1

2

Yugoslavia: from the Beginning to the End

01/12/2012 – 17/03/2013

Production: Museum of Yugoