within the Government regarding our agreement with the Croats.

" "We consider it our duty—guided not only by the desire to fulfill our promise, expressed in the electoral program regarding this matter, but also by other compelling reasons of state—to pave the way and hasten to a solution to this question of reconciliation with the Croats.

Considering that the Government in its current composition represents an obstacle to resolving this important issue, we therefore have the honor, for these reasons, to submit our resignations from the positions we hold in your government.

Please, Mr. President, etc.

Belgrade, February 3, 1939."

The signatures follow: Mehmed Spaho (Bosnian Muslim), Miha Krek (Slovenian), Djafer Kulenovic (Bosnian Muslim), Franc Snoj (Slovenian), Dragisa Cvetkovic (Serbian Radical).

That same morning, Stojadinovic submitted the collective resignation of his government. The Regency immediately accepted the resignation, and Prince Paul entrusted the formation of the new government to Dragisa Cvetkovic, until then Minister of Health and Social Welfare. The defining characteristic of Cvetkovic's government was the absence of prominent Serbian figures and the fact that Bosnian Muslims and Slovenes retained the positions they had held in the previous government.

After lengthy negotiations with Macek, Prime Minister Cvetkovic reached an agreement on August 26, 1939, regarding a rather limited autonomy statute for Croatia, under the historical name Banovina Hrvatska (Banate of Croatia, with its own governor). Macek joined the new government as Vice President, accompanied by four Croatian ministers in the central administration in Belgrade: Finance, Trade and Industry, Postal Services, and a minister without portfolio.

One week after Croatia gained its autonomy, the Second World War broke out.

Returning to the question already posed in the "prologue" (see Studia Croatica, present vol. SC, p. 124), whether it is pure coincidence that Stojadinovic omitted to refer more often to Spanish affairs in his memoirs, despite the fact that events in Spain, for 33 months, had a direct and indirect impact on the foreign and domestic policies of several European countries, including Yugoslavia, it would not be presumptuous to observe that perhaps, in order to minimize the missteps in his domestic policy—intertwined with his foreign policy—Stojadinovic considered it possible to disregard the lesson that the Spanish Civil War undoubtedly offered: to prevent in time the tragic outcome of a situation entangled from the outset and not to allow complacency to make an acceptable, just, and, if possible, lasting solution for coexistence among the communities of a multinational state impossible. Only by taking a firm stance in this regard might it have been possible to prevent the country from being drawn into the war and withdrawing from the Tripartite Pact.

It is true that the Cvetkovic-Macek government was forced to sign the Belvedere Pact in Vienna on March 25, 1941, bowing to the Axis powers' wishes in order to prevent the looming campaign in southeastern Europe from causing further damage.[78]

As a precaution, a week before the signing of the pact, Stojadinovic, who fell from grace shortly afterward and was interned in various places for alleged womanizing [79]—a potential Quisling!—was secretly smuggled out of the country through Yugoslavia's free zone in the port of Thessaloniki and handed over to British custody. He was confined for the duration of the war on the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean, east of Madagascar.

In an act of irresponsible reaction against the recently signed pact, General Simovic, on the night of March 26–27, 1941, abolished the Regency and proclaimed the young King Peter II Karageorgevic of age. Hitler, then the arbiter of Europe, was quick to respond to this challenge from the Serbian military clique: without a prior declaration of war, on the morning of April 6, the Luftwaffe launched a surprise attack on Belgrade, causing panic within the state apparatus, which found itself without any support. In a swift punitive action, Yugoslavia was knocked out of the war in just ten days.[80]

Croatia proclaimed its independence on April 10, 1941, before German troops entered its capital, Zagreb.[81] A few days later, the Independent State of Croatia was recognized by the Third Reich, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Finland, Japan, Manchukuo, and Siam (Thailand). Consular relations were established with Switzerland, and direct contact was made with the Holy See.[82]

The prompt recognition by Spain was followed almost immediately by the establishment of their respective legations in Zagreb and Madrid.[83] Trade talks soon began, culminating in Madrid in early 1942 with the signing of a trade agreement between Spain and Croatia.

When war broke out between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the resistance movement began to organize in various regions of the fragmented Yugoslavia. The movement also spread to the territory of the Independent State of Croatia, exploiting weaknesses in the coastal defense zone and establishing a more or less deep foothold in the Croatian hinterland. Communists participated in this movement—among them veterans of the Spanish Civil War, trained not only in weaponry but also in the imposition of their Marxist-Leninist doctrine—who, with substantial support from the Western Allies, managed, initially as an insignificant minority, to impose their regime at the end of World War II, on May 8, 1945.

How was it possible for a regime of this nature to take hold in Yugoslavia without the objectively necessary conditions for its intervention being met? A former Spanish communist, Valentín González, nicknamed "Campesino"—author of the celebrated book "Life and Death in the USSR," published in several languages—tells us about his experience, which, shortly thereafter, can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the case of Yugoslavia.

"With few exceptions, especially during the first part of the war, how many Spanish politicians and military officers did not welcome the communist agents with open arms and refused to play along? At least I was a committed communist, and my attitude had a certain logic to it; but what logic was there in the attitude adopted by others? Without the understanding and complicity that was almost universal, would it have been possible in the course of a few months for a party as numerically weak as the Communist Party to penetrate—and almost dominate—the entire government apparatus?

"I am not trying to excuse my mistakes, but I would like everyone to confess theirs." If we, the Spanish communists, were guilty of abuses and injustices and established our rules completely, or were on the verge of doing so, it was because the others, with few exceptions, failed to rise to the occasion. The communist parties of the world are strong to the extent that other parties and trade unions are weak and hesitant and play into their hands. That is the lesson of Spain, and today, that is the lesson of Europe and the world. If they understand this lesson, they will be saved. But if they do not understand it, then they will be lost" [84].

In the case of Yugoslavia, we are also faced with an a fortiori argument, namely, the conflict between two civilizations: the Western and the Serbo-Byzantine, with their marked dividing line along the Drina River. The eastern parts suffered the impact of Ottoman Turkish rule for almost five centuries, which in itself—given the general underdevelopment—may explain the difficulty of establishing a Western-style democracy that could seriously resist communism or another totalitarian regime.

The status quo maintained by force in that state formation, a true European anachronism—even disregarding the precarious balance between the two superpowers in the world, which, it seems, supports it—is like Pandora's box, capable of unleashing surprises at any moment. Let us not forget that it was precisely in those regions where the conspiracy against European peace was forged: the fuse lit in Sarajevo, 60 years ago, sparked the first world conflagration.

Pontifical Catholic University, Santiago, Chile

(*) P. W., currently a professor at the Catholic University of Santiago, Chile, is one of the few Croatians of German origin who served in monarchical Yugoslav diplomacy, carefully concealing his true Croatian national sentiments.

The 450th anniversary of Marko Marulic (1450-1524)

The Editorial Staff

The Great Christian Humanist and the Father of Croatian Literature

In the second half of the 15th century, thanks to the fruitful influence of the European Renaissance, especially the Italian Renaissance, Croatia, particularly the cities along its Adriatic coast and the adjacent islands, boasted a considerable number of poets and writers. Split, the capital of the Croatian province of Dalmatia, occupies a prominent place among these cities. It was in this city, nestled at the foot of the Dinaric Mountains that meet the gentle blue of the sea, that the great Christian humanist and father of Croatian literature, Marko Marulic, died exactly 450 years ago.

He was born in Split in 1450, began his studies there, and completed them in Padua. Upon returning to his hometown, a circle of poets and writers formed around his prominent personality, so important that one could even speak of the Split literary school, similar to that of Dubrovnik, another Croatian city-state further south of Split, where two other Croatian poets—Sisko Mencetic (1457–1527) and Dzore Drzic (1461–1501)—lived and wrote at the same time.

In accordance with the custom and intellectual necessity of the era, Marulic began writing in Latin. Only this language provided the vocabulary and other linguistic advantages necessary for a higher intellectual life and for communication with the wider social environment, transcending national boundaries. Marulic's best-known work in Latin is *De institutione bene vivendi*, published in Venice in 1506. It was subsequently reprinted ten times and translated into several languages. Due to its moralistic and didactic nature, it was widely used as a manual for the defense of the Catholic faith during the Counter-Reformation.

The main content of this manual consists of descriptions of the lives of the Church Fathers, urging readers to imitate their example of virtue and sacrifice. To illustrate the renown and prestige this book had attained, it is worth noting that Saint Francis Xavier, when traveling to India as a missionary, took with him only his Breviary and the aforementioned work by Marulic. Furthermore, the following Latin works by our author should be mentioned: Quinquaginta parabolae, Venice, 1510, which was also translated several times into different languages; Evangelistarium, Venice, 1516, a seven-volume work dealing with the theological virtues; De humilitate et gloria Christi, Venice, 1519, and Dialogus de gestis Herculis a Christianis superati, Venice, 1524.

In this series of works, Marulic conveyed his own conception of life, the essence of which is Christian virtue and a profound awareness of the vanity of earthly things.

It wasn't until 1952 that another book by Marulic, in Latin, titled Davidias, was discovered. It was learned, according to the inventory of the books in his private library, written in Marulic's own hand, that this work existed but could not be located. An Italian scholar found it in the National Library of Turin, and it was later published by the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Zagreb (Croatia) in 1954. It is an epic poem in fourteen books in which the author invokes and appeals to the Western and Christian world to come to the aid of Croatia, located on the border between the Christian and Islamic worlds at a time when Islam, supported by the arms of the Turkish empire, mortally threatened that Christian country, which was largely already occupied by the Turks.

Despite the work's dedication to Cardinal Domenico Grimani, it has never been published. The aforementioned cardinal was one of the most illustrious and well-known men in the Christian world at the beginning of the 16th century. Marulic did not know him personally, but it is known that there was mutual respect between the two. Grimani was in direct contact with the most prominent figures of that era, such as Pico della Mirandola, Erasmus of Rotterdam, and others. These personal ties also existed between the cardinal and the Bishop of Split, Andreas Korner, and the Bishop of Šibenik, Johann Stefanic. Nevertheless, Grimani did not grant permission for the publication of "Davidias," presumably because of certain allegories in Marulic's work that were considered quite daring for the time.

Alongside the fame Marulic had achieved in the Christian world of Western Europe as a great moralist, philosopher, and historian, writing his works in excellent classical Latin, he also earned lasting glory in the literary and cultural history of his Croatian people. Indeed, between his Latin works, Marulic also wrote in Croatian.

His book, *Istorija svete udovice Judit u versih hrvatski slozena* (History of the Holy Widow Judith in Croatian Verse), is the first book printed in Croatian (Venice, 1521). After several didactic, moralizing, and humorous works written in the same national language, the religious poem *Istorija od Suzane* (History of Susanna) is particularly noteworthy. In it, Marulic dedicates his poetic talent to the physical and moral beauty of the chaste Susanna, unjustly accused of adultery, adhering to biblical accounts. Biblical inspiration gave Marulic the opportunity to extol the virtue of chastity.

Indeed, among his works in Croatian, The Story of Judith holds first place in importance. Marulic wrote it for the Croatian people, for those who could not read Latin or Italian. Praising the human fortitude of Judith, who killed Holofernes, commander of the Babylonian army, and thus saved her people, Marulic, with the example of this heroic woman, comforted the Croatian people so that, united in spirit, they could resist the aggressor. Croatia was on the verge of succumbing to the overwhelming power of the Ottoman Empire.

Thanks to his superior education and knowledge of classical Latin, Greek, and Italian literature, Marulic gave his people's poetry artistic literary forms, thus deserving to be considered the father of Croatian literature, even though there were popular Croatian poets before his literary and artistic contributions.

Commemorating the 450th anniversary of his death with these brief words, we note that the birth of one of the most beautiful and substantial branches of Croatian culture—its literature—originated within the Western world itself, and its beginning is owed to a man who belonged equally to the West and to his Croatia. The roots of Croatian culture, therefore, spring from Western Croatian soil, receiving from it, over the centuries, the vital essence for its development and flourishing. This fact, of course, is not recent. The 500 years of this artistic and cultural orientation have left their mark on the overall image of the Croatian people and on the destiny of Croatia.

Unfortunately, the Croatian people currently need to read and reread Judith de Marulic, because the communist yoke of Belgrade seems even more dangerous to their survival than the danger of Holofernes to the Israeli people or the danger of so many other commanders of the Turkish armies in Marulic's time.

It falls to the exiled children of present-day Croatia to assume that sorrowful role of Marulic: to invoke the free world for the aid of their people, subjugated by a regime that is perpetrating, in multiple facets, a permanent crime of genocide—economic, cultural, political, and national—against their very existence.

Chilean-Croatian Notes

Lucas Fertilio

These notes are merely a few starting points to outline the schematic panorama of a human experience on Chilean soil. A shared chapter in the history of two nations, Chile and Croatia.

To understand this situation, I traveled—at the request of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the Austral University of Chile in Valdivia—to Punta Arenas, Antofagasta, and Santiago. I consulted several historiographical and literary works and spoke with people who know the ups and downs of this saga, which is simultaneously dramatic, lyrical, and epic. Here is what I painstakingly and quickly compiled: some notes, points of reference, and guidance for understanding a hundred-year adventure between the Andes Mountains and the Chilean Pacific coast.

1. The Precursors - To ensure this story doesn't remain incomplete, we must go back a few centuries and recall bygone times. According to the Croatian historian Ferdo Sisic, the first Croatians arrived in South America with Christopher Columbus. They were expert Dalmatian sailors hired by the Great Captain in Spanish ports. In the 17th century, a solitary figure—a lone bird—Arturo Givovich, a doctor or nurse, arrived on a ship belonging to the great English pirate Francis Drake.

In 1860, two young men appeared in Pacific ports: Juan Franicevic in Iquique and Iván Ivanovic in Antofagasta. Both were Dalmatian islanders. The first from Hvar, the second from Brach. In 1875, Pedro Zambelic, from Boka Kotorska, and the Paravic brothers, from the Croatian Littoral (the Adriatic coast between Rijeka and Nin), were in Punta Arenas. One of the Paravic brothers found three kilos of gold in a stream near Punta Arenas. This stream is named Paravic Stream on all maps. There is also a hill called Katalinic in Magallanes.

From that time until 1939 (the outbreak of World War II), a constant flow of migrants moved from the Adriatic to the Pacific. Until 1918, these Croatian farmers and fishermen arrived with Austrian passports and entered Chile as Austrians, Slavs, Dalmatians, Croats, or Yugoslavs. This concealed their true nationality: Croatian.

2. Where did they come from? From those coasts and islands of the eastern Adriatic that for millennia have been both a cordial meeting place and a bone of contention for great historical passions and wills, from East and West.

Dalmatia! Proto-Balkan history. Stronghold of the Illyrian Kingdom. Roman and Byzantine province. Celtic and Gothic migrations. Cradle and glory of the Kingdom of Croatia in the Middle Ages. Venetian, French, and Austrian rule. Today, part of Croatia, one of the former Yugoslav republics. The richest, most industrialized, and most rebellious. It refuses to be exploited, much less enslaved. This area, popular with European tourists, hosts major international festivals and congresses.

The millennia of Dalmatian history shine brightly in its cities. Cradles of saints, sages, and ordinary men. Split, an imperial metropolis, founded by a Dalmatian, a Roman emperor, son of Jupiter, of the anti-Roman Illyrian race: Diocletian. Dubrovnik, the ancient independent city-state, one of the great glories of European culture. Birthplace of Roger Boskovic, the father of 19th-century physics. Šibenik, the true spark of the Croatian people, founded by one of its kings 900 years ago. Birthplace of Nicolo Tommaseo, who dedicated his life to harmonizing the interests of the South Slavs and the Italians. Zadar, with its ancient churches, a flourishing university city. Kotor, a nest of daring navigators and merchants. I don't want to think about Trogir, which was a Greek colony. It seems enchanted in its palaces and balconies, its churches, bell towers, squares, and fountains. I should say the same about Hvar, Korcula, Rab, and other coastal towns and villages.

Behind them, in the hinterland, rise the high mountains, the Dinaric Alps, the patriarchal way of life, the epic spirit, the warrior element.

Life in the Adriatic archipelago is quite different. Artists, sociologists, and psychologists discover on its islands "a new and original society," a Balkan-Mediterranean, Italian-Croatian symbiosis. A Catholic lifestyle in the truest sense of the word. Sober, steadfast, reasonable, and prudent people, yet spontaneously joyful and warm. Possessing genuine religious and aesthetic sensibility. They have abandoned the national costumes of their mainland ancestors. They dress in the Mediterranean style: black suit, white shirt, red carnation in the buttonhole. The accordion accompanies the songs and dances. But the islanders do not dance folk dances. They dance the Viennese waltz, the Polish polka, and the Italian cuatropassi. How delightful and uplifting it is to see these farmers, artisans, and sailors dancing the French quadrille, conducted in almost fluent French.

Brac is the stronghold of the Dalmatian archipelago. The vast majority of Croatians in Chile come from this island. Its historical tradition is ancient, dating back to the Neolithic period. A dramatic landscape, like something out of a romantic opera: valleys, beaches, vineyards, olive groves. On the high plateau, deep forests of black pine. Brac's Olympus is Vidovagora, a rocky giant that dominates the seas and horizons.

The archipelago's villages are crowned by ancient Baroque churches, architectural gems built by 17th-century Dalmatian-Croatian architects, masons, and laborers. And within these churches lie true works of art. Marble altars, walls draped in heavy brocade, chalices of wrought silver. Gigantic teardrop-shaped lamps hang from the ceiling. And in the fortress-church of Vrbovska, on the island of Hvar, there are paintings by Tintoretto, Titian, and the Palma family. They are the vows of sailors.

These island people, steadfast and austere, have their legitimate ambitions, their lofty yearnings. They want to be more, to live better, to know more, to accomplish things with beauty and joy! But the islands don't offer so much. Land is scarce, and so is water. To realize golden dreams, one must emigrate. One must leave Brač, Hvar, Vis, Šolta, Korčula, and the 300 islands of the archipelago, and the coastline stretching from Bakar to Kotor. Well then, let's go to Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, California, Canada, Australia, South Africa!

Good morning!

3. Chimera of Gold and Saltpeter - "They arrived drawn by the chimera of gold, the glittering wealth of the fabulous America they had vaguely heard about in their childhood. And they received the blow of the harshest disillusionment. It wasn't a matter of bending down and picking up gold on riverbanks and forest edges, but rather of crossing, as in tales of dragons and giants, enchanted gates, pits where venomous snakes seethed, impassable abysses; everything you can imagine in terms of difficulties and sacrifices."

"But what were they thinking about?"

"About the poor, distant family, who had remained gazing at the horizon from a rocky island in the Adriatic."

"Why all this, why the effort, why the sacrifice?" "For something as simple and eternal as life itself: simply, love.

"Punta Arenas prospered thanks to these Austrians, Croatians, Slavs, Dalmatians, and Yugoslavs. Some behind the counter, others in butcher's aprons, others risking their lives hauling in nets in the midst of storms. I admire the greengrocer and the fishmonger who, with their overflowing baskets, called out their wares in broken Spanish. And the butcher, the mechanic, the humble tinsmith, the ranch hand, the shearer, the one who loses his lungs in the meatpacking plants or next to the factory boilers." And there are also the wealthy cattle ranchers..." This is how Nicolás Mihovilovic tells us in his tender and heroic novel "From Afar Forever."

In the North, the chimera of saltpeter took on magical characteristics. It brought fertility to all parts of the world and returned quantities of gold. The Dalmatians (from Brac and Dubrovnik) participated valiantly in this adventure and gained immense riches. But the saltpeter crisis defeated them as well. And they were forced to dedicate themselves to other activities. These are the Baburizza, Sabioncello, Moro Lukinovic, Gazzari, and others. Little by little, the Dalmatians of southern Chile abandoned the search for gold, and those of the north, the search for saltpeter: They realized that Chilean reality was stronger than the legends of the Golden Fleece...

4th Cities and deserts flourished. - Don Claudio Chamorro publishes in his work "Under the Southern Sky" the official report No. 588 of the mission sent by the Ministry of Lands and Colonization. February 7, 1932. The report reads: "After the failed search for gold in Magallanes, our emigrants dedicated themselves to livestock farming, agriculture, and fishing. Under the most difficult conditions, they managed to organize livestock farming and cultivate the land, which until then had been considered uncultivable."

Chamorro adds: "The work of these immigrants has been great and beneficial for the Magallanes region, both economically and socially, as well as morally and civically."

Dr. Leonardo Guzmán, a member of the Chilean Institute of the Academy of Medicine, refers to this human element in his work on Pascual Baburizza, stating: "Among the most passionate episodes in our national history is the Yugoslavian immigration to the desolate Magallanes regions and the arid northern pampas."

Senator Jonás Gómez Gallo also spoke warmly about this human element in the Senate of the Republic. His speech was published in full by "El Mercurio" on January 15, 1964. Francisco Coloane, a Chilean writer who won first prize in the literary competition commemorating the fourth centenary of Santiago, Chile, dedicated a tender and dramatic passage to the "Austrians" in his now-famous work "Cape Horn":

"In the grim Magellanic landscape, a menagerie of thieves, pirates, smugglers, escapees from the Ushuaia prison, and international criminals appeared at that time. But the 'Austrians' were not among them. In reality, this group is repulsed by illegality, dishonesty, violence, and disorder. All the traditions of these people belong to the other spiritual pole. Their workers are sober and tireless. But the most characteristic trait of their character is joy, an indomitable spirit of joy that overcomes the most difficult situations. They like music, the accordion, song, dance, and humor—the joke that creates an atmosphere of joy and friendship. In the Dalmatian islands..." They despise violence; they consider armed struggle a primitive, brutal, and unworthy aspect of humanity.

In his work "Magallanes, Synthesis of Land and People," Don Mateo Martinic Beros recounts the Croatian contribution to the progress of that city: "The Yugoslavs from Dalmatia generously contributed to the development of their new homeland in the form of one hundred modest and anonymous jobs that, in one way or another, contributed to its progress. The Slavic immigrant was thus, initially, an indispensable worker in many arduous tasks: miner, fisherman and sailor, shearer and general laborer, or bricklayer, carpenter, or paver. Later, with the fruits of his labor, he could become an artisan, merchant, industrialist, or rancher, contributing in every case with his fruitful work to creating Magallanes' prosperity. His physical and spiritual qualities allowed him to adapt easily to the land that welcomed him, which he came to love with a deep and exemplary feeling, and to integrate with Chileans and foreigners, beginning a healthy process of racial fusion. His children—undoubtedly the best gift he made to the country—would assume with Over time, they attained leadership and positions of responsibility in all areas of regional life.

Don Claudio Chamorro recounts in his aforementioned work the heroic deeds of the colonizers of the far south of Chile:

"The early years were not easy. Those who settled in the Southern Territory were hardworking men, of fighting spirit, who bravely struggled in fruitful and hard-fought battles to wrest from the land the treasures it held and spread the benefits of civilization. They created grasslands and cultivated special seeds imported from Australia, East Prussia, and the Scandinavian countries, and thus were able to conquer the forming dunes.

"In the laborious and multifaceted lives of these champions of effort and willpower, there are pages of heroism that reflect a past of bloody sacrifices, in which it was necessary to overcome all the difficulties of untamed nature. Without incentives, without means of communication, in open struggle with the unleashed elements, they fix their gaze on the immensity of the ocean, with the gray skies of the far south as their roof. They must have experienced unspeakable sorrows at the memory of their absent homeland."

"In the laborious and multifaceted lives of these champions of effort and willpower, there are pages of heroism that reflect a whole past of bloody sacrifices, in which it was necessary to overcome all the difficulties of untamed nature. Without incentives, without means of communication, in open struggle with the unleashed elements, they fix their gaze on the immensity of the ocean, with the gray skies of the far south as their roof. They must have experienced unspeakable sorrows at the memory of their absent homeland." "Persevering and dynamic, they have traversed the vast southern regions, which have been the stage for their victories.

"In 1892, there were three small houses in the cove of Porvenir. One was occupied by an Austrian, another by a Greek, and the third by the Dalmatian Esteban Covachevich. The Austrian and the Greek left. The Dalmatian remained. His life was full of heroic episodes, struggles, and suffering. During the harsh and long southern winters, the scarcity of supplies made it difficult for those who arrived to settle down—and tested the mettle of their souls."

A special case illustrates Mr. Covachevich's character. In the early years of his settlement in Porvenir, he had to carry on his shoulder, a distance of 27 kilometers, the planks and other tools necessary to begin the search for gold.

"The arrival of 500 Dalmatians led to the laying of the foundation for a new town: Porvenir.

"Mr. Esteban Covachevich was the first to dedicate himself to agriculture there and set an example that cultivating the land should bring positive prosperity. Mr. Covachevich has sown up to 120 hectares of land."

The President of Chile, Mr. Pedro Aguirre Cerda, refers to a donation from Mr. Pascual Baburizza and declares in his speech:

"I have always appreciated the Yugoslavs because I have known them working to build the future of Chile in its most remote areas, that is, where it was necessary to overcome the most difficult and seemingly unforgiving conditions of our territory."

"The Chilean writer González Vera characterizes the Croatians in Chile: "The Yugoslavs who settled in the two extremes of Chile: Antofagasta and Punta Arenas, have integrated seamlessly with the other inhabitants, so much so that they already excel not only in sheep farming, agriculture, commerce, and industry, but also in scientific pursuits, the liberal professions, and artistic creation. There are authors, bishops, politicians, journalists, musicians, sculptors, and poets. They work in everything and in every corner of the country and have given our faces a whiter complexion, rosier cheeks, and often, a more distinguished stature."

"In reality, no one leaves their homeland for pleasure or enjoyment. Only out of necessity, as if driven by destiny. Doña Pepita Turina, a Chilean writer and poet originally from the Croatian coast, tells us this story: "They arrived pure, seeking a change of life, because they wanted to be something else. And also to find riches. And by changing their lives, they changed Chile's, transforming it. Hardworking and honest, they dignified those empty lands, battered by the climate, the solitude, the distance; they populated that physical space with bodies and, consequently, with souls.

"They were anonymous dreamers who took root in a homeland that wasn't their own. They gave it life and movement. They brought change, metamorphosis, energy, activity, and life. They didn't find the gold they sought. Disillusionment was their motivation. My father, from the Croatian coast, built the first houses in Punta Arenas. He wasn't a builder. But each one was what he urgently needed to be." Seventeen years later, I was born on the main avenue of Punta Arenas—which already had a theater, a high school, streets, and shops—in a two-story house that was the last audacious feat of the makeshift builder, and I was wrapped in fine clothes imported from England.”

5. The protagonists—Pascual Baburizza and Dr. Rendic! Both are Dalmatians. Baburizza is from the area around Dubrovnik, Rendic from Brach. They are polar opposites, constantly clashing and attracting each other. Baburizza, the multimillionaire, one of the richest men in Chile. Owner of large commercial and industrial companies, one of the most daring stock market adventurers. Dr. Rendic, a poet, a Franciscan soul, a doctor who treats the poor free of charge and buys their medicine.

A poet said: "They were like the sun and the moon... But it's impossible to know which of the two was the sun and which the moon..."

Alone (Hernán Díaz Arrieta), one of Chile's most esteemed critics and essayists, tells us about Pascual Baburizza: "He began by energetically sweeping an office with a broom. From there, he rose to possess one of the largest fortunes in our country, ceaselessly creating industrial and commercial organizations that employed thousands upon thousands of workers.

His strength lay in his mind and his arms. But what a mind, what arms! The destitute immigrant tirelessly wielded them from his arrival in Chile in 1892 until his death in August 1941. He never stopped working. His activity bordered on vice and obsession."

"His work ethic was immense." "He didn't marry, there was neither wife nor children, he didn't throw parties or travel on grand pleasure boats. Nor did he frequent luxury hotels, where he enjoyed his fortune, flaunting it. Silent, secretive, impenetrable, this Philip II of finance fulfilled his commercial, industrial, nitrate, and agricultural mission like a mystic or a condemned man, mysterious and absorbed. The magic wand that destiny placed in his hands he never used for the fantastic pleasures that occur to others: he had neither a yacht nor a Calas, like Onassis, nor a troupe of dancers like the Marquis of Cuevas. He worked, ate, went back to work, slept, continued working and creating companies without pausing for breath, without questioning the purpose of the world or having doubts about that mechanical drive of a gigantic ant, a laborious elephant. A possessed man who receives orders, who hears voices and obeys. But the secret of this extraordinary chosen personality persists, and one wonders: what was he, who was he, why, and for what did he work?" "So much so, even unto death?" ("El Mercurio", 3-12-67).

Don Julio César Escobar summarizes in "El Mercurio" of August 15, 1968, the vital work of Pascual Baburizza in the following way: "Chilean national gratitude has erected many monuments throughout the territory, but in the case of Pascual Baburizza, a Yugoslavian who made Chile his second homeland, this monument to his memory is a work of renewed value and merit, called the "Pascual Baburizza" Agricultural Institute, located in the Andes and intended for the preparation of young people who wish to perfect themselves and effectively perform agricultural and livestock work."

Don Julio Escobar, a prominent businessman and organizer of the Pacific International Company in the United States, worked for eleven years with Don Pascual Baburizza and describes him thus: "A tireless promoter of livestock, nitrate, and mining activities, in which he achieved accomplishments of such vast importance as his contribution to the financing of the artificial port of Antofagasta. One of his greatest achievements was the purchase of the San Vicente de los Andes estate. This was the origin of the current Pascual Baburizza Agricultural Institute, gifted to Chile for the training of young agricultural technicians. The paintings he donated to the Valparaíso Museum and the current Saltpeter Park, a source of pride for Viña del Mar, are invaluable.

When he realized that he would not emerge victorious from his battle with tuberculosis, Pascual Baburizza expressed his desire to leave his estate to support Chilean agriculture. This wish was fully realized with the founding of the Agricultural Institute located on the estate named in his memory." Don Oscar Fertilio Nikolic, a chemical engineer and fellow countryman of Don Pascual, offered this characterization:

"In my view, Don Pascual Baburizza Soletic was an exceptional, even enigmatic, man. A blend, a harmony, of great intelligence, energy, and sensitivity. He was reserved and prudent, but by no means misanthropic or selfish. He was generous, but not naive. He was open to every reasonable and constructive initiative."

"This man of humble origins, who possessed immense wealth, always remained sober and moderate. He had simple and natural manners, yet always distinguished. He sought the company of simple and educated people. He loved art, especially painting, flowers, parks, children—all beauty that expressed health, strength, joy, and tenderness."

"This man of humble origins, who possessed immense wealth, always remained sober and moderate. He had simple and natural manners, but always distinguished. He sought the company of simple and educated people. He loved art, especially painting, flowers, parks, children—all beauty that expressed health, strength, joy, and tenderness." "When I met Don Pascual, he was already an elderly man and, of course, one of the most powerful millionaires in Chile. I was a young engineer trying to settle into my new country. From the very first moment, Don Pascual treated me amicably, with paternal affection. I never asked him for anything, and he never gave me anything. But throughout the following decades, in difficult times, in struggles and worries, I often felt accompanied by the good and unwavering will of Don Pascual Baburizza."

"It was said at that time that Don Pascual had never read a book, but that he did own one: the Bible in Croatian!"

Ivo Serge is the pseudonym of Dr. Antonio Rendic Ivanovic. We already know him. He is the doctor of the poor in a prosaic world, a Christian in a pagan world. Always among the poor, the needy, the sick, the distressed. Always with a friendly smile and a generous hand. What grace, what happiness to be able to do good without anyone seeing it, without anyone knowing!

"Ivo Serge is the pseudonym of Dr. Antonio Rendic Ivanovic. Always among the poor, the needy, the sick, the distressed. Always with a friendly smile and a generous hand. What grace, what happiness to be able to do good without anyone seeing it, without anyone knowing!" Dr. Rendic's soul is expressed in his tender and passionate lyrics:

To love is not in vain

Never look at the one you lend a hand to. Life is a mystery, and often the harsh winter bursts into roses, and water springs forth in the barren plain. Love, for loving has never been in vain. The mountain kiosk, rough and rugged, offers its naked heart in the flower, and the son-in-law cradles and gives life to the grain. Don't observe the one you help. Hurry to leave, after a gesture or a smile. Don't forget that in every person there is a brother. Love and vibrate and give yourself so that when you leave you have given everything, everything... For truly loving has never been in vain.

Love

Why this eagerness, Lord, to give what is mine without thinking of the present or the future? To love everyone, you see, I am sure. And in the love of others I trust. Why does the river descend from the summit and, running across the plain, gild the fields with its pure waters and give itself to the thirst of the village? Why, simply for having loved, do you bear that wound in your side, and why do you still bleed from your hands and feet? Why, on your lips, sealed by death, does the words "Love one another always as I have loved you" vibrate and grow ever louder?

6. Fermentations - Political fermentations were not long in coming. Croatian immigration to Chile soon divided into two groups: the "Austrians" and the "Slavophiles."

The "Austrians" firmly believed that Croatia's historical destiny was inextricably linked to the Habsburg dynasty and the Danubian peoples. The "Slavophiles" insisted on the opposite. They argued that centuries of bitter and bloody experiences had proven that the Austro-Germans and Hungarians were the most dangerous enemies of the Croatian state and people. The "Slavophiles" sought Croatia's salvation in a "Slavic solution," a rather vague and romantic notion. They dreamed of a Slavic superpower stretching from Vladivostok to the Dalmatian islands, saving tiny Croatia from German, Hungarian, and Italian imperialism.

The "Austrians," otherwise ardent and active opponents of Austro-Hungarian policy in Croatia, warned that Pan-Slavism, and especially Yugoslavism, were dangerous traps and maneuvers whose ultimate goal was the annihilation of Catholic and Western Croatia. The "Austrians," as we have said, fought violently, even with armed uprisings and direct action, against the intolerable Hungarian policy and Austrian indifference in Croatia, but they considered the Danubian Monarchy the lesser of two evils and believed that evolution and historical necessity would soon create the Danubian Confederation, the best solution for the Danubian-Balkan region and for peace in Europe.

These two Croatian political wills also clashed in Chile. It is not enough to say that this was a tempest in a teacup. The origin of the First World War is intimately linked to this political tension.

In extensive and well-documented work, Dr. P. Weissenberger, in "Studia Croatica," Nos. 50-51, described the aspects this tension took in Chile. To better understand it, it is necessary to examine this curious political and cultural chronicle.

The first Croatian society in Punta Arenas was founded in 1896. It was named the Austrian Mutual Aid Society. In 1900, the Slavophiles broke away and founded another society, the Croatian Benevolent Society. Its first member was the Catholic bishop J. J. Strossmayer, an ideologue of the Slavophiles in Croatia. The secretary of the new society, Mr. Jordan, proclaimed in his inaugural address: "More than ever, we must be Croatians and defend the Croatian name." A collection was organized, and the Croatians of Porvenir sent 45.50 pounds sterling to the revolutionaries in Croatia.

In 1899, also in Punta Arenas, the Croatian Reading Room (Hrvatska citaonica) was formed. In 1904, the Croatian Student Society (Hrvatsko tamburasko drustvo) and the Croatian Youth Drama Center were founded. In 1905, the Croatian Home (Hrvatski dom) was founded.

Under the influence of powerful anti-Croatian propaganda, all these societies changed their names in 1923, replacing the word "Croatian" with "Yugoslav." The Croatian Home thus became the Yugoslav Home, and the Dalmatian Fire Brigade became the Yugoslav Fire Brigade.

The same thing happened in Antofagasta. The first Croatian society in this city was called the Slavic Firefighters Society. These firefighters were also a volunteer police force and were responsible for protecting the population. In 1894, the Slavic Mutual Aid Society appeared, displaying the Croatian national colors: red, white, and blue, in horizontal stripes. In 1899, the Fourth Volunteer Fire Company was created, also with a Croatian flag. It soon changed its name to the Croatian Fire Company.

In 1923, it took on another name: Pascual Baburizza Yugoslav Fire Company. At the same time, the "Croatian Falcon" also changed its name, becoming the "Yugoslav Falcon." That year, all Croatian societies in Chile were "Yugoslavized." The main promoter of this action was the merchant Francisco Petrinovic, linked to certain political interests. (See: Leonardo Guzmán C., "The Pascual Baburizza Agricultural Institute," 1967.)

In 1962, Mr. Mateo Martinic Beros, then the mayor of Magallanes, asked me how it was possible that his elderly mother lit candles for the deceased Emperor Franz Joseph and remembered him with affection and piety.

This case seems characteristic, not unusual, to me. Many men and women of the older generation see in Franz Joseph much more than a monarch. They see in him the symbol of a happy world that no longer exists; The symbol of peace, legality, and the relative well-being that this generation had experienced during his reign. They remember that seemingly stable, well-organized society, with a model administration, free from major political and social tensions. The people trusted the authorities and the future. In the Dalmatian islands, only a handful of intellectuals rebelled against the political order.

This vanished "imperial and royal" society, compared to the current world—unstable, convulsed, anguished, threatened by crises and universal destruction—appears in the memories of the older generation as the Promised Land, as Paradise Lost. That is why they light candles for him and remember with affection and piety the elderly Emperor of Austria and King of Croatia. They do this more out of sentimentality than political conviction. This melancholic story was recounted by Franz Werfel in his "Twilight of a World" and by Stefan Zweig in his "World of Yesterday."

7. Achievements - Here are just a few names and events, arbitrarily chosen, to characterize the contribution of Croatians to Chilean culture:

Víctor Jadresic Vargas. Psychiatrist. Professor at the University of Chile, Santiago. Founder of the Psychosomatic Medicine and Social Psychiatry Service. He published numerous works in his specialty. He also taught at the Institute of Aesthetics of the Catholic University. In 1965, he was appointed Chilean ambassador to Poland. Upon his return, he published "Confidences of a Revolution" (1969). Originally from Šibenik, Croatia.

Mimi Marinovic Zlatar. Director of the Department of Psychology of Art at the Catholic University, Santiago. Professor of American Art History and the psychology of artistic experience. She has organized exhibitions of psychopathological art. She published "The Psychological Characteristics of the Plastic Arts and Psychodrama." She has served as Chile's delegate to the United Nations General Assembly. She is currently the president of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Originally from Brač.

Twins Alejandro and Enrique Jadresic Marinovic are the sons of Víctor and Mimi. This year they obtained the highest score on the academic aptitude tests and have been proclaimed model students of Chilean academic youth for 1974.

Prvislav Weissenberger. Jurist, economist, sociologist, and philologist. He studied at the universities of Vienna, Frankfurt, and Paris. Long consular and diplomatic career. Professor at the Catholic University, Santiago. Publications in Spanish: "Divergent Economic and Social Trends of the Two Parts of Germany," 1959; "The Destiny of the Peoples of the Danube Basin," 1965; "Austria-Hungary's Relations with Chile," 1967, and "Solidarity of the Croats of Chile with the National Movement in Croatia," 1972. Dr. Weisenberger has resided in Chile since 1952. Born in Sibenik, Croatia.

Milan Ivelic Kusanovic. Professor of History and Geography and of Art Theory and Criticism at the Catholic University of Chile, Santiago. Publications: "Considerations on History," "Art Criticism," 1968; "Architectural Language," 1969; and "Course in General Aesthetics," 1973. Originally from Brač.

Radoslav Ivelic Kusanovic. Professor of Art Theory at the Catholic University, Santiago. He published several works in his field, including: "The Poet and the Limits of Creation," 1967; "Critical Bases for the Evaluation of the Chilean Novel," 1968, and "Theater and Its Word," 1969.

Amalia Rendic García. Author of highly successful children's stories in Chile and abroad. Works: "Clay Earth," "Bitter Iron," "Children's Stories." Originally from Brac.

Dinka Ilic de Villarroel. A very popular writer and poet. Her poems "Stalactites" and "Lights and Shadows" were especially well-received. Originally from Brac.

Miriam Yutronic. An outstanding figure in Chilean athletics. She broke the record in the discus throw. Awarded in Chile and abroad. "El Mercurio" of Santiago said, "Miriam Yutronic deserves flowers and sympathy." An exemplary mother who did not neglect the practice of her favorite sport to become the most outstanding athlete in Chile. Originally from Brac.

Desenka Vukasovic Vrsalovic has published her poetry through radio in Punta Arenas and the local press. In 1968, she won first prize in the Punta Arenas literary competition. That same year, she received the Silver Flower award for her poetry. In 1971, she won first prize in the Austral Press competition. Her short story "The Salt Lagoon" earned her first prize at the Punta Arenas Winter Carnival. Literary circles in the Magallanes region eagerly await the publication of her stories and poems.

These tender verses are dedicated by Desenka to the Dalmatian-Croatian immigrant in Chile:

They call you an immigrant because you arrived from afar with a song on your lips and a dream in your heart. But I will never see you as an adventurer; for me, you will be a man, nothing more than an immigrant. They call you a foreigner, though the word adventurer would be more fitting... someone who came from afar, with a song on your lips and a dream in your heart... The Vukasovics come from the mainland province of Omis; the Vrsalovics, from the island of Brac.

P.S.: In truth, these notes are insufficient and, in a sense, arbitrary. They contain only a small part of all that should be said. Many facts and many names are missing.

We hope that the planned dictionary, "Who's Who Among Chileans of Croatian Origin?", will answer all the questions that this century-old Chilean-Croatian theme spontaneously raises. 

René Marcic (1919 - 1971) - A Croatian - Austrian scholar

Franjo Nevistic

In the last volumes of Studia Croatica (50-51 and 52-53), we reproduced opinions and cited works by René Marcic. Apparently, this eminent jurist and legal philosopher is not entirely well-known in Argentina and Latin America in general. That is why this time we are dedicating an entire article to him, to introduce him to those interested in this Latin American cultural sphere. This endeavor fits within the aims of Studia Croatica and the Latin American Croatian Institute that sponsors it. Mutual understanding between Croatia and this vast American region is one of these aims.

Indeed, Dr. R. Marcic joins the list of eminent Croatian intellectuals and scholars who, throughout the centuries, have been creating and passing away abroad. A history professor at John Carroll University, Cleveland, in his recent booklet Tragedies and Migrations in Croatian History, referring briefly to this particularity, reproduces an incomplete list of Croatian men forced to live, work, and die far from their homeland.[85] Let us mention the most prominent and important ones, known to specialists: Julius Klovic (Clovio), who died in Italy (1498–1578), "maximus in minimus" or "Michelangelo in miniature," as his contemporaries called him; Anton Dalmatin, a Croatian Protestant writer, who died in Germany in 1579; Juraj Dragisic, theologian and philosopher, archbishop, who died in Rome in 1520; Cardinal Antun Vrancic, who died in Hungary in 1573; Ivan Bona-Bunic, poet, who died in Italy in 1584; José R. Boskovic, mathematician, scientist, philosopher and theologian, one of the greatest scholars of his time, precursor of modern atomic science, a Jesuit who died in Italy in 1787; Pavao Ritter-Vitezovic, writer and ideologue of modern Croatian nationalism, who died in 1713 in Vienna; Vlaho Bukovac, a painter, died in Prague in 1922, and General Svetozar Borojevic, one of the most distinguished generals in the Austrian army during the First World War, died in Vienna in 1919.

To this list, admittedly incomplete, we must add Dr. D. Mandic and Dr. S. Sakac, a Franciscan and a Jesuit, respectively, who died last year, the former in Chicago and the latter in Rome (See S. C. vol. 50-51, pp. 120-131 and pp. 156-58, two articles by M. Blazekovic).

Given the prevailing conditions in Belgrade-occupied Croatia and the large number of its intellectuals working abroad, this list will grow even longer.

Indeed, national tragedies and migrations are often intimately linked. They are like cause and effect. The centuries-long struggles waged by the Croats against the Turks, who besieged Europe for centuries, culminated in the Battle of Krbava in 1493, when the flower of Croatian nobility fell. The successive and progressive conquests of Croatia by the invading Turkish forces, which reached their zenith in the Croatian region in 1593 (Battle of Sisak), led to the first catastrophic migrations of its population.

Without going into detail, we note, along with Professor Prpic, that the Bleiburg tragedy of 1945 (the massacre of Croatian soldiers by Tito's communists after the armistice) is the greatest in all of Croatian history. Its main consequence for the Croatian people was the large and continuous wave of migration that, beginning in 1945, continues to this day. "After the tragic and centuries-long experience," says Prpic, "the case of Croatia can be compared with that of Ireland, Armenia, or Israel, countries that were once enslaved, whose people live in diaspora to this day. While the Irish and Jewish people now live in their liberated lands, the Croats, despite the horrific loss of a large part of their population in 1945, are still not free. The exodus therefore continues. Currently, at least 25% of all Croats live in foreign lands."[86]

René Marcic also suffered this fate. He was born in Vienna on March 13, 1919. His mother was a Viennese woman of German descent. His father, Rudolf Marcic, was an officer in the army of the Dual Monarchy, of Croatian origin. When the monarchy dissolved in 1918, René's father resigned from his military career and returned to Croatia, dedicating himself to painting. The family then lived on the peaceful island of Kalamora, near Dubrovnik, known as the "Athens of Croatia." Rudolf Marcic also refused to enter military service in the new Yugoslav state, formed in 1918, because its army had been, in reality, the instrument of Serbia's occupation of Croatia.

Unfortunately, René's parents separated, and his mother returned to Vienna. In precarious economic circumstances, aided by the Croatian Franciscans in Badija (Brac Island) and those in Siroki Brijeg (Herzegovina), René was able to complete his classically oriented secondary studies as an outstanding student. After graduating from Siroki Brijeg, a Franciscan school called the "Croatian Casino," which was burned down in 1945 by Tito's communists along with nine of its religious members, including some brilliant professors, Marcic studied law and social sciences at the University of Zagreb, the capital of Croatia. In 1942, he received his doctorate in law summa cum laude, meaning with outstanding marks in all subjects.

On the advice of his professors, he pursued further studies in Vienna. In 1944, he was appointed secretary to Dr. Bruno Nardelli, head of the Croatian administration in Dalmatia, which had been liberated from the fascist invaders after the Italian surrender in 1943. At the end of World War II, with the immediate subjugation of Croatia by Belgrade and its communist regime, René Marcic had to leave his father's homeland and, along with hundreds of thousands of other Croatians, embark on an uncertain political exile. Born in Vienna to a German mother, and with a perfect command of German, Marcic easily obtained Austrian citizenship and, in a short time, found work to support himself. In 1945, he enrolled in the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy at Salzburg (the only faculty in the city at that time), dedicating himself to an in-depth study of natural law and existential philosophy.

From 1946 onward, he worked on the editorial staff of "Salzburger Nachrichten." From 1954 to 1959, he was deputy editor of that newspaper and then its editor until 1964. At that time, he left journalism to dedicate himself to academic work. Indeed, alongside his journalistic activity, Marcic tirelessly and diligently pursued legal, philosophical, and economic-analytical studies. He first obtained recognition of his doctorate, earned in Zagreb, from the University of Graz, and then qualified as a lecturer in general theory of the state at the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences in Vienna. From 1960 to 1961, he replaced Professor Eric Voegelin in the chair of political science at the University of Munich. In 1963, he became a full professor of philosophy of law and the Constitution at the newly restored University of Salzburg. In 1964, he qualified to teach constitutional law at the University of Munich, and in 1965, social sciences. In the 1965-66 school year he was dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Salzburg, and was later elected rector of the same.

In 1971, at the invitation of the renowned Australian professor, J. Stone, Marcic collaborated on research related to the sociology of law, delivered several lectures at universities in that country, and participated in seminars organized for that purpose. Returning to Salzburg via the United States, where he had visited his favorite mentor, Hans Kelsen, for the last time, his plane crashed in Belgium on October 2, 1971. He and his wife and devoted collaborator, Blanka, a native of the Croatian capital, perished.

Thus, at the age of 52, a brilliant talent was extinguished, a talent that contributed so much to the legal and social sciences in general, and to Austria in particular, even though his father's homeland should have been the natural recipient of the fruits of his labor and exceptional talent. The tragedy of René Marcic is part of the tragedy of the Croatian people in this century.

René Marcic made his mark wherever he worked. In 1947, he received the distinction of leading journalist for his insightful contribution to the cultural restoration of the province (Land) of Salzburg after the Nazi occupation. In 1964, he received the Karl Rener Award, also for his journalistic work. In 1968, he was awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of the Federal Republic of Germany by the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, Dr. Lübke.

Marcic was a member of the German Society of Masters of Political Science, the International Union for the Philosophy of Law and the State, the International Society for Administrative Sciences, the Scientific Union of Political Science, the Central Research Institute for Fundamental Problems of Science (Salzburg), the International Press Institute, the International Commission of Jurists, and many other Austrian institutions and local commissions.

The list of works by this scholar, who died tragically at the height of his creative powers, is extensive. Among his numerous articles, lectures, dissertations, etc., we will mention here his most important scholarly works: Martin Heidegger and Existential Philosophy, 1949, Bad Ischl; From the Legislative State to the Judicial State, 1957, Vienna; The Crisis of the Idea of the State, 1960, Stuttgart; The Constitution and the Constitutional Court, 1963, Vienna; Man, Law, and the Cosmos, 1965, Vienna; The Constitutional Judiciary and the Pure Doctrine of Law, Vienna, 1966; The Statist in Democracy, Vienna, 1966; Hegel and Legal Thought, Salzburg, 1970; Law, State, Constitution, Vienna, 1970; Philosophy of Law, Freiburg, 1969; and History of the Philosophy of Law, Freiburg, 1971.

What is the scholarly value of Dr. Marcic's work? To render a well-founded and critical judgment in this regard, focusing solely on the text of the works listed above, which comprise more than two thousand pages, would require at least a year of dedicated, continuous, and meticulous study. Furthermore, these texts represent only two-thirds of the total body of work. The issues addressed constitute the essence of the legal, philosophical, and political sciences of our time. These texts are accompanied by a selection of works in Classical Greek, Latin, German, French, Italian, English, Croatian, and Russian, ranging from Aristotle to Hans Kelsen, Alfredo Verdross-Drossberg, and Adolf Merkle—his preferred mentors and distinguished jurists of our century.

Given the primarily informative nature of this article, we will limit ourselves to a few fundamental ideas from his work, which quickly elevated him to the ranks of the most distinguished European jurists.

We can begin by asking: Is there a specific scientific element that characterizes its author? Aside from his enormous erudition, did Marcic leave anything that can be considered a personal scientific contribution to the field of jurisprudence?

So far, we have been unable to obtain authoritative opinions on this matter within the Austrian academic community. Dorothea Mayer-Maly, a collaborator of Marcic and a professor at the University of Salzburg, wrote the following in a brief obituary, referring more to the human qualities of our scholar: "His workday began at six in the morning and often continued until late at night..." Marcic once wrote, possibly to his collaborator: "Make the most of your time. Let everything flow. Investing capital pays off. I've been doing it this way for 25 years now. One way or another. This is the fate of the middle generation. Nothing is given to us for free. I beg you, think of this, because it may all turn out to be too late."[87]

To compensate for the lack of Marcic's scientific insight, we will consider for the moment what he himself indirectly tells us about it. In his acceptance speech to the Consul General of the Federal Republic of Germany for the award of the Grand Cross, Marcic mentions the essential qualities that led the German authorities to honor him. “In what,” Marcic asked on that occasion, “did I contribute my offering that is now being appreciated? You, my esteemed Consul General, have enumerated the reasons for this… I contributed to innovation in law both in Germany and in Europe; I enriched the doctrine and practice of constitutional jurisprudence in the Federal Republic of Germany; I made available the enduring merits of Christianity for the construction of the temple of human rights; with my work ‘From the Legislative State to the Judicial State’… I revealed the work envisioned by the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. The promoter of this distinction, it seems to me, is that high judge of that Republic, who wrote to me some twelve years ago that I had given him a sleepless night: he read my book ‘The Judicial State’ in one sitting and said that he would not have peace of mind until this work found its true recognition in Germany and by Germany.”

While modestly acknowledging that the pomp of this ceremony far outweighs its merits, and limiting it to a more modest scale, Marcic asked: "But what do they consist of? With the establishment and organization of the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, whose powers are more extensive than those of any other court in the world, the Federal Republic of Germany accomplished a task that can be compared to the greatest achievements of the present, even to the leap into space... This task is still somewhat invisible: I once proclaimed it as 'the great German revolution'."

Regarding that for which all the great thinkers fought for a millennium and a half, namely, the realization of the preeminence of law, which would no longer be subject to the will of the State, nor to that of the people or man, an absolute law that is also the absolute measure for the power of any State or any man, this dreamed-of, desired, and longed-for realization of the power of law was achieved by the fathers of the Basic Law of the Federation..." Citing a fragment of the ruling of October 23, 1951, issued by the Karlsruhe Court, which states the following: "The Constitutional Court recognizes the existence of a superpositive law that also binds the legislator and therefore considers itself competent to measure positive law against this law as well." Marcic adds: "Superpositive law is prepositive law, which was not made by human hands, the fundamental norm of Kelsen's doctrine of law, what classical theory of law and the State understood as natural law in the strictest sense."

For the first time in the history of humankind, the bloody right of resistance, of revolution, ceases to be the sole visible sanction of natural law... Only today, exactly a millennium and a half later, does a splendid document, a historical document of the Roman West, become a reality. That Edict which was published in Ravenna on June 11, 1429, by the emperors Theodosius and Valentinianus: 'Digna vox est majestate Regnantis, legibus auctoritate juris nostra pendet auctoritas. Et revera majus Imperio est submitere legibus Principatum'”. Marcic's German translation seems to us a bit lengthy and descriptive, and we could translate it as follows: "The voice is worthy of the majesty of the Ruler when we recognize that our authority depends on the laws of law." Indeed, it is a matter of great importance for the Empire to subject the Government to the laws.”

After his German translation of the Latin text, Marcic adds: “It is, therefore, much better to be under than above the Law.”

Here, in a few words, is the essence of René Marcic’s Opus. But only as an indicative path, pointing out only problems without entering into the vastness of his approach, research, philosophical, historical, political, and legal analysis, nor into his broad, well-argued, and marvelous adherence to the school of natural law.

So as not to leave our readers indebted and to give this article the most complete informational aspect, we must say a few words about Marcic’s origin, evolution, and ultimate aspiration. The starting point and the dynamic force of all the work of the wise Marcic originated in his profoundly humanist sentiments. Homo homini amicus, says his aforementioned collaborator, Mayer-Maly, was his motto in life. How to save man and humanity in today’s age when the motto homo homini lupus has Has this become an unprecedented reality? All of humanity has reached a point where there are no clear horizons or bright prospects. Our present must undertake a complete review of its scientific, philosophical, political, and legal positions if we are to avoid a universal catastrophe.

Existential (not existentialist) philosophy is not by chance the defining characteristic of philosophical thought in the first half of this century. Anguish is the central idea of this philosophical current. For this reason, Marcic inaugurates his career as a thinker with the study: Martin Heidegger and Existential Philosophy. This work, of crystalline clarity, concludes with the following words: "We feel alone, insecure, unprotected, persecuted, driven away, because we have forgotten the proximity of Being, because we have lost our homeland—for all this we are afraid. Let us return to our homeland, to the truth of Being. Allow us to once again have the profound feeling of respect for Being, and we will be freed from fear." (René Marcic: Martin Heidegger and Existential Philosophy, p. 41).

To provide an indisputable foundation for his initial pessimism, Marcic invokes the opinions of authorities in the scientific-positivist field. Positive, exact science and technology, as its immediate and authentic success, are values adored by all and beyond question. Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and Carl F. von Weizsäcker are among his favorites in this regard. Max Born, for example, particularly inspired him with the following statements: "If humanity survives the next ten or twenty years without a great war, a world organization will presumably be formed, which will supersede nation-states and guarantee peace. In this case, a great honor will be bestowed upon Physics, because by pushing the means of destruction to the extreme, it made clear the absurdity of the politics of power and war. But if a great war breaks out, then as little of Physics will remain as of civilized life in general... Our task is to help prevent the second alternative. But this is not a problem of Physics; however, today it is far more important than any of the new triumphs over the forces of nature."

Werner Heisenberg, highlighting the mortal danger of atomic war, said: "In our time, when the earth is becoming ever more densely populated, the possibilities for life are limited, and with them comes the threat, primarily from other people who also raise the issue of their right to the Earth's resources." (See: R. Marcic, Mensch, Recht, Kosmos, pp. 11-12). The third contributed to Marcic's orientation, especially with these statements, referring to "The Future of the Technical World": "Matter is possibly only a visible and objectified form of something for which the tradition of our philosophy and religion had already chosen a name, and which is still the best: Spirit... I believe that the perfection of certain scientific disciplines can lead to placing one's trust in Spirit and not in matter." (R. Marcic: Rechtsphilosophie, p. 99).

Consequently, according to M. Born, the fundamental problem of the survival of humankind and civilization lies not in the field of the physical sciences but outside of it. According to Heisenberg, this problem lies in the field of law. And finally, according to Weizsäcker, the problem is not in the natural and physical sciences either, but possibly in the philosophical and religious spheres.

Armed with the authority of these and other scholars in the field of natural sciences, Marcic undertakes his great work of renewing law, its prestige and its function in today's world. "Law, as an arranged struggle for power, is the only imaginable and useful alternative to disorderly struggle through violence, especially war, which at this moment could lead to the destruction of humanity," says Marcic. But what is the right? From this question Marcic turns to the field of philosophy, the philosophy of law, and the judicial State as the maximum guarantee of peace, security and progress of humanity.

After an intense philosophical study, Marcic points out that the fundamental characteristic of Western thought from 1600-1900 is rationalism. It was believed that ratio could solve all human problems. It was raised to an absolute value. But, by taking refuge only in his ratio, man also introduced his ever-increasing subjectivism into the fundamental current of thought. Starting from Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum", this subjectivism reached its zenith in Kant's criticism. And while at the beginning this rationalism tried directly or indirectly to make room for the spirit, in its last phase it confessed an absolute materialism. As in the previous phase poetic and ontological rationalism ended in idealism, so now they ended in materialism. Therefore, against this rationalist current, vitalist philosophy arose, which vindicates the right of instincts, passions and will. This vivisection of man, his life and his existence into two opposite, enemy parts, with claims of exclusive and total domination, required a new idea, a new conciliatory current.

This function corresponded to the current of existentialist philosophy[88]. But there are several kinds of existential philosophers. One is grouped around J. P. Sartre and another, which Marcic considers true, around M. Heidegger. The first ended in nihilism and the other in positive realism, which, according to our author, represents the most important turn in the course of two millennia of Western thought. The end of this millennial course was marked by Nietzsche when he said: "Truth is a kind of error without which a certain species of living beings could not live." The rationalist-idealist epistemological current thus ends up proclaiming the truth, of almost absolutely relative value, when God, nature, man and the political community are creations of man and are left at his mercy.

Indeed, Sartre says: "existentialism is decidedly opposed to a certain type of secular morality that would like to suppress God with the least possible expense. When around 1880 some French professors tried to construct a secular morality, they said more or less this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis, we suppress it; but it is necessary, however, for there to be a morality, a society, a guarded world, that certain values be taken seriously and considered as existing a priori; it is necessary that It is mandatory a priori that one be honest, that he does not lie, that he does not hit his wife, that he has children, etc. etc... God does not exist.

In other words... nothing will change even if God does not exist; We will find the same norms of honesty, progress, and humanism, and we will have made God an outdated hypothesis that will die peacefully and by itself." He then points out that for an existentialist this idea is "very comfortable, because - he says literally -, with it all possibility of finding values in an intelligible sky disappears; one can no longer have a good a priori, because there is no more infinite and perfect consciousness to think about it; it is not written anywhere that good exists, that one must be honest, that one must not lie, since we are precisely on a plane where there are only men" [89].

But Sartre's logic ultimately led to illogic. To fill the void left by the "dead" God, he revived a somewhat modified version of Kant's categorical imperative, but with a completely opposite conclusion. Kant, in accordance with the moral law—the categorical imperative—defended the idea of postulational theism, while Sartre, accepting the "death" of God, invoked postulational atheism. His existentialism prioritizes existence over essence. “This means,” says Marcic, “that first there is man—being for himself—and then… he realizes his essence in complete freedom… In a bind, he wanted to escape individualism… (Sartre) resorts to Kant’s categorical imperative, and, according to this, the will always acts as a will of a general character, and to Heidegger, who teaches that existence is not a solitary existence but simultaneously and constantly a coexistence (Mitsein).

In short, if man realizes his essence, he thereby obliges all men. A statement that, without a doubt, seems apt to warn man’s conscience about his great and grave responsibility and to remind him that he cannot, in any way, shake off this responsibility.” If asked where man gets the Norm according to which he realizes his essence, Sartre says that he sets it himself. And he does so in complete freedom. “But where does he get it from? There must be something here, something given beforehand, a source from which he draws it. No! Sartre answers:

There is nothing here; man creates himself from Nothing. If there were something like a pre-drawn blueprint of man’s essence, he himself would not be free. Freedom without any constraints, freedom of decision and self-creation without bottom or ground, according to Sartre. This philosophy is nihilistic. Because, according to Sartre, man is the procreator of being; he himself… creates, like a magician, his essence from Nothing, behind which and before which there is nothing that is not Nothingness. Being is Nothing and Nothing is Being. Sartre’s principal work is Being and Nothingness” [90].

Marcic rejects this nihilistic existentialist philosophy and opts for Heidegger’s existential philosophy. He reconciles it, in its realist epistemological position, with Thomism. The "forgetting of Being," which was gradually completed from Plato and Aristotle to rationalist idealism, regains its central position. According to Marcic, Heidegger has excluded the object-subject relationship from truth-reality, giving transcendent reality absolute priority and independence, something even Thomism failed to do.

Without delving into this specific problem, we can say that Marcic accepts noetic realism and recognizes Being as something absolute, primordial. Human beings, as entities existing among other beings, have the privilege (Heidegger) of being immediately close to Being. Heidegger calls this mode of existence Ek-sistence. Human beings would be the only beings who are conscious of their relationship to Being. Once the realist epistemological position is adopted, Marcic lays the foundation stones for his philosophical-legal and political-legal edifice. He first establishes three fundamental positions and then sixteen theses as logical consequences of the first three. The first fundamental position is: the world is real, in contrast to the later assertions of idealism, which considers it problematic at the very least. Ontological truth is the basis of logical truth. According to Heidegger, truth is the unveiling of Being, which makes the revelation of existence possible. Saint Thomas Aquinas, in turn, says: The knowing mind receives its measure from things, so human thought is not true in itself, but we call it true because of its consonance with things.

This is, therefore, the realist position, for which truth is "adequatio intellectus ad rem" (the suitability of the intellect to the thing). The second position is: the world is organized from the beginning; it is an order. The Thomistic Lex aeterna, which encompasses the totality, is like an ontological constitution. This "constitutional" organization, referring to nature (the Greek physis, or the Latin natura - ordo rerum), is ontic truth. Since man is the part of this world of things that encompasses all existing beings, the legal and moral order that stems from human reason must be the order of "reason righteousness." Consequently, the famous distinction between being and ought-to-be (Sollen) is valid only if it is in accordance with Being (Sein).

To avoid going into the details of Marcic's 16 theses, we can focus on the essentials, summarizing them to their most indispensable points. Within the totality of human existence, the law of "construction" (Baugezetz) pertaining to humankind is freedom. (St. Thomas: Deus movet omnia secundum eorum; et ideo divina motio a quibusdam participatur cum necessitate, a natura autem rationali cum libertate).

Consequently, human law rests unfailingly on the foundation of the ontological truth of Being and of freedom, which also flows from that ontological truth. Law is not the will of anyone. It is not the arbitrary will of one person, of a group, of the powerful, of the wealthy, of minorities, or of majorities. There is a prepositive and super-prepositive, natural law that human reason discovers, recognizes, and does not create. This law provides the measure and the limits to all kinds of power. Human dignity, the personality of man, is one of the fundamental, insurmountable limits to power.

Inspired, by his own admission, by a Croatian judge, Marcic, in the current crisis of power, reflected in all spheres of private and public life, dedicates all his intellectual efforts and enormous erudition to outlining a project for a legal-judicial state where the role of judges and courts should be paramount. Despite the dual nature of humankind—its individual and social aspects—and despite their original equivalence, the individual aspect must enjoy privileges, "for it is the very substance of existence."

It is located "outside the social structure"; smaller, epistemologically secondary, but in reality "more intense." "We can ensure the individuality of man only if we place within the structure of the state the checks and balances capable of functioning effectively as a counterweight to the absolute expansion of power," Marcic states verbatim. The judge, as the common denominator of the judicial state, to safeguard his independence and impartiality, should expect nothing from administrative power and therefore have nothing to fear from it, as an Italian legal entity has stated. The Court of Constitutional Review should assume the central position in a community we might call the judicial state.

The path from philosophy, through law, to politics is the scientific trajectory of Dr. René Marcic, whose premature death forever cut short an exceptional career at the height of his creative powers. On this occasion, we can address the following observations regarding his work, which were expressed by the Argentine publicist R. O. Abdala on Ortega y Gasset's Opus Dei: "Vital Reason—reason that lives and life that reasons—thus responds with a message steeped in responsibility and faith to the blazing extremisms that, in the various expressions of action, are currently vying for dominance over humanity; both to the sullen irrationalisms entrenched in a purely animalistic vitalism that refuses to give or receive reasons, and to the mathematized and rigid rationalists, through whom planners and technocrats, psychometricians and sociologists who do not surpass the level of statistical virtuosity, attempt to reduce the continuous movement of the infinite diversity of human life to paralysis and schematism" ("La Prensa," June 25, 1970).

Croatian cultural history can be proud of its son, Marcic. His ideas and work, as an expression of his people's soul, testify that Croatia belongs to the Western world and defends the truths and ideals that can guarantee human freedom and open better prospects for humanity. Like him, countless Croatians, including all those who fight for the independence of their motherland, Croatia, are accused of supposed totalitarian sympathies. René Marcic's Opus Dei categorically refutes these accusers, because his personality was formed in Croatian Franciscan schools and is the authentic expression of hundreds of thousands of young people from that nation who fell in the struggle during the last great war against communism and Great Serbian hegemony.

The life and work of René Marcic, as well as his tragic death, bring the Croatian and Austrian people even closer together, rekindling old historical ties from when we jointly defended Western civilization, a matter of paramount importance today.

As we finished writing this volume of SC, we received "Dimensionen des Rechts, Gedächtnisschrift für René Marcic" – Dimensions of Law, Studies Dedicated to the Memory of René Marcic, Duncker & Humblot Publishers, Berlin, 1974, in two volumes, totaling 1232 pages. Some 60 of the most prominent jurists from Austria, Germany, North America, and Australia address the problem of law in all its aspects, the central theme of our compatriot's opus. Without yet knowing the contents, the mere existence of this edition, also graphically perfect, indicates the scholarly importance of his work, cut short prematurely. (FN)

News and commentary

The Argentine reality

Dialogue continues in an open society

The political life of the Argentine Republic after the death of its great leader, General Perón, is characterized by two diametrically opposed currents. One that represents the absolute majority of the people and the other, a minority, also absolute, unknown to its true leaders and divided into various tendencies of a revolutionary nature. The first strongly defends the legality of democratic institutions within an evolutionary framework and adaptation to the needs of the moment, both Argentine and international. To prevent internal surprises, then, President Perón had formulated this policy as "the tripod" of political-social power: the government, workers and businessmen. If these three factors dialogue in an open and free society, nothing will happen nor will the life of the nation lead to confrontations between brothers; The nation would avoid violent conflicts, ensure the stability of order and create a favorable climate of coexistence and common efforts for a better future.

This progressive and at the same time conservative policy is opposed by the violent, the misfits and those who believe in a bloody revolution, as a panacea capable of curing all the ills of this and other societies.

The factors that prompt them to take this position are multiple and complex. Mired in a supposedly just and totally liberating ideology on the one hand - which is clearly a utopian impossibility - and in the thirst for socio-political power on the other, these elements, generally young and without a complete vision of man, nor of the society in which they live, nor of international reality in its most fundamental aspects, do not accept the "tripod" policy. Managed, furthermore, by invisible but well-characterized forces, they represent a very serious factor of disruption and insecurity in national life. But the patience, tolerance and indulgence of the government in its wise "tripod policy" were more than great. However, the subversive action of said minority grows continuously and incessantly. So much so that the government even had to resort to a state of siege for an indefinite period of time.

In this climate, the problem of prices, salaries and wages, with the concomitant phenomenon of inflation, are very serious issues that afflict the community and give rise to discontent that degenerates into violence. However, the violent forget that life is evolution. They forget that there are no absolutely just regimes; They seem to ignore, consequently, that the best, almost the only path to peace and social progress, is an open society, of dialogue and common search for what best corresponds, in the given conditions, to the well-being of all; They ignore what a renowned statesman said that no one is so good that we could entrust him with the administration of our political interests without our own help.

These elements forget that the type of closed society - precisely the one they promote - implements a totalitarian, exploitative regime of enslavement of man never seen before. They also forget, in this specific case, that the Argentine Republic does not live on the Moon or Mars. She lives in the reality of the interdependence of this globe, both scientific-technical, political-economic, military, financial, etc. The Argentine Republic must import and export goods and hence its multiple interdependence from abroad. Consequently, the intentions and plans of the national "tripod", even the most audacious and most sincere, often seem limited and short. Argentina would do worse if it did not take this reality into consideration. Of course, always with a view to reconciling its interests with those of the international community with which it must dialogue freely.

The problem of inflation is interesting in this regard. In France, for example, the president is a renowned financial specialist, elected primarily for this qualification, and yet, despite his talent and experience, he is unable to curb the inflation that also plagues that country. The American colossus is a victim of the same phenomenon. Two of its many specialists in the field—Milton Friedman and J. Kenneth Galbraith—disagree, and even contradict each other, when referring to the measures to be adopted to curb inflation and its possible repercussions on the world in general.

What, then, do the "violent" want? To bring the national car to a sudden halt, says one specialist, would mean sending the passengers flying through the windshield. Aren't Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Zakharov stark and powerful witnesses to the utopian nature of the society fostered by the violent and hasty? Indeed, those who attempt to realize utopias end up with a more complete dehumanization of man and society. The violent want everything, and immediately.

Thus, the anti-subversive law was approved at the end of last September, despite a parliamentary debate that was at times very heated. The opinion of the majority of the FREJULI coalition prevailed, as expressed by Deputy Pedrini, who said: "All sectors oppose this law requested by the Executive Branch to defend the Republic and its institutions. It is worth noting that on the one hand, the guerrillas are attacked, and on the other, there is fear of voting for this law in defense of the sacred interests of the country and the Argentine citizenry."

However, when the violence escalated relentlessly and when a state of siege was declared as its logical consequence, all important sectors hailed the measure as necessary and constitutional. But the most admirable event in the nation's history was the fact that the highest representative body of Argentine workers (CGT) paid tribute to the soldiers who had fallen at the hands of subversion. There, where the national army and the workers are currently marching together in freedom, there is no more praiseworthy event. It is a complete refutation of the Marxist theory of class divisions among nations, which specifically opposes the working class to the military class.

The Labor Contract Law is also a serious step in countering the encroachment of far-left action. A leading expert on the subject (Antonio Vitaic-Jakasa), analyzing this Labor Contract Law, finds it far superior to similar laws in other countries considered advanced, including Soviet Russia. "The Labor Contract Law, more than an advanced law, is a revolutionary law," says Vitaic ("Mercado," Buenos Aires, September 26, 1974, No. 269, pp. 16-19).

Furthermore, when the Radical Civic Union (UCR) warned the government about the need to rectify the country's economic policy, the government listened, and the reorganization was not long in coming. The change at the Ministry of Economy was generally met with evident satisfaction throughout the country.

But, as always happens in life, there was also an unpleasant surprise. On November 28-29, a public transportation strike was unexpectedly declared. Besides being a surprise, it was entirely successful, causing significant economic and other damage to the community. The surprise lies especially in the fact that, apparently, the measure was taken by the employers. A new subversion of the right or the left? We can't say for sure, but it was certainly a severe blow to Argentine dialogue and to the country's political structure, both in terms of the socio-political "tripod" and the openness of Argentine society.

If the experience of small towns is any guide, here is one. According to the "Deutsche Tagespost," Würzenburg, October 11-12, workers from socialist Yugoslavia currently employed in Austria voted for the candidates of the Christian People's Party, described as "conservative and Christian," by a rate of 80%, even though they could have voted for the communist or socialist candidates, whose party held power in that democratic country. The majority of that crowd of nearly 500,000 people were Croats. Based on their experience and knowledge of the Yugoslav communist system, they overwhelmingly voted against communism. (These were elections for the regional Chambers of Labor, an opportunity in which foreign workers were also eligible to participate - Red. S.C.).

It was once said: if the Ghibellines call you a Guelph and the Guelphs call you a Ghibelline, you can be sure that the truth you seek is near. Argentine national politics has embarked on a path of open, democratic, and free society, opposing the extremes of both the right and the left. The Synod of Bishops, recently held in Rome, gave full attention to the voices of Bishop Helder Câmara and the Primate of Poland, Visinsky. Neither outdated capitalism (Sánchez Albornoz) nor communist totalitarianism has sufficient justification to claim exclusive power. In this, we see the success of the current policies of the Argentine Republic.

"Why did you return to the country where only the dead are happy?"

Bogdan Radica recounts his experience with Yugoslav communism

The septuagenarian Croatian journalist Bogdan Radica, one of the last believers in the Yugoslav idea—that is, in the possibility of democratic coexistence among the South Slavs, especially Croats and Serbs—published a book in August 1974 entitled "Croatia 1945," in which he recounts his experience of witnessing the communist takeover of Yugoslavia. In his 383-page work, this restless and uncommonly curious spirit definitively rejects communism in all its aspects and, with it, the Yugoslav idea, considering them two utopian ideas created by communists that are causing tremendous harm to humanity and to the peoples subjected to the power of those who attempt to implement them.

The author has expressed many of his ideas on this subject in Croatian publications over the past three decades—he left Yugoslavia as early as October 1945, having returned from the United States in April of that year as an enthusiastic supporter of Tito's communist "liberation" movement. The essential points had also appeared in a number of American newspapers and magazines. But his opinion and experience find a more complete picture and an almost comprehensive perspective in this book.

His parents in Split, and the last friends and compatriots who were able to speak frankly with him during those few months of his stay in Tito's Yugoslavia, repeatedly asked him the same question: "Why did you return to the country where only the dead are happy?"

After explaining the reasons for his return, Radica analyzes the new "Yugoslav" reality, a direct result of the revolution and communist "liberation." His book deserves to be translated into several languages because it hits the nail on the head, a problem that is not only ours—Croatian, Serbian, Slovenian, or "Yugoslav"—but a general issue, a phenomenon that concerns every free person and all peoples who have known how to safeguard their freedom against all attempts to subjugate them in the name of utopian ideas.

Below are some translated excerpts from his book:

"While the material development of the communist system is inevitably lagging behind the Western world, its ideological process is also behind what it promised in its postulates and achievements. In the last two decades, the yearning of cultural creators in Soviet Russia for creative freedom has emerged as the most salient and fundamental characteristic. Not only writers, but also scientists, have risen up to defend freedom of thought and creation.

Freedom is a fundamental principle, a kind of Kantian categorical imperative, sought above all by Russian intellectuals... Meanwhile, the more one seeks the right to freedom in the creative process, even as a Marxist and supporter, the more one encounters the obstacles of bureaucracy, official dogma, intellectual inquisition, and the police, which impede the fundamental mechanics of creation.

The regime declares, on the one hand, to the world, that it has no fear of the exchange of ideas between its closed society and that of the rest of the world." free and, on the other hand, at the same time, persecutes, imprisons and accuses the creator if he does not adhere to the official partisan-bureaucratic line, imposed by fanatics and primitives.

All those works, created under free impulse and inspiration, were not printed in the country, but appeared in clandestine editions ("samizdat") or in the free world of the West. Tito's so-called Yugoslavia made an exception in this regard. Indeed, for a decade, thanks to this endeavor, we were able to read with particular satisfaction philosophical treatises, revisionist dissertations, and daring and original historical and linguistic disquisitions and discoveries, convinced that this period truly brought about a profound change in the most important values. But we quickly had to experience the dark end of this intellectual and national springtime.

The outdated dogmas and the already stunted foundations that were thought to have been overcome forever were reinstated and returned with the same violence and by decree as in the first postwar period of the Stalinist era. Ignoring the fact that the entire country, thanks to this reformist stance, had gained a position in the free world and had been rewarded with enormous sums of American dollars, the regime, out of a love for party discipline, liquidated and eliminated all its elites and changed course, returning to the times of the Inquisition and cultural terror.

Did the rejected leaders and revisionist thinkers thus feel the weakness and contradiction of their faith, or rather, of the Marxist conception and application, upon experiencing the return of terror and violence? Did they themselves reach the same conclusions felt by Ignazio Silone, Arthur Koestler, Milovan Djilas, and many others, but in such a way that doubt arose in their minds about the truth of their faith and the possibility of realizing that utopia and lie? It would be difficult to say, given that they themselves chose silence, obedience, and further submission to the summit, at whose highest point a single, exclusive factor reigns.

We were able to learn, after following the development of that process for a quarter of a century, where men appear and disappear like mushrooms, that a circle of men always predominates, headed by a single man with an eternal and immutable face. While relationships, forces, and men are changing, he remains intangible and irreplaceable. Herein lies the profound contradiction not only of communist philosophy but also of its practice.

Philosophers, writers, sociologists, and members of the intelligentsia in general can discover everything, arrive at the most revolutionary conclusions that seem capable of changing the world and that will be accepted and applied, producing the regeneration of humanity. And when it seems that life is proceeding along that path as a fait accompli, a dark force suddenly arises that halts and erases the entire effort of a decade in the name of the scientific knowledge that communist power, its apparatus, and its bureaucracy are not a panacea of any kind but a harsh reality, based on all those elements of fear and obedience that reduce the individual, the human being, to the position of an ant.

Thinking about all this, I often ask myself: is this also clear to our Marxists who languish in prisons today, despite having dedicated their entire lives to turning utopia into reality? I repeatedly think: if they are aware of what is happening, they must be going through severe torments in their own thinking, similar to those experienced by a devout believer tormented by the damned problem of God's existence.

Simply because it's not difficult to be persecuted by a system we seek to overthrow. But there's nothing worse than being disillusioned and definitively ostracized, imprisoned, and mistreated by the system to which one dedicated all one's physical and moral strength, for which one fought one's entire life, suffered, and endured sacrifices, only to be definitively thrown into the pasture of history, as they themselves say in partisan language... Who has the right? Those who are liquidating their own children, or the children incapable of liquidating those who hold power in their society?... The most serious condemnation of the communist system, in my view, would be its rejection by the broad and vast masses (of the people). This system ceaselessly creates a wall or cordon of isolation between itself and the people, so that power continues to instill fear in its subjects. One of the greatest illusions of communists is their idea that they could make communism acceptable to the broadest segments of society... Communist legality is not the legality offered by an open democracy. If, in a system, the political police hold the position of the State within the State and can act independently of all legislative or executive power—that is, dispose of the lives of individuals, even entire groups or the people themselves—then we should not live with the hope that such a system could become democratic or humane.

These are the pious desires of theorists and the naive, even of opportunists who deceive Westerners by creating illusions that one day communism could enter its democratic and humanist phase... What communists ask of the free world is that it not interfere in their internal affairs, aware that any form of free exchange of ideas would bring what it brought in Yugoslavia: the total collapse of Marxist ideology and economics.

"But in our case, the failure of Marxism was far more serious, especially concerning the problem of the coexistence of our peoples. The Yugoslav Communist Party experienced an even more profound collapse than in the pre-war period when it tried to prevent internal conflict among the many nationalities. Upon returning to Yugoslavia in 1945 (*), I was convinced that Tito and his supporters had laid the groundwork for a proper resolution of relations between Croats and Serbs. This feeling strengthened my hope that all the sacrifices endured during the war would have their purpose. Hundreds of thousands of lives were sacrificed for this end. But all these hopes were in vain, proved fruitless... All these pronouncements were merely part of the same dialectic and the lie, itself unaware of when it was true and when it was false."

"Just as communist dialectics proved to be a Sisyphean task in its attempt to clarify the development of history and progress, so too does its solution to the national question, that is, the relations between peoples, fail. Undoubtedly, this failure is also one of the greatest experienced by communism when its dialectic clashes with reality... Starting from the false premise that national conflicts are a bourgeois phenomenon, that is, a result of bourgeois shortsightedness and outdated conceptions, they (Krleza and Cesarec, two of the most prominent Croatian Marxist writers. - Translator's note) believed that this entire complex of poisoned relations would be resolved by the 'holy spirit' of historical inevitability, as predicted by Marxist dialectics. Ignoring human nature, sound reason, and almost limitless experience, they dreamed that the relations between Croats and Serbs, as well as those of other peoples in that region, would be resolved by the 'holy spirit' of historical inevitability. Ours would not only be healed but also completely transformed by the policy of 'brotherhood and unity'.

The result of this fantasy, as is now quite evident, ended in the same impasse as that of the former Yugoslavia. And, what is most tragic, the Communist Party, in order to resolve this problem, had to resort to violence and terror and keep all the aforementioned peoples under a single control...

"Looking back on six decades of the development of relations between Croats and Serbs in Yugoslavia, one inexorably arrives at a startling conclusion. The Croatian leaders in each period, both in the pre-war, bourgeois era and in this post-war, 'classless' one, insisted on the position of a people undertaking everything to restore a balance with the so-called leading people. This was first done by the moderate Croatian politicians, such as Trumbic and Supilo in the formative years of Yugoslavia; The revolutionaries, like Esteban Radic, and the compromisers, like Vlatko Macek.

Finally, in these years, when it became increasingly clear that Croats were once again relegated to the status of a second- or third-class people, deprived of the right to call their language by its name and to develop their material existence and progress through their own efforts, the partisans, Marxists, and communist leaders, headed by Tripalo, Tudjman, Djodan, and Veselica, along with thousands of officials and intellectuals, emerged to once again signal the Croatian people's yearning for a real possibility of coexistence on equal terms.

This new experience was not a phenomenon of class-based nationalism, because these leaders and officials were not only educated but also convinced that they were fighting for the re-establishment of a classless society. They even fought for the liberation of a country subjected to the system of exploitation of one people by another. A leadership of this kind is highly attuned to the tenets of communist ideology. If this leadership also reaches the same conclusions as previous generations of sound judgment and from other political and economic schools, there is no doubt that the relationship between the exploiter and the exploited does not change.

"It remains identical, even to such an extent that it wounds the very essence of Marxist thought and practice... Thinking about Croatia's tragic position in 1945 and glancing through these pages written at that time, I conclude that, while Croatia's tragedy persists and continues, it has become more widely known, and understanding and comprehension of its difficult problems are growing ever greater. What pains me most is the thought of the suffering of all our men who are now languishing in Yugoslav prisons, as was also the case in 1945, even though among them are a great number of those who tried to convince me that year that Croatia's situation in the second Yugoslavia would be much brighter, more beautiful, and much more dignified than it had been before. Every time I recall the conversations of those times and those of now, disillusionment is ever-present. As I stated publicly in the American newspapers, I could never have imagined that the form of my disillusionment would be so grave and so painful. All We were expelled from our homes by a regime that had nothing in common with our people. It was a tragic exodus, and the worst part is that it continues. Despite having torn Croats from Croatia, it could not tear Croatia from Croatian hearts.

To explain his return to the free world, Radica says on a page of his book: "I came back here to recover in freedom and to share my impressions with the open and sincere souls of our emigrant masses. They, like me, during the difficult years of the war, contributed in every way possible to help their homeland, thus extinguishing their own nostalgia—unquenchable and inexorable—for their unhappy 'former country.' My words are for them. My feelings are for them. My soul's vibrations are for them. I know exactly what they wanted and what they dreamed of. I feel what they hoped for in their dreams and their hopes, wet with tears and sobs for their loved ones. Together with the emigrants, we all believed in the principles proclaimed in the 'liberated' city of Bihac (a town in Bosnia where Tito's communists proclaimed the second Yugoslavia and the principles upon which it should be organized): the republic, democracy, federation, and equality for all." The peoples and professions, freedom for each and every one, for all who suffer and endure, would be an objective and clear, concrete and firm reality..."

The author's final political creed, faithfully interpreting the right and will of the Croatian people, is expressed in these terms:

"The categorical imperative of this century imposes on each nation only one objective: not only its survival and preservation, but also its development, are possible only within its own nation-state. Contrary opinions call this truth into question, also arguing that small states have no possibility of survival or of guaranteeing the political and economic independence of their people. On the contrary, states of this kind are more advanced and happier. It is perfectly logical, then, that the Croats feel that their progress and happiness can be realized only in the state where they themselves would be masters of their own destiny. This feeling is their categorical imperative, and they will realize it at all costs. I would not like to be a prophet, but I am deeply convinced that before this century expires, Croatia will become in a free and independent State" (p. 345).

The important thing is to state that the problem does not exist.

Aspects of Religious Freedom in Yugoslavia

Glas Koncila (Council Spokesperson), a Croatian Catholic fortnightly newspaper, in its July 7, 1974 issue, addressed the situation of religious teachers in communist Yugoslavia in an article reproduced below in its Spanish version:

"It seems that for certain journalists, particularly those who wish to be considered specialists in religious issues, attacking Glas Koncila is the primary proof of their loyalty to the state and their socialist conscience. Even if any of these journalists honestly wish to report on events and attitudes in this area, it would seem they must attack Glas Koncila more vehemently. Darko Stuparic also proceeded in this way in Vjesnik on June 20 of this year. This gentleman wrote a valuable and useful article, providing our readers with precious information, stating that the Communist League of Yugoslavia, at its 10th Congress, did not take any stance against the religious freedoms of citizens, nor did it discriminate between believers and non-believers." Believers in our society, and that the documents of said Congress contain no declaration that would allow the expulsion of religious teachers from schools.

Stuparic points out that some statements by certain delegates on various working committees of the Congress regarding the need to exclude religious teachers from schools do not constitute the official position of the Congress. They merely demonstrate that the resolution emphasizes that it should not undermine the unity and fraternity of our peoples nor introduce into the educational and training process concepts and criteria at odds with science. The text of the resolution does not give rise to anyone thinking that religion or faith is something anti-scientific and atheism scientific.

"In this way, Darko Stuparic reassured believers in our country. But to dare to write those lines, he first had to viciously attack Glas Koncila. It is obvious that Glas Koncila became, for certain circles, synonymous with everything anti-socialist, anti-state, etc., an invented but indispensable enemy and adversary." Stuparic maintains that Glas Koncila misreported the position of the 10th Congress on religion. What Glas Koncila did was reproduce a brief news item in which delegate Nada Bogdanovic called for the expulsion of religious teachers from educational institutions. Nothing more. We have not stated that this was the position of the majority of delegates, nor that their request was included in the Congress's conclusions.

But let's be honest, the daily press did not provide us with any other information, and many citizens of this country could have thought that, following the spirit of the Congress, religious teachers should be removed. This is especially true given that practice took this direction, and to this day, the expelled teachers have been unable to find other employment anywhere simply because they were once seen attending Mass. For these people, there is no employment in schools or elsewhere, not to mention that the injustice committed has not been remedied. No one dares to employ them; everyone demands that the relevant party bodies give their opinion on "moral suitability"; everyone fears that employing a person characterized as a believer will call their own loyalty into question...

"We thank Darko Stuparic because now we know that all of this has nothing to do with the official stance of the Communist League of Yugoslavia. It's not even worth reproaching him for erroneously and unconvincingly falsifying the truth by attacking Glas Koncila. He, too, needs a certificate of moral suitability to write about such a slippery subject as the relationship between society and religious communities. But if that brief and very accurate news item hadn't appeared in Glas Koncila, probably no one, not even Darko Stuparic, would have written so clearly and publicly about what the official position of the 10th Congress on religion actually was.

It's interesting to note that no journalist was interested in this in a positive sense, while several considered it important to record what Nada Bogdanovic and several others said. The journalists also thought that the position of those delegates was aligned with the official line. How then could public opinion not be confused? Thank God that now, at least in part, Darko Stuparic has rectified the situation. What we What's important to know is that certain high-ranking circles are interested in making it known that there is no discrimination against believers in our country. But as a rule, these same circles are in no position to protect anyone who loses their job. (Not even the schoolchildren whom the driver kicked off the regular bus line after learning they attended religious instruction.) I am not yet aware of any case in which legal action has been taken to protect the religious freedom of threatened citizens.

Glas Koncila would also be striving in vain to convince public opinion that this is not the case. If we want world public opinion to believe what Darko Stuparic and others are determined to instill, it won't be achieved with mere newspaper articles or statements. Everything would be much simpler if we could report that a certain teacher, dismissed for religious reasons, was reinstated and that her wages earned during the months of her forced absence were paid. And if every believer had the assurance of being able to take whomever they want to court, even to his superior who offends his religion or who, for religious reasons, limits his rights.

But we still haven't received such news. Instead, we constantly receive accurate and verified information that says the opposite. There are no signs that this situation is improving. It is still to be feared that for a long time the unofficial position of delegates like Nada Bogdanovic will have more impact on reality than the official position of any resolution. Nor can Darko Stuparic change this distressing situation in any way. Whatever his intentions, he contributes to the growing denigration of Glas Koncila and our entire Church and exacerbates the dangerous atmosphere with unforeseeable consequences."

The political processes in Yugoslavia

Repeating an old lie: 16 Croatian "terrorists" before the communist tribunal in Zadar

Marshal Tito's reign of terror has found no solution to its internal problems. The national conflict—especially that between Croats and Serbs—has dominated the political landscape of that country since its inception in 1918. Enormous material and moral energies have been expended under the pretext of a definitive and satisfactory solution for the two main parties to the conflict. However, the solution has not come. And it cannot come, because the Serbs never accepted the idea of a democratic Serbian-Croatian community, where the two peoples could live together in peace, freedom, and security. Due to circumstances unrelated to what is essential for true human coexistence, the Serbs imposed a distinctly hegemonic and Greater Serbian policy from the very beginning (1918).

The Yugoslav Communist Party overthrew the monarchy and promised to introduce substantial changes. Formally, they did so, but substantially Serbian hegemony remained intact. It can even be proven with irrefutable arguments that, since the communists seized power, this hegemony became even more severe, almost complete. The very nature of the communist totalitarian regime makes this understandable. Moreover, Serbian hatred toward the Croats, who had rebelled against the monarchical Serbian "empire" in 1941, was unleashed in 1945 with utter brutality upon the Croatian people, "justifying" their inhumane actions by invoking the right to "exterminate the remnants of fascism."

The free world, whether naive, complacent, or complicit, covered up the mass crimes committed by the Yugoslav communists with silence. But covering up crimes with silence does not make them disappear. And they did not disappear from Croatian national and historical reality and consciousness; Even less so with the new regime, which continued the old policy of injustice in all aspects of life, amounting to a veritable genocide against the Croatian people.

If an international tribunal existed, elevated above all biases, it would find the Croatian people's discontent with the current Yugoslav communist regime profoundly justified. This would also justify their right and their duty to oppose it with all available means, defending their violated rights against an animalistic violence disguised as "brotherhood and unity."

This is the essence of all the trials orchestrated against the Croats, even in the postwar period. Using worn-out clichés—fascists, separatists, enemies of the people and the state—the regime persists in power, disregarding the most basic human and people's rights. In the political machinations of Moscow and Belgrade, Croatian discontent—existing, historically and metaphysically grounded—is factored into their calculations. Given the almost metaphysical impossibility of a Croatian rebellion under the current circumstances, armed groups occasionally enter the country from abroad, only to fall victim to the police or military of the communist regime before they can even begin to realize "their" plans. At the heart of every action by Croatian idealists, we always find a communist agent, disguised as a nationalist, who promptly hands everything over to his masters.

All this leads us to affirm that this tactic of the regime is repeated in the case of the 16 Croats who are currently before the implacable Tito court in the city of Zadar. The accusations are serious. Capital punishment is even planned. And the most characteristic thing is that these "terrorists" did not commit any crime. Everything is in the prosecutor's papers and in the fantasy and projects of the "terrorists."

Tremendous will be the punishment of our brothers. Undeserved punishment from all points of view. As we have to live in a world in which those who speak of freedom impose slavery, those who defend the law impose violence, we appeal to the conscience of men and institutions that have not suffered the impact of the propaganda of the powerful, to provide their moral and extra-legal help to our brothers, because the law has become the target of ridicule by those who have greater physical strength.

Splendid recital by the Croatian ensemble Jadran

"Los Principios" of 9-10-74, from Córdoba, referred to the performance of the Croatian choir "Jadran" from Buenos Aires, in the following terms: An excellent and homogeneous artistic presentation was offered in their recitals in our main Coliseum, by the "Jadran" Choir and the folk dance and instrumental groups "Bosna", from Croatia.

The Slavic essence in its various nuances was evident in the performance of the Mixed Voices Choir, with a handful of songs delivered with expressive racial sensitivity, vocal unity and excellent choral quality, where the high voices of sopranos and contraltos, the middle and low voices of tenors and baritones offered, with very good choral musicality, pages from the Croatian folk heritage such as "Molitva" (Prayer) by Kovacec, "Oce Nas" (Our Father) by Degrel, "Kaj" (What) by Taglik, "Nehaj Gradu" (Nehaj Castle) by Novak, with the splendid solo voice of the bass A. Vlahovic, culminating the first part with "Ave Marija" (Ave Maria) by Horvat delivered with noble sacred emotion; The marvelous "Ave Verum" by Mozart, sung with devotion and emotive religiosity, as well as the imposing and sublime "Gloria in excelsis Deo" by Vivaldi, were all within the charm of a flexible, compact, and velvety vocal emanation.

In the second part, in Kopitovic's "Rapsodija" (Rhapsody), a reflection of Slavic folk song with ancient roots, the Choir gave a commendable performance for its timbre, color, intonation, choral nuance, and typical native accent. The soprano soloists Troselj, Juric, and Terrazas, and the tenors Skelin and Jerbic, along with the entire choral ensemble in the melodic passages, were nuanced by the "Cu-Cu" and the alternating forte-piano steps with splendid vocal gradations. The second part of the choral program concluded with the moving and deeply rooted, beautifully musicalized "Triste" No. 4 by Julián Aguirre and "Canción Criolla" by Manuel Gómez Carrillo, both beautifully expressed by the Choir in their racial intimacy.

The program also included the lyrical songs "Snivaj Draga" by Ducmelic, "U Boj - U Boj" by Zajc, and "Sokacko kolo" by Degrel, sung with fervor and a telluric, racially charged musicality, a reflection of their typical ethnomusicology. Maestro Anton Soler Biljenski conducted with skill, poise, and measured precision, demonstrating excellent choral and musical sense. Both the choir and conductor received well-deserved applause from the audience. Following this, the instrumental ensemble "Bosna" and the Croatian folk dance troupe performed. Wearing traditional costumes from the three regions or zones of Pannonia, Dinaric, and Adriatic, the artists showcased the "zlatara," a beautiful dress worn by Slavonian women with its gold and silk fabrics. They danced ancient dances from their ethnography and musical folklore—Seljancica, Bosansko kolo, Bunjevacko kolo, Tekla Voda Karasica, Osjecanka, Zagrebcanka, and Svatovac—with great artistry and choreographic grace, accompanied by their traditional instruments. These dances transformed the stage into a vibrant tableau, a brilliant demonstration of their popular, ancestral balletic skill. The audience enthusiastically applauded, and they responded with a lively group Slavic dance from the Pannonia region.

It was a magnificent recital in which, like a message of love, so many compatriots residing in our generous Argentine land revived their deep traditions, longings, and memories. - J. V. E.

Zdravko Ducmelic - (Wildenstein Gallery 9-23-74)

Milan Rakovac

One thing is certain, as we have repeatedly stated directly or indirectly, and as this exhibition also confirms: Z. Ducmelic has already traversed his path in search of new conceptions of reality and new supports for his pictorial visions and his rich inner life. Expressing the most intimate fibers of his soul faithfully and convincingly no longer presents him with any difficulty or problem, either technically or pictorially. Therefore, it is understandable and natural that we find parallel characteristics between the plot, the resolution, the harmony, and the great disharmony of contemporary thought of the "homo novus" and the painting of Z. Ducmelic.

His constant yearning for the unknown and strange, and his constant effort to reveal to us the enigmatic face of his desires and daydreams, the mysterious and hidden aspects of his spiritual life and experiences, are repeated in forms we recognize in his current paintings, which are always compelling and interesting. The drawing style and subject matter are surprising and striking in their audacity, for the field of his feelings and experiences is immense and overflows with a dense and rich color, and his paintings are filled with a hidden enthusiasm—always in the foreground—because for Z. Ducmelic, painting is a way of existing and living. He could rightly claim the phrase: "I and my paintings are one and the same," so that in each painting he is markedly present, and one always feels an intense need to seek new forms and new expressions of the pictorial richness he carries within. His paintings are always a faithful, vigorous, and convincing reflection of this richness and this extraordinary imagination, keenly attentive to the intensive observation and experience of the reality that surrounds him. Thus, all his characters and figures in the closed and strange spaces, and the even more mysterious landscapes without light or perspective, all this unusual subject matter, while belonging to a strange and enchanted world, this world of his imagination never strays entirely from the real and the existing.

Consistent in his artistic aspirations and a bold, incorrigible dreamer, he merely suggests, rather than omits, all that is anecdotal, humbly and simply underscoring what is essential and fundamental. In this way, Ducmelic manages to capture the attention of every attentive observer, and his recent paintings, the result of mysterious dreams and fantasies, while seemingly simple at first glance, remain part of his pictorial reality and the fruit of conscious and methodical work, authentic confirmation of a great talent.

Echoes of Ivo Rojnica's book: "Prikaz povijesti argentine i doprinos hrvata"

"La Prensa" of August 1, 1974, wrote:

"Overview of Argentine History," by Ivo Rojnica. Foreword by Branko Kadic. Text in Croatian. No publisher mentioned. Vilko Graphic Workshops, Buenos Aires, 269 illustrated pages.

Based on the studies of the most renowned Argentine historians, the author provides a short, concise, yet comprehensive overview—in narrative and chronological form—of Argentine history, from its beginnings to the present day.

This is the first book on this subject in Croatian. This is what led the author to write this book, as well as the desire that Croatians in Argentina, around the world, and those in their homeland, "know this great and wonderful land. Great for the territory it occupies and for its natural resources; great for its hospitality, for its defense of freedom, and for its glorious past," and which has "all the basic requirements to become, in the near future, a leading force not only in the Southern Hemisphere but also on a global scale."

The second part of the book is dedicated to the contributions made by Croatians (those born in Croatia) in all activities, both cultural and material, to the development of this nation.

The author's goal in this part of the book is to detail everything that Rojnica himself was able to research and compile about Croatian immigration. The work presented here is undoubtedly of great interest, and it is also valuable from the standpoint of its documentation, as it is the first serious work undertaken on the subject – G. G. A.

This is the article published in "La Nación," Buenos Aires, on September 15, 1974:

"Panorama of Argentine History," by Ivo Rojnica

"Prikaz Povijesti Argentine" is the Croatian title of this history of our nation, written entirely in that language for his fellow countrymen by a member of that community. Ivo Rojnica presents a classic overview of our history from the colonial era to 1960 in an "engaging and coherent" manner, as explained in the Spanish prologue by Branko Kadic. Given its rarity, it is gratifying to highlight this gesture by the author, who wishes to contribute to the knowledge of Argentina's past among his compatriots, so numerous today both in Argentina and in other Latin American countries, motivated by his gratitude to our country. (269 pages. Vilko Graphic Workshops).

A Slovenian newspaper on Rojnica's "Argentine History"

The Slovenian newspaper "Smer v Slovensko Drzavo" ("Towards the Slovenian State"), No. 52, dated September 15 of this year, states the following about Ivo Rojnica's book: Prikaz Povijesti Argentina i Povijest Hrvata (History of Argentina and the State of Croatia): "The Croatian industrialist Rojnica is well known to Slovenes as an effective economist, a great patriot, and a patron of all things that serve the Croatian cause, especially Croatian freedom and independence.

A few years ago, he self-published the book: Encounters and Experiences, in which he described the activities of Croatian nationalists in pre-war Yugoslavia and offered a critical assessment of the events and developments during the period of Croatian independence."

Now he is republishing the book under the aforementioned title. In the final chapter, the author outlines the reasons that motivated this new work: first, a feeling of eternal gratitude to the Argentine Republic, which, at the end of the last war, granted asylum to thousands of Croatians who had been forced to seek refuge in every corner of Europe from the persecution of the Yugoslav secret and partisan police, like wild animals; and second, so that all Croatians on every continent may know the history of the nation that did so much good for Croatian exiles:

"The book is divided into two parts: the first part provides a comprehensive overview of the history of this State (Argentina), from its conquest onward, and the second part addresses the contributions of Croatians to its science, culture, and economy.

" "The introduction in Croatian and Spanish is written by Branko Kadic, a Croatian cultural worker. The book contains photographs of landscapes and historical figures from the country. The book cover is illustrated by the author's daughter, Carmen.

"Rojnica, through his intellectual and economic contributions, undoubtedly serves as an example to other emigrants. Idealists of this kind are few among us."

The same newspaper lists volumes 52-53 of Studia Croatica, reproducing the names of the authors and the titles of the most important articles and news items, and also indicating the magazine's address, where it can be purchased or subscribed to. 

Book review

Ivo Andric: "Fra Petar e fra Marco" Rome, 1974, 236 pp., Italian translation by Professor Franjo Trograncic, 500 copies.

In this work, Professor Trograncic has compiled, in an excellent Italian translation, nine short stories—true narrative gems—by Ivo Andric. Their main theme is the Croatian Franciscans of Bosnia under Turkish rule. The translator, in presenting the book to the Italian public, emphasizes: "Andric's Bosnia is a land of national, religious, and social contradictions, where diverse peoples live side by side and where different civilizations and cultures clash; a morbid and gloomy atmosphere, dominated by fear and anguish, fate and death. From this, Andric drew a rich gallery of highly distinctive characters, capturing their most pronounced peculiarities: Turkish viziers, pashas, and pashas; Austrian officers, hajducs, merchants, Jews, and Roma; rich and poor, with their instincts and passions, their doubts and sorrows, their customs and traditions, their spiritual horizons, their struggles and discouragements. But, among so many figures, the most successful are those of the old Franciscan friars of Bosnia, whom we find in both Andric's novels and short stories. Many writers before Andric attempted to interpret the soul and mentality of these people." Original figures in the romantic Franciscan monasteries of Bosnia, but no one did it with such heartfelt sincerity, bordering almost on a personal acknowledgment of the author, with such sympathy and kindness, with such fervent enthusiasm, and above all, with such artistry as Andric did. There is a veritable anthology, composed of a dozen of his best stories, which we present here to the Italian public, in which the protagonists are the Franciscans of Bosnia.”

It is worth noting that Professor Trograncic also dedicates this work to those Franciscans, teachers and mentors of his youth. "With their educational work and their spirit of sacrifice in guiding souls, which extended to martyrdom, the Bosnian Franciscans earned an affectionate name—ujaci (derived from ujak in Croatian, or uncle in English)—that is still used by the population. Despite the very difficult conditions under which they carried out their pastoral work, the Franciscans did not neglect to cultivate science and literature. Indeed, before the founding of their Vicariate (1340), the cultural situation in the country was rather low, which is why their primary concern was to raise the level of cultural and social life of the people. To this end, they founded schools and kept alive the national sentiment, threatened by the prolonged Turkish occupation. However, the Franciscans succeeded not only thanks to their love for their people, a love that compensates for so many deficiencies, but also because their general culture was more than enviable for those times and sufficient for those places. They bequeathed to us quite a few works of..." Theology and philosophy, literature, history, jurisprudence and medicine; oratory and philology. In short, without his work, the Croatian name, and with it the Catholic religion in Bosnia, would have been preserved with far greater difficulty.”

Let these lines serve as a testament of Trograncic’s gratitude to his teachers and personal educators, to the Croatian people in Bosnia, and to Andric himself, a native of that Croatian and Catholic environment to which Trograncic also belonged.

These stories by the greatest Croatian writer must be read. It doesn't matter—to a certain extent—that we Croatians might consider Andrić a national renegade because, under unfavorable circumstances, he chose the Serbian cultural environment. By reading him, attentive readers will discover Andrić's soul as a natural-born Croatian and Catholic.

Thus, for example, in reading the first story of this collection, titled "In the Musafirhana" (musafirhana is a Turkish word meaning "guest room." The Turks in Bosnia forced even the Franciscans to provide space for their travelers, who stayed there, often for free and with many abuses to the detriment of their "hosts"), Andrić reveals to us the purity of soul and idealism of the Franciscan friar Marco Krneta.

He is a physically strong Bosnian, but one who lacked intellectual aptitude and great interest in the achievements of civilization. But his love for his neighbor, his concern for their eternal salvation, were proverbial. In the musafirhana of his monastery, he attempted to convert and baptize a sick "Turk," left in his care by his two companions who had departed. But just when Brother Marco thought he had reached the point where the dying "Turk" had decided to accept baptism, the man spat out the cross that Brother Marco held as a symbol of salvation.

Furious at first, Brother Marco soon calmed down and reproached himself for his ineptitude and uselessness, even for his own religious community. When the "Turk" died the next day and was taken to his burial, Brother Marco, who was working in the monastery fields with volunteer or paid laborers, watched the funeral procession from afar, occasionally raising his head and praying for his deceased "guest." In his solitary meditations, according to Andric, Brother Marco thought: “Everything is in this great ship of God that is moving: the country, the fields, the monastery, and the musafirhana. I knew that You forget no one, not even the stammering Brother Marco, nor that sinful Osmo Mameledzija (his former guest in the musafirhana—obs. n.).

Even if one spits on Your cross, it is as if one were having a nightmare. In Your ship there is room for everyone. Even for that madman Kezmo (one of Osmo’s companions, who mistreated Brother Marco—obs. n.), if it weren’t…” Andric thus casts a true light of sympathy and kindness upon Brother Marco and Brother Petar, two of the main protagonists in the stories that Trogranci presents to the Italian public and, indeed, through this language, to a much wider audience. Andric identifies with his protagonists. So much so that in the Serbian cultural milieu—non-Catholic, Orthodox—to which he had chosen and to which he should belong, they call him "Brother Ivo," thus spontaneously returning him to his Croatian and Catholic environment, feeling him to be a stranger within their own community.

This choice seems strange—if it is real—to Andrić, especially considering what he himself said in 1963 upon receiving the Nobel Prize in Literature: "It doesn't matter whether a writer describes the past or the present, or whether he projects himself into the future. What matters is the spirit he manages to infuse into his story, the fundamental message that interests people, because the writer and his work are useless if they don't contribute something positive to humanity. This is the essential thing."

To serve humanity while simultaneously denying the spirit of those Franciscans who preserved Croatian national consciousness and the Catholic faith in Bosnia, and to contribute to the current, renewed persecution of Catholicism and Croats—is this truly contributing anything positive to humanity?

Another Croatian writer—Ivan Supek—one of the leading nuclear experts in communist Yugoslavia, purged from the Party and former rector of the University of Zagreb, wrote the following in 1971, when Croatian communists attempted to "humanize" Tito's regime and secure for their own Croatian people a better position than they deserved in that unjust community: "Dostoevsky observed with keen insight in one of his novels that the more his protagonist became enthusiastic about the ideals of universal humanity, the less interested he was in his fellow human beings. You cannot know what is far away if you do not know what is near.

Losing his human presence and that of his homeland, man finds himself in a void, often surrounded only by abstractions. A solitary 'ideologized' person of this kind begins to deny everything around him and, first and foremost, history, the nation, all previous beliefs, and small human joys. Although I was one of the initiators of Regarding the call of the 'Citizens of the World,' I have always been wary of those internationalists who readily reject national existence and tradition. Likewise, I am wary of those who elevate their nation above all others... The universal is rooted in the native soil of each of us, and by delving into these depths of our being, we rise to understand and appreciate all that is human."

Perhaps Andric, witnessing the sad conditions in which the Croatian people currently find themselves, and considering what Dostoevsky and Supek say, recalls the unease of his brother Marco upon returning from the confession of a dying hajduk, when he was "overwhelmed by the ancient desire to cry out, to save and heal all those who are losing their souls. There was such a beautiful and wide path of God. What drives men to stray? How is it that they do not see it?" Andric has "forgotten" the natural and divine path he was meant to follow with his Croatian people. A grave sin, mortal against his national community. The gravity is all the greater because Andric, with his uncommon talent and eloquence, instead of serving as a shield for his Croatian people, places it at the service of their closest and most bitter enemy.

While writing this biographical note, we received the sad news of the sudden death of Professor Trograncic, which occurred on September 17th in Rome. Born in the city of Vares, Bosnia, on September 2, 1913, this dedicated cultural worker now rests in a cemetery in the Eternal City. There he worked for more than two decades as a university professor. He left behind a deep and indelible mark as a cultural ambassador for his homeland, Croatia, carrying in our hearts an inconsolable sorrow for his loss and for the fact that Croatia is one of the most martyred countries currently in Europe and the civilized world. Studia Croatica will dedicate more space to Dr. Franjo (Francisco) Trograncic in one of its upcoming volumes, because he deserves it as a man, as a patriot, and as a tireless cultural worker, who had to leave this world in the sad condition of a political exile.

Franjo Nevistic

Ivo Omrcanin: "Sacred Crown of the Kingdom of Croatia"

(The Sacred Crown of the Kingdom of Croatia). Dorance & Company, Philadelphia, 1973, 33 pages.

Professor Omrcanin attempts to describe and reconstruct the history of the ancient Croatian royal crown, lost for centuries. His research is based on the bas-relief that now forms part of the balustrade of the baptistery in Split Cathedral, formerly the Temple of Aesculapius in Diocletian's Palace in the same city. Until recently, scholars were uncertain about the identity of the figure depicted wearing the crown in the bas-relief: a religious figure or a Croatian king. The Croatian archaeologist Ljubo Karaman demonstrated that it is a Croatian king, and the Austrian archaeologist Eitelberger proved that the bas-relief could have been made between the ninth and eleventh centuries.

Croatian historiography held that the first Croatian king was King Tomislav (910-929), and therefore assumed that the figure in the bas-relief represented King Petar Krešimir IV (1058-1074) and thus belonged to the 11th century. However, Professor D. Mandic, based on the ancient chronicle "The Kingdom of the Croats," and successively eliminating different hypotheses, concludes that the assembly at Duvno Field, in which King Budimir (740-780) was crowned, took place in early September 753, since the Pope Stephen and Emperor Constantine mentioned in the aforementioned chronicle could only have been Pope Stephen II (752-757) and Emperor Constantine V Copronymus (741-775). Therefore, the first crowned Croatian king was Budimir, a contemporary of the Frankish emperor Pepin the Short (746-768), who was himself the first sovereign anointed and crowned by the Church in the sacred ceremony, in 751.

The second was the Croatian king Budimir, who was anointed and crowned in 753, according to Professor Omrcanin in the first part of his work, entitled "The Coronation in Croatia." In the second part, under the title "The Crown," the author compares the Croatian crown depicted in the aforementioned bas-relief with the crown of the Frankish emperor Lothair (845-860), the portrait of Holofernes in the Bible of Emperor Charles II the Bald (875-877), the portrait in his Bible, and the portrait of Holofernes in the Bible of Charles III the Fat (881-888). He concludes that the Croatian crown shares the same characteristics as Western crowns, namely, that they all bear four crosses on a gold circlet, as can be seen in the color illustrations obtained courtesy of the National Library of France in Paris and the Sacred Monastery of San Paolo fuori le Mura in Rome, respectively.

The author contributes to clarifying who the bas-relief represents by concluding, based on the aforementioned background information, that the figure in question is King Trpimir I (845-860), a contemporary of the aforementioned emperors, and that the Croatian crown is undoubtedly of the Carolingian type, not the Byzantine type. This type of crown always features a single cross and movable pendants (earrings), unlike Western crowns of the period, which had fixed pendants until their complete disappearance.

As further corroboration of his arguments regarding the type and characteristics of the Croatian crown, the author reproduces a photograph of the mural of King Mihajlo (1046-1081) of the Croatian dynasty of Duclia (Southern Croatia), painted after his coronation in 1077 in the Church of St. Michael in Ston, near Dubrovnik.

The reproductions of the illustrative material, partly in color, partly in black and white, as well as the reproduction of the reconstruction of the crown in color, explain why this edition is so luxurious in terms of format, size and the illustration paper used.

In the third part, "The Rulers of Croatia," the author reproduces, from his work "Diplomatic and Political History of Croatia" (Dorrance & Company, Philadelphia, 1972), a list of all the rulers of Croatia, grouped into fourteen categories, from the earliest centuries to the present day.

It is worth mentioning, in conclusion, that the crowns of the Croatian kings Tomislav (910-929) and Petar Kresimir IV (1054-1074), in their respective portraits by the Croatian painter Kristian Krekovic, which are also reproduced in this work, more closely resemble the actual royal crown than the schematic, colored image created according to the author's own instructions.

Milan Blazekovic

George J. Prpic and Hilda Prpic: "Croatian books and booklets in exile"

Cleveland 1973, pp. I-XIX, 73. (Author's edition in collaboration with the Institute for Soviet and East European Studies, John Carroll University, Cleveland, Ohio).

Following an English-language bibliography on "Eastern Europe and World Communism" (Cleveland, 1966) and a bibliography of "Croatian Publications Abroad after 1939" (Cleveland, 1969), this is Professor G. J. Prpic's third bibliographical work. He prepared it in collaboration with his wife and published it in Croatian. He dedicates the work to the pioneers of the printed word and, in particular, to Professor Dominik Mandic, "today our most distinguished historian," who died just before this work went to press.

The introduction to the work consists of an essay entitled "The Role of Croatian Literature in Exile." There, Professor Prpic presents a brief overview of Croatian literary publications abroad from 1890 to the present, thus highlighting the existence of such literature, especially with regard to the United States of America. The index lists 380 authors, whose works, with complete bibliographic information, are grouped into four sections: books in Croatian (243 works), pamphlets in Croatian (92 works), books in foreign languages (298 works), and pamphlets in foreign languages (91 works); a total of 724 works, more than half of which are written in foreign languages.

As a contribution to Professor Prpic's difficult but meritorious work, we would add that perhaps the novel by Ivan Glogovsek and Marcos Kalazch, "Loves and Tragedies (Sarajevo 1914)" (576 pp.), published in Buenos Aires in 1948, should be included in the bibliography. We also believe that the works of the tragically deceased Professor René Marcic of the University of Vienna, whose life and scholarly work we will explore elsewhere in this volume, should be included in this bibliography. A subject-based bibliography, taking into account not only books and pamphlets but also at least those published in various Croatian journals, would be essential. Such a task is beyond the capabilities of a single professional without the assistance of an institution or organization with staff fluent in the various languages in which Croatian intellectuals, scattered throughout the world, must express their thoughts and works.

Milan Blazekovic

Prof. George J. Prpic: "Croatia and Hungary during the Turkish era"

(Croatia and Hungary during the Turkish Period), published by the Center for Southern-Hungarian and Balkan Studies, Cleveland, Ohio, 1973, 32 pages.

The Center for Southern-Hungarian and Balkan Studies, Cleveland, USA, published in the Hungarian journal "Virraszt" (Awakener), vol. 3 (July 1973), as the first article in the series "Southern-Hungarian and Balkan Studies," the aforementioned brief historical overview by the Croatian historian, Professor George J. Prpic, of John Carroll University, Cleveland, Ohio, on Hungarian-Croatian relations during the Turkish period, that is, from 1527 to the end of the 17th century.

It is no easy task for a Croatian historian to write for a Hungarian journal about Hungarian-Croatian relations during any period of the long coexistence of these two nations, as there is no agreement between historians of both countries, not even regarding the interpretation of the events that ultimately led to the formation of the personal union between the Kingdom of Croatia and the Kingdom of Hungary in the 12th century. In this regard, one need only consult the work of Professor Ferdo Sisic, "Enchiridion fontium historiae croaticae" (Manual of Sources of Croatian History, Zagreb 1914, 653 pp.), to realize the extent of the divergent opinions between Croatian and Hungarian historians concerning fundamental historical facts.

However, it seems that Professor Prpic succeeded in finding the appropriate language to present Hungarian-Croatian relations during the period in question, such that a Hungarian organization (with revisionist leanings, as it represents the voice of the inhabitants of Hungarian territories attributed to neighboring states after the First World War) considered that this short study "will contribute to a better understanding of our shared past and our common interests that made the Hungarian-Croatian union so enduring (1102-1918)," as stated in the publication's preface by Antonio J. Lelbach, M.D., president of the aforementioned center.

Indeed, the author summarizes the most important events of their shared history in the following chapters: 1. Croatia and Hungary during the Turkish era; 2. The 15th century; 3. Relics; 4. Between the Habsburgs and the Turks; and 5. The revolt against the Habsburgs. His exposition is accompanied by four pages of notes and references filled with bibliographic data from various authors (historians), whose opinions Professor Prpic sometimes dismisses, as in the case of Emil Lengyel's book "1000 Years of Hungary," labeling it "extremely deficient in its presentation of Hungarian-Croatian relations."

He similarly criticizes Cecil M. Knatchbull's "Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation" (London 1906) for being a typically nationalist interpretation of Hungarian historians. Indeed, it refers to the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia as "three districts," initially called "partes subjectae" and later "partes adnexae," which never claimed more than "municipal independence." However, this was the attitude held by Hungarian politicians in 1848 when Croatian and Hungarian nationalisms clashed, sometimes with weapons in hand.

This point is perhaps the most difficult to present to the satisfaction of both parties. The subtle concessions that the author makes somewhat to the taste of his Hungarian readers regarding the policy followed by the Croatian ban, Baron Josip Jelacic, are detrimental to his historical image. Indeed, while it is true that Ban Jelacic died mentally darkened by disillusionment with the Habsburgs, whom he decisively helped to save, it is also true that Croatia could never alone, by itself, confront Austria and Hungary in search of its state independence, but rather in defense of the existing and sometimes precarious independence it had to ally itself with one of them against the other.

Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the author - and with "modern Croatian historians" - that "ban Jelacic, instead of marching with the Croatian army to Hungary, and to Austria to save the Habsburgs, would have proclaimed the independence of his own land. Jelacic did not create the Croatian State, he had not marched to Bosnia to liberate it from the Turks, he did not accept offers from some southern Slavs (such as Montenegrins), but instead, he fought Hungarian liberal patriots and revolutionary Vienna. This formulation alone indicates the ideological origin of the modern Croatian historians to whom the author refers, whose interpretations are due to the Marxist interpretation of Croatian history, which focuses more on purposes and goals than on real possibilities, and which has served as an argument and pretext for the dismantling of the ban Jelacic monument in the homonymous square of the Croatian capital, Zagreb.

After the Habsburgs and the Turks, the Croats and Hungarians, and their respective lands, are dominated by communism. Perhaps now is the time for Croatian and Hungarian historians, writers and politicians to exercise self-criticism, Professor Prpic concludes in his instructive and interesting final considerations.

Milan Blazekovic

Ivo Rojnica, Prikaz Povijesti Argentine i doprinos Hrvata

(Overview of Argentine History and the Croatian Contribution), self-published, 269 pp., in Croatian. Vilko SRL Workshops, EE.UU. 425, Buenos Aires.

Bearing in mind that the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture, Buenos Aires, aims to promote mutual understanding between the Croatian people—their history, culture, and current political struggles—and the Ibero-American peoples, especially the Argentine people, and that it has been publishing the journal Studia Croatica for 15 years for this purpose, we can say that the book mentioned above, whose author is the vice president of the aforementioned Institute, is the most comprehensive document in this regard.

Rojnica recounts the history of this country, one of the most important in Latin America, in a succinct, clear, and chronological manner, without any scientific pretensions, but rather through prior research and a critical study of the sources of knowledge. The author's intention was to inform Croatians in their own language about Argentine national life, adhering strictly to the works of several well-selected Argentine authors.

Within this panoramic and informative framework, it is logical that delving into the problems of the ideological currents that emerged over the centuries of the nation's development, both as part of the Spanish Empire and as an independent nation, is not appropriate. Even when the author touches on the issue of political parties from different philosophical or socio-economic schools of thought, he maintains an equitable and objective stance, without favoring one current over another. For his purposes, he considers it necessary to acknowledge the serious and fundamental intention of all of them to promote the prosperity, growth, and an increasingly brighter future for the entire nation.

For all these reasons, Croatian readers—and there are hundreds of thousands of them in Latin America alone—eager to learn about an intelligent, dynamic, and thriving people located at the southern tip of the continent, with a vast territory and incalculable wealth, will have a clear picture of the Argentine Republic upon finishing this book.

The interest in the book comes from all over the world where exiled Croatians live, testifying to the author's success and the quality of his work. The Argentine struggle for independence, besides being heroic, is also instructive for all peoples still fighting for their independence. A people, feeling a shared sense of purpose and a bright future in independence, could no longer endure the political, economic, and administrative abuses of the metropolis; they rose up to take control of their own historical destiny.

The towering figure of General San Martín was, from the beginning, the supreme leader and has retained that position to this day, not only chronologically, but also as a symbol of unity and freedom, both for Argentina and for the entire continent. This was the most cherished ideal of the recently deceased President General Juan Domingo Perón. Just as in that period of San Martín's historic actions, characterized by selfless dedication and selflessness, General Perón has placed Argentina at the forefront of the union of Latin American peoples. Of course, the political, economic, and technological conditions of the world we live in today are different. We must close ranks and unite our forces to compete with other powers whose sphere of influence, thanks to scientific and technological development, is constantly expanding, reaching global dimensions—geographically, economically, culturally, militarily, and politically.

To further his aim of fostering mutual understanding, Rojnica includes in his book a chapter dedicated to Croatians who distinguished themselves through their activity and contributions to Argentina's progress. The author applied the criterion of considering as Croatians only those born in Croatia who, upon arriving in their new homeland, developed an activity—economic, scientific, or cultural—that represented a significant contribution.

Rojnica's book also has another very interesting aspect. Without aiming to be exhaustive or comprehensive, but with a keen awareness of concrete reality, the author counters and prevents, with irrefutable facts, the ever-renewed denigration of Croatians, even within Argentine society, by our national enemies. It is they who spread anti-Croatian myths based solely on their own fantasies, which have little to do with even the most basic human ethics.

Even adhering to the classical wisdom of "no one is blessed before death," we can say that the Croatian community in Argentina is one of the most diligent in its honest daily work, untouched by any kind of subversive or criminal activity. Rojnica's book provides data that places our community at the opposite end of the value scale. That is why this book can serve as a manual for defending the moral and civic integrity of Croatians in this Latin American world.Efemerón

---

[1] A. Camus, L'Homme Révolté, Paris, 1951, p. 14, L. Gallimard: "Mais les camps d'esclaves sous la bannière de la liberté, les massacres justifiés par l'amour de l'homme ou le goût de la surhumanité, désemparent, en un sens, le jugement. Le jour où le crime se pare de dépouilles de l'innocence, par un curieux renversement, qui es propre à notre temps, c'est l'innonce qui es sommée de fournir ses justifications".

[2] "Existentialism, on the contrary, thinks it is very uncomfortable that God does not exist, because with him disappears all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven... it is not written anywhere that good exists, that one must be honest, that one must not lie, since we are precisely on a plane where there are only men... Indeed, everything is permitted if God does not exist, and consequently man is abandoned, because he finds neither within himself nor outside himself a possibility to cling to." J. P. Sartre, Martin Heidegger, On Humanism, SUR, Buenos Aires, 1960, pp. 20-21.

[3] Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, in Preface, p. 14, Ed. Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 1971.

[4] Guido Gonella, Presupposti di un ordine internazionale, Vatican City, 1943, p. 88

[5] Friedrich Nietzsche, Werke, ed. K. Schlechta, vol. III, 2nd ed., Munich, 1960, p. 917, cited according to Geoffrey Barraclough: Introducción en la Historia Contemporánea, Madrid, 1965, p. 293.

[6] A. Jurado, "El mono con armas" in "La Prensa" of August 11, 1974, illustrated Sunday edition.

[7] Aproximación histórica de la Guerra Española, 1936-1939: Anexos de "Cuadernos bibliográficos de la Guerra Española (1936-1939)", University of Madrid, 1970, No. 1, p. 15.

[8] The writer and diplomat Salvador de Madariaga, in his masterful work Spain - An Essay on Contemporary History (Editorial Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 4th ed., 1944), aptly characterizes the communist maneuvers aimed at consolidating their power in the Iberian Peninsula: "The Third International had followed (and perhaps even anticipated) the rebellion in Asturias in 1934 with the utmost interest. During the seventh congress of the Communist International, held in Moscow in August 1935, the so-called Trojan Horse policy was adopted, which Comrade Dimitrov presented to the Comintern. This policy was the result of a change in tactics within communism, which, instead of attacking capitalism head-on, proposed to attack it from within, penetrating its political organization through alliances with all parties willing to collaborate with the communists. In international politics, this change in tactics led Soviet communism to Geneva and to the Rassamblement Populaire Pour la Paix. In national politics, he took it to the Popular Front." Op. cit. page 595.

[9] I know that Dr. Stojadinovic—condemned to political ostracism during the dictatorship of King Alexander I Karageorgevic—regularly attended the meetings of the Oceania S.A. Susak Company as a shareholder. This company maintained regular shipping lines between the ports of Susak, Sibenik, Split, and Dubrovnik (Gruz) and the ports of Spain (Barcelona, Valencia, Alicante), Morocco (Spanish zone), and the Canary Islands. I also know that he was aware of the efforts being made to foster relations with Spain.

[10] The quotas granted by Spain were for railway sleepers, timber (items 101 and 102 of the Customs Tariff), fresh eggs, and cellulose. Yugoslavia, for its part, set import quotas for rice, peanuts, oranges, lemons, tangerines, raw cork, cork stoppers, and single-ply cotton yarn.

[10] The quotas granted by Spain were for railway sleepers, timber (items 101 and 102 of the Customs Tariff), fresh eggs, and cellulose. [11] For example, egg exporters, who, lacking quotas for the German market in July and August, insisted on sending large quantities of boxes to Spain—one of the most attractive markets after Germany and England—despite the abnormal situation, assuming that distributors would soon disappear. Thus, the overall quota of 20,000 metric quintals for 1936 was used by 34.7% in just two months, corresponding to 6,940 metric quintals of eggs worth 5,740,000 dinars.

[12] It is strange that Dr. Stojadinovic does not mention his meeting with the former King of Spain, Alfonso XIII, who, coming from Austria, visited His Royal Highness Prince Regent Paul of Yugoslavia on that very same day at the nearby Brdo Castle. This visit, to my knowledge, was not reported in the press.

[13] See cablegram sent by United Press from Hendaye, published by El Mercurio, Santiago, Chile, on August 22, 1936:

[14] The Spanish legation in Belgrade was already leaderless before the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War; the minister, Fernando Alcalá Galiano, Count of Tarrijos, had left for personal reasons, and the legation's first secretary, who was serving as chargé d'affaires ad interim, soon defected to the Nationalist side.

[14] The Spanish legation in Belgrade was already without a head before the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War; the minister, Fernando Alcalá Galiano, Count of Tarrijos, had left for personal reasons, and the legation's first secretary, who was serving as chargé d'affaires ad interim, soon switched sides to the Nationalist cause. [15] As for public opinion, it is telling that Belgrade publishers rushed to meet the demand for information, publishing works that addressed the Spanish problem from the Popular Front's point of view, as recorded in the General Bibliography on the Spanish War (1936-1939) and its Historical Antecedents, Ariel S.A., Madrid-Barcelona, 1968, 729 pages (with an introduction by Prof. R. de la Cierva; the list does not appear to be exhaustive, since there were several pamphlets—some even clandestine—in circulation).

[16] To emphasize impartiality regarding Spanish affairs, I had considered it appropriate to put the terms "democracy," "fascism," "nationalists," "reds," etc., in quotation marks. See the clarifications for designating the militants of each side in Luis Vilá-San-Juan: Was It So? Enigmas of the Spanish Civil War (Ediciones Nauta, S.A., Barcelona, 2nd ed., 1972, 527 pages. page 22 ff.).

[17] Cf. S. de Madariaga, op. cit., pp. 408-409.

[18] Ramón Franco, the younger brother of General Francisco Franco, a man of progressive ideas for the time, published a book in 1931, Madrid Under the Bombs, which he dedicated "to the martyrs of Liberty, Captains Galán and García Hernández, murdered on Sunday, December 14, 1930, by the Spanish reactionaries, embodied in the monarchy of Alfonso XIII and his government headed by General Dámaso Berangeur." In 1936, he and his aircraft disappeared on a war flight in support of the Nationalists. Cf. L. Vilá-San-Juan, op. cit., p. 99, and S. de Madariaga, op. cit., p. 449.

[19] José María Gil Robles, leader of Acción Popular, in his political memoirs. Peace Was Not Possible (1st ed., Ariel, Barcelona, 1968, 851 pp., pp. 64-65), explains the spectacular failure of the right wing: "The political parties, already highly fragmented before 1923, severely weakened during the Dictatorship and without solid roots, collapsed spectacularly. The right wing also lacked a fighting spirit. Having held power, they relinquished it without a struggle. Lacking the support of the police, they lost control of the streets. Furthermore, devoid of the habits of civic engagement, they resigned themselves to their sad fate. The elections for the Constituent Cortes (June 28, 1931) completed the disaster of the municipal elections."

[20] Regarding the role played by General Sanjurjo on April 14, 1931, see S. de Madariaga, Op. cit., p. 454, and in the uprising of August 10, 1932, Joaquín Arrarás, History of the Second Spanish Republic (Vol. I, Editorial Nacional, 24th ed., Madrid, 1956, 526 pp., p. 485 ff.).

[21] At that time, the leader of Popular Action also headed the Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Right-Wing Groups (CEDA). The CEDA was founded at the Congress of Popular Action's affiliated organizations, held in Madrid from February 28 to March 5, 1933. In the November 1933 elections, the CEDA won 115 seats, 67 of which belonged to Popular Action, so Gil Robles was the kingmaker in the Cortes, with the strongest group among a total of 473 deputies. Cf. Gil Robles, op. cit., p. 102.

[22] Ricardo de la Cierva, who has meticulously studied the factors that triggered the Spanish Civil War (in "Aproximación histórica...", op. cit., p. 80), states in this regard: "Many years later, on December 14, 1968, José Calvo Sotelo was declared killed in action by the government of General Franco. His death was, therefore, the signal."

[23] Cf. José Ortega y Gasset: España invertebrada, Ediciones "Revista de Occidente", 12th ed., Madrid, 1962, pp. 79 ff.

[24] General Weigand, in the preface to General Duval's book, op. cit., analyzes the elements of both sides and concludes that "victory cannot come from anarchy and ignorance." S. de Madariaga also points out that "throughout the entire struggle, the dominant feature remained chaos, internal strife, and anarchy," Op. cit., p. 691.

[25] Cf. J. Ortega y Gasset, op. cit., p. 67 ff.

[26] The Count of Romanones, leader of the Liberal Party and President of the Senate, declared at the time: "We cannot sympathize with a military dictatorship, but I must confess that those gentlemen were right to choose the moment. Two months earlier or later, the coup would not have been possible. And the truth is this: public opinion did not reject it. The people are very dissatisfied with the situation in Morocco." Cf. ABC newspaper, Madrid, September 26, 1923.

[27] Rafael Sánchez G., op. cit., p. 180, referring to caciquismo (local political bossism), recounts the following anecdote: "Once, on the train, some time ago, on the way to France, I don't know how the conversation arose between a German traveler and me about agriculture in Spain. The German had just toured the Peninsula and had been thrilled by the fertility of our soil. In Cádiz, he witnessed a plague of locusts. 'Is the locust,' he asked me, 'the most terrible plague that Spain suffers?' I answered that it wasn't. I told him that the most terrible plague we suffered in Spain was the 'cacique' (local political boss). He laughed a lot when I explained what 'cacique' meant and told me that we Spaniards had a very good sense of humor."

[28] Revista de Occidente, Madrid, No. 127, October 1973, is dedicated to the topic of "caciquismo." Among the articles included, the following deserve special mention: Joaquín Maura: "Caciquismo: An Attempt at Raising Awareness," pp. 15-44; José Varela Ortega: "Political Friends: How the Caciquismo System Works," pp. 45-74; and Javier Tusell Gómez: "The Decomposition of the Spanish Caciquismo System (1900-1931)," pp. 75-93, which, as an Andalusian cacique wrote, "was observed by the same towns that voted for Admiral Aznar's government (municipal elections of April 12, 1931), three months later gave their vote to the Republic because it was the established government: rural Spain will always be ministerial."

[29] It should be kept in mind that in 1900 only 16.8% of the population lived in the fifty provincial capitals; by 1940 this proportion had risen to 24.4%. Before 1936, 29% of the population lived in towns with more than 20,000 inhabitants. In 1900, 63.8% of Spaniards were illiterate; this proportion had fallen to 44.4% by 1930. See Manuel Fraga Iribarne: Las transformaciones de la sociedad española contemporánea (The Transformations of Contemporary Spanish Society), Ediciones del Movimiento, Madrid, pp. 19 ff.

[30] In the statement given by Gil Robles, transmitted by the U.P. news agency (see El Mercurio, Santiago, Chile, February 6, 1936), he emphasized that "the upcoming elections represent a decisive battle against the revolution. Spain could not tolerate another sterile Cortes, which would discredit and even kill the parliamentary system. This danger should give pause to those responsible for and sponsoring the so-called centrist policy."

[31] Cf. Solidaridad Obrera, March 11, 1951, cited in Burnett Bolletten, The Great Deception (Luis de Caralt, Barcelona, 1961), pp. 386-387.

[32] Cf. The statement by the Count of Romanones, given to the Portuguese journalist Armando Boaventura (Madrid-Moscow- From Dictatorship to Republic and to the Spanish Civil War, Nascimento, Santiago, Chile, 1948; pp. 145 ff.), that "to resolve the Spanish political problem, in accordance with national interests, Gil Robles is the only one who could become the dictator that Spain needs."

[33] Cf. Cablegram from the U.P. in El Mercurio, February 14, 1936.

[34] Analyzing in detail the surprising results of the elections, Gil Robles, op. cit. cit., pp. 512 ff., particularly highlights the influence of the electoral law that favored the Popular Front, since, with reference to the general election results of February 20, they yielded the following distribution: Anti-Revolutionary Bloc, 4,187,511; Popular Front, 3,912,086; Centrists and Independents, 325,197; Basque Nationalists, 141,137.

S. de Madariaga, op. cit., p. 540, provides the following figures:

Partidos	Votos	Diputados	Votos por diputados
Frente Popular	4.206.156	258	16.300
Centro	681.047	62	10.987
Derecha	3.783.601	152	24.900

[35] Cf. Gil Robles, op. cit., p. 201; chapter "The Right and Democracy"

[36] The American historian Gabriel Jackson, in his work The Spanish Republic and the Civil War 1936-1939 (Mexico, 1967, Grijalbo Publishers), p. 222, comments on the expectations of the proletarian left as follows: "The left was intoxicated by the idea that history was on its side. It would use the republican government as long as it carried out the desired reforms, and then it would seize power in the name of the proletariat when, in its opinion, the opportunity arose."

[37] Claude G. Bowers, United States Ambassador to Spain from June 1933 to March 1939, when he resigned, recounts his impressions of that time in his book, *My Mission in Spain* (On the Threshold of the Second World War, Grijalbo S.A., Mexico, 1966, 440 pp., p. 292 ff.): "The effect of the fall of Irún on the rebels and their ardent supporters among my colleagues was incredible to me. They agreed that the war was practically over. One of the effects of the fall of the Irún front was a change in the government in Madrid." Mr. Bowers was transferred to Chile and served as ambassador to La Moneda for 14 uninterrupted years. In his book Mission in Chile, 1939-1953 (Editorial Pacífico, S.A., Santiago de Chile, 1957, 389 pp.), under the impact of the incipient "Cold War" and thanks to the Chilean experience, he certainly changed his opinion regarding the innocuous "democracy" of pro-Soviet origin. See especially Chapter XI, "Alarm and Communist Influences"; op. cit., pp. 175-193. Cf. note 52.

[38] The Soviet journalist Mikhail Koltozov, in his Diary of the Spanish War (Ruedo Ibérico Editions, Switzerland, 1963, 492 pp., p. 65 ff.), dated December 3, 1936, describes the ministerial crisis arising from the alarming situation on the Irún front: "Feeling he had found himself on solid ground, Caballero presented a new demand in the form of an ultimatum: that the communists be included in the cabinet. The Party was against it; it preferred to support the Popular Front cabinet with all its might from outside of it; moreover, it did not want to create unnecessary international difficulties, since without this the future government would have been declared Bolshevik, Soviet."

[39] Cf. S. de Madariaga, op. cit., p. 636: "Marcel Rosenberg attended Council of Ministers meetings and interfered in Spanish affairs with the authority of a man delivering merchandise."

[40] According to Fernando Díaz Plaja, in his book *Another History of Spain* (Plaza y Janés Publishers, Barcelona, 1973, 1st ed.), p. 531, in 1936 the CNT had 1,527,000 members and the UGT 1,444,474.

[41] Koltozov, op. cit., p. 66, explains the communist tactic: "In the end, the Party decided to take over the Ministry of Public Instruction and the Ministry of Agriculture, two branches in which the communist ministers could be most useful to the peasants and the masses, putting into practice to the fullest extent what can be achieved in a new type of bourgeois-democratic republic such as Spain under the Popular Front."

[42] In the conversations between Mussolini and the German Marshal H. Goering, in the presence of Count Ciano, in Rome, on January 23, 1937, Mussolini declared, that "Russia has not sent nessun nucleo di volontari, but soltanto Capi e materiale, e si adatterebbe certamente al accetare anche una sconfitta dei rossi." "Il Conte Ciano." I know that the Italian Ambassador to Mosca (Augusto Rosso Nov. 1936, 1941-2019), who is currently in Rome, has communicated that he and I have been slowly preparing a sconfitta dei rossi in Ispagna and that he is exclusively saved concerned about raggiungere an international agreement of which serve, verse the people themselves, as scusa per l'insucesso della loro azione spanish. Litvinov (commissario del popolo per gli Affari esteri dal 21 luglio 1930 al 3 maggio 1939) cercherebbe insomma una specie di "alibi" sotto forma de un acordo internazionale". Galeazzo Ciano, L'Europa verso la catastrofe (Armaldo Mondatori, Editore, Milano, 1948, p. 135).

[43] Cf. S. de Madariaga, op. cit., p. 621 ff., and El Diario de Barcelona (founded in 1792), which during the Civil War belonged to the "Estat Català," August 18, 1936, editorial article "El nou horitzó politic" (The New Political Horizon).

[44] Regarding the confiscation of private businesses, Koltozov notes in his Diary, on September 7, 1936, that "according to a rough estimate, throughout the territory free of seditious elements, there will be about 18,000 confiscated units. Of these, 2,500 in Madrid, about 3,000 in Barcelona. These figures, in my opinion, are at least half lower." Op. cit., p. 75.

[45] Characteristic of this unique event is the stylized note provided by the Prime Minister's office at 10:30 p.m. on November 4, 1936: "Convinced that at the present time none of the forces fighting against fascism should be excluded from the Government, but that circumstances demand that responsibilities be shared by all and that each of these forces feel directly represented in power, the Prime Minister has advised the President of the State to expand the Government by granting representation to the National Confederation of Labor. The suggestion having been accepted by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister has immediately proceeded to reorganize the Cabinet." The text appears on the front page of El Socialista, November 5, 1936.

[46] According to Koltozov, op. cit., p. 98. "The Fifth Regiment emerged from the first, small shock units created by the communists for the Guadarrama front. The Fifth Regiment, rather than a military unit, is a war commissariat, a training center." Cf. S. de Madariaga, op. cit., p. 635 ff.

[47] There is abundant literature on the intervention of the International Brigades; among the recent works, J. L. Alcofar Nassaes: "spansky," Los extranjeros que lucharon en la Guerra civil española I. (Foreigners Who Fought in the Spanish Civil War, Vol. 1), Dopesa Barcelona, 1973, 355 pp., deserves mention. The same author also published an earlier study on Los legionarios italianos en la guerra civil española 1936-1939 (Italian Legionnaires in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939). Cf. S. de Madariaga, op. cit., p. 626 ff.

[48] According to Koltozov's account, on November 14, 1936, "Durruti's column arrived at the front. They are three thousand men, very well armed and equipped, outwardly bearing no resemblance to the anarchist fighters who surrounded Durruti at Bujaraloz. Durruti and Oliver (Minister of Justice) are traveling together. The two famous anarchists... have requested to be assigned an independent sector, where the anarchists can demonstrate their successes."

[49] The intervention of the anarchist militia under Durruti's command, according to Koltozov, was a failure. On November 21, Koltozov, who was with the International Brigade fighting for the Clinical Hospital, recorded: "When, exhausted, wet, dirty, dazed, and elated, we dragged ourselves from the Clinical Hospital to the second line, someone came running up and told us that in the adjacent sector, in the West Park, Durruti had been killed." Op. cit., p. 239.

[50] The term was used by General Mola when he declared that four columns were marching on Madrid and that the "fifth column" would enter the fray at the opportune moment. On the night of November 7, from Saturday to Sunday, Radio Sevilla repeatedly exhorted the Nationalists in Madrid that the time had come to act. See V. Palacio Atard, op. cit., pp. 243 and 271, and S. de Madariaga, op. cit., p. 623 ff.

[51] Regarding the tempo of war operations, the subject of divergent opinions at that time, General Weigand comments: "Les opérations menées du coté du général Franco n'ont pas été aussi lenses qu'elles l'ont paru. D'ailleurs, ceux qui ne se battent pas, et se content de juger les coups, trouvent toujours que les choses ne vont pas assez vite". Cf. General Duval, op. cit., p. 116 ff., and the long interview that General Franco gave in January 1937 to B. Boaventura, op. cit., pp. 185-208.

[52] Koltozov, op. cit., p. 175 points out in this regard: "It is the same 'hole' method used in Oviedo, only this time the fascists are applying it. They think that by having a passage for retreat, the people of Madrid will rush towards it and will not defend the city."

[53] Cf. Burnett Bolloton: The Grand Camouflage (original title: The Grand Camouflage), Luis de Garalt Publishers, Barcelona, 1961, p. 164 ff.

[54] Cf. J. Ortega y Gasset, op. cit., p. 55 ff.

[55] At the meeting of the German and Italian foreign ministers, von Neurath and Count Ciano, held in Berlin on October 21, 1936, the following three points were established with regard to Spain: 1. Immediate and common military effort; 2nd riconoscimento dopo l'occupazione di Madrid; 3º azione comúne, che verrá definita a suo tempo, per prevenire il determinasi e il consolidatesi di uno Stato catalano." Galeazzo Ciano, L'Europa, etc., op. cit., p. 89. Italy and Germany recognized the Spanish Nationalist government on November 18, 1936. El Salvador (November 6) and Guatemala (November 8) preceded them. Portugal officially recognized the Burgos government on May 11, 1938.

[56] The Englishman Arthur F. Loveday, former president of the British Chamber of Commerce in Spain, in his book Where Is Spain Going? (From the Civil War to the World War, Zig-Zag Publishers, Santiago, Chile, 1948, 380 pp., p. 27), highlights Spain's compliance with the "status quo": "On September 27 (1938), when in many circles it Believing a European war to be imminent, the Duke of Alba delivered to the British Foreign Office General Franco's declaration stating that Nationalist Spain would remain neutral in the Czechoslovak crisis. This was positive proof that Nationalist Spain was not and did not intend to be subordinate to Germany and Italy, and should have silenced the press propaganda that had so powerfully influenced public opinion to believe otherwise.

[57] Cf. Burnett Bolloton, op. cit., p. 59.

[58] According to Burnett Bolloton's research, op. cit., pp. 60 ff., "the CNT established an organization for the purchase, packaging, and export of orange harvest products, with a network of 270 committees in different cities and towns, which displaced several thousand brokers from this important industry."

[59] In his solitude at the Pedralbes Palace (Barcelona), the President of the Republic, Manuel Azaña, was putting the finishing touches on *La velada de Benicarló. Diálogo sobre la Guerra de España* (Editorial Losada S.A., Buenos Aires, 1939, p. 187) at the end of March 1937. Under the guise of an imaginary character, the former minister Garcés, who participates in the dialogue, Azaña bitterly summarizes his opinion regarding the causes of the desperate situation of the Republican side (p. 65): "Listed in order of their importance, from greatest to least, the enemies of the Republic are: the Franco-British policy; the armed intervention of Italy and Germany; the excesses, indiscipline, and ulterior motives that have undermined the reputation of the Republic; and finally, the rebels' own forces. Where would the July uprising be now, if the other three causes, particularly the first, had not worked in their favor?

[60] Milan M. Stojadinovic: Ni rat ni pakt -Jugoslavija izmedju dva rata (Neither War nor Pact - Yugoslavia Between the Two Wars, Buenos Aires, 1963, Ediciones "El Economista", 762 pp.; in Serbian) pp. 426-627.

[61] Although Ciano (Galeazzo Ciano, L'Europa verso la catastrofe, Edit. Arnaldo Mondatori, Milan, 1948, p. 135) records that "Prima di proceede alla firma dei documenta gia concordati a Roma, il president Stojadinovic ed io abbiamo compiuto a long turn of orizzonte to mutually inform each other of the political direttive estera dei due paesi e per concordare l'azione da svolgere infuture", there is no special reference to the affairs of Spain, a topic of great relevance at that time.

[62] In contravention of the Corfu Pact of 1917, between the Prime Minister of Serbia, Nicholas Pasic (radical, teacher and mentor of Stojadinovic) and the president of the Yugoslav Committee in London, Ante Trumbic, on behalf of the Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs under Austria-Hungary, by which the future Constitution of a common state would be founded on the basis of a qualified majority vote in the Constitutional Assembly. The Croatian Peasant Party (E. Radic), representing the vast majority of the Croatian nation, did not participate in the constitutional work, as it did not send its representatives to the Parliament in Belgrade until 1925. Cf. F. Nevistic, "Half a Century of Illegitimate Power," article in Studia Croatica, 1968, pp. 3-15.

[63] Suffrage was public for men over 21. It was the case that in some districts in Croatia, for example, a seat in parliament could be won with only 20 votes against 10,000 or more for the Croatian opposition. It was not even necessary for the respective 20 votes to come from the district's electoral roll, as the electoral law allowed the presiding officers The polling stations were staffed by "delegates" from other regions - they were regularly tax officials sent from the capital, Belgrade - with the right to vote counted at the place of delegation.

[64] The radicalization of the Croatian masses, who remained dissatisfied with the belated settlement of modest autonomy (August 26, 1939), led them to advocate a "tot o res" (all or nothing) solution, following the example of the "Estat Català" (Catalan State). Cf. Eugen Laxa, Esteban Radic and his peasant movement, article in Studia Croatica, 1968, pp. 30-46.

[65] After the annexation of Austria, Ciano notes the respective opinion of the Yugoslav minister in Rome, Bosko Hristic: "A certain unpleasant repercussion has occurred among the German minorities, given that some of the more insolent elements have raised their voices and begun a propaganda campaign that Yugoslavia will not tolerate." G. Ciano, L'Europa, op. cit. cit., p. 302.

[66] Lebensraum: living space; in the Yugoslav case, the Third Reich was, at that time, more interested in coordinating economic plans aimed at greater autarky for "Central Europe," assigning Yugoslavia and other southeastern European countries the role of producers of foodstuffs and raw materials.

[67] Referring to the conversation that Stojadinovic had with Mussolini on an official visit to Rome, Ciano notes the following paragraphs on December 11, 1937. "Il Presidente Stojadinovic chiede di conoscere il giudizio del Duce sulla situazione english Il Duce fa il point su tale situazione e concludendo che il Generale Franco ha avuto nel passato precise prove della amicizia Italiana e che tale amicizia sosterrá fine to the raggiungimento della vittoria che ormai no appare piú dubbia."Il Presidente Stojadinovic says that he has continued with the greatest sympathy for our treatment in Spain and communicates that Jugoslavia has decided to send a diplomatic agent to Salamanca. He adds that, on the other hand, from the beginning of the revolution onward, relations between Yugoslavia and Madrid were practically nonexistent." Ciano, L'Europa, op. cit., p. 230.

[68] According to a reliable account, Captain (Ret.) D. Mazuranic, a ballistics specialist, was aboard the cruiser "Canarias" when its sister cruiser, the "Baleares," was sunk on March 6, 1938. Cf. H. G. Dahms, The Spanish War of 1936 (Ediciones Rialp S. A., Madrid, 1966), p. 319: "...The squadron was to attack Rear Admiral Manuel de Vierra's cruiser flotilla, composed of the 'Baleares', the 'Almirante Cervera', and the 'Canarias', to sink two Italian steamers they had picked up in Palma de Mallorca. Three Republican destroyers carried out a night attack with torpedoes that proved fatal for the cruiser 'Baleares': the ship sank amidst loud explosions, with Admiral Vierra and 788 other sailors losing their lives."

[69] In the chapter "Change of Course in Yugoslavia's Foreign Policy," Stojadinovic, of course, outlines some brief reflections on this matter (Op. cit., p. 463 ff.): "After Abyssinia, it was Spain's turn. France and England adopted a policy of non-intervention. Germany and Italy decided to intervene."

[70] Article: Tito's "Spaniards"; Barcelona-Madrid, Year II, February 1969, No. 11, pp. 38-49.

[70] [71] Coalition between the Croatian Peasant Party and the Independent Democratic Party (its leader, Svetozar Privicevic, died in exile in September 1936).

[72] Opposition to the government list in the parliamentary elections of May 5, 1935; Maček headed the opposition list at that time, as he did in the subsequent elections of December 11, 1938. In the May 5, 1935 elections, the opposition obtained 1,076,346 votes and the government list 1,747,037 votes ("tainted," according to Stojadinović's testimony, op. cit., p. 347), with 67 opposition deputies and 303 government deputies being elected.

[73] There is abundant literature regarding the role played by Yugoslav combatants in Spain. The following information, taken from the General Bibliography on the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939, and its Historical Antecedents (Ariel S.A., Madrid-Barcelona, 1968, 729 pages), while not entirely comprehensive, may serve as a guide:

1) Our Spaniards. Published by the combatants of Yugoslavia. Madrid, Ed. of the Commissariat of the International Brigades, 1937, 55 pages;

2) International Volunteers for Freedom, 1936-1956, Belgrade, Association of Former Yugoslav Combatants in the Army of the Spanish Republic, 1956, 29 pages;

3) Božidar Maslaric: Moscow-Madrid-Moscow. Sjecanja, Zagreb, 1952 (Moscow-Madrid-Moscow. Memories. Prosvjeta-Culture Publishing House, 133 pages; in Croatian);

4) Jugoslaveni u Spaniji. Sarajevo, Prosvjeta, 1959 (The Yugoslavs in Spain, Edit. Svjetlost - Luz, 272 pages; in Serbian), and

5) Albin Marvin, left: Bili smo u Spaniji. Spomin slovenskih prostovoljcev. Uredili: Stanko Semic-Daki, Albin Marvin, Ivan Kreft. Glavni urednik Albin Marvin, 3, popravljena in ispoljena left. Ljubljana, Sekcija bivsih spanskih borcev. LRS, 1960, 450 str. (Albin Marvin, editor: We Were in Spain. Memories of the Slovenian Volunteers. Writers: Stanko Semic-Daki, Albin Marvin, Ivan Kreft. Editor-in-Chief Albin Marvin, 3rd edition, revised and expanded. Ljubljana. Section of the Veterans in Spain, LRS, 1960, 450 pp.; in Slovenian).

[74] In a previous line, Stojadinovic (op. cit., p. 466) explains his policy of understanding with all the great powers:

"It was obvious to me that small states were at the mercy of 'starving and space-strapped countries.' Collective security had been transformed into collective insecurity. The time had come for us small peoples to 'every man for himself.' The path to Munich was well paved. The first victims were Abyssinia and Spain; then came Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Albania... In any case, at that time, Yugoslavia was on the list of at least one of the two aggressive powers, and perhaps both, especially if they agreed on partition." However, the plan he now had in mind—that is, to take advantage of the Italian conquest of Abyssinia, which would follow a week after the ceasefire in Spain—could hardly be explained by a simple "every man for himself." It is not surprising that this game seemed too risky to the Prince Regent, and it was probably the decisive cause of his dismissal, although the interest in settling the "Croatian question" that led to his unexpected downfall should not be underestimated; see note 18.

[75] Ciano does not mention the conversation about Spain in his notes, but in his Diary (Ed. Libros de nuestro tiempo, J. Janés, 3rd ed., Barcelona, 1950), p. 64, dated January 20, 1939, he records laconically: "Hunting in the middle of the forest. Good news from Spain. Stojadinovic receives it exclaiming: Corsica, Tunisia, Nice!"

[76] Ciano's observation regarding his conversation with the prince regent is characteristic (Ciano, L'Europa etc., op. cit., p. 411): "Anzi, has shown di avere meno intereste di Stoiadinovic per l'entitá di territorial da segnanarsi alla Jugoslavia. Ne abbiamo giá tanti albanesi nelle frontiere" cosí egli ha detto "I am so annoying, I do not feel any desire to increase the number."

[77] Slovenian, belonging to the People's Party, one of the oldest European Christian Democratic parties, which was then part of the Yugoslav Radical League, the governing party, along with the Bosnian Muslims, under the leadership of Mehmed Spaho, and a faction of the former Serbian Radicals, led until then by Stojadinovic.

[78] Italy was entangled in Albania, expecting Hitler to come to its aid at any moment, either directly or through Bulgaria, to resolve the awkward situation in southeastern Europe, from where the British could, if the opportunity arose, threaten the oil fields in Romania. Romania and Bulgaria had already joined the Tripartite Pact and at that time had German troops stationed on their territories. The campaign in Africa also demanded prompt intervention in Greece.

[79] As for Don Juanism—however strange it may seem: his strongest apologetic argument!—the author of Neither War nor Pact offers us some delightful and colorful pages in his memoirs, as well as valuable historical and informational material. If we were to resort to "parallel lives"—allowing for the temporal distance—we would find a double of this Balkan politician in the figure of that "Prince of Peace," Manuel Godoy, immortalized by the brush of Francisco Goya y Lucientes.

[80] Cf. Eugen Laxa, op. cit., pp. 44-45: "Ante Pavelic appears, whose name lived on in the people thanks to his revolutionary activity against the Belgrade regimes, who, after Macek's indecision and silence, defined on April 10, 1941, briefly and clearly his program of action: The Independent State of Croatia."

[81] The rapid advance of German and Bulgarian troops through Macedonia cut off the demoralized and woefully under-equipped Yugoslav army's only possible escape route: along the Vardar River toward Thessaloniki. It should be noted that the country possessed only a rather modest number of Italian-made anti-tank guns, acquired in Spain in early 1940 through barter for wheat, sawn timber, and silkworm cocoons (for parachute production); it also obtained ammunition from Spain for its aging 75 mm field guns.

[82] The Holy See sent the Apostolic Legate, Abbot Marcone, to Zagreb, while Prince Ervin of Lobković, Chamberlain to His Holiness and Knight of the Order of Malta, served as liaison between Croatia and the Vatican.

[83] Spain was represented throughout the war (1941-1945) by a career diplomat, His Excellency Mr. Vicente González-Arnau y Amar de la Torre, Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary, while Croatia sent to Madrid, with the same rank, Dr. Pedro Conde de Pejacevic de Nasice, an economist and lawyer.

[84] Cf. Solidaridad Obrera, March 11, 1951, cited in Burnett Bolleten, The Great Deception (Luis de Caralt Publishers, Barcelona, 1961), pp. 386-387.

[85] George J. Prpic, Ph.D., Tragedies and Migrations in Croatian History, Toronto, 1974, p. 24.

[86] George J. Prpic, op. cit., p. 2.

[87] René Marcic by Dorothea Meyer-Maly in Oesterreichische Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, vol. 22, pp. 253-54, 1971. The journal's editorial staff added the following note: "Having already lost two of our editors this year, namely Adolf Merkl and Jose L. Kunz, we are now also deprived of René Marcic... All his friends and students mourn his death and will never forget this complete scholar and good man. The above assessment of the great scholar, which I requested, is from one of his longtime collaborators. We will publish a scholarly appraisal of his works in one of the upcoming volumes." (The note is signed A. V. - Alfred Verdros, possibly? - SC Editorial Staff Note.)

[88] As on other occasions, here too Ortega y Gasset has gone to the heart of the matter and has given a formulation worthy of his genius. "No, Mr. Descartes, to live, for man to exist, is not to think. I do not exist because I think, but rather, I think because I exist. Thought is not the sole and primary reality, but rather, thought, intelligence, is one of the reactions to which life compels us; it has its roots and its meaning in the radical, prior, and terrible fact of living. Pure and isolated reason must learn to be vital reason." Commenting on this fundamental idea of the Spanish philosopher, R. O. Abdala, in "La Prensa," Buenos Aires, July 26, 1970, also says the following: "Ortega is, of course, a philosopher of Life, since for him life is the radical reality, as is perfectly clarified by the epigraph I place at the beginning of this work. (Abdala gave this work the title: "Raciovitalism, Fifteen Years After Ortega's Death." - Note from the author of this article). But he used to dislike it when his thought was categorized as vitalism, giving it a purely biological slant. His doctrine—the one that has earned him a place among the philosophers of the 20th century—is Raciovitalism or Vital Reason, a conjunction or juxtaposition of terms that, from the outset, casts an unequivocal light on its meaning."

[89] Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger: On Humanism, SUR, Buenos Aires, 1960, pp. 20-21.

[90] R. Marcic, From the Constitution to the State, Vienna, 1957, p. 32.

* Radica was in the U.S. during the war as a member of the diplomatic mission of monarchist Yugoslavia, and left in 1943 to defend the Croatian people, who were being systematically denigrated by the Serbs. Radica then turned his sympathies toward Tito's movement, believing that this would better serve his people.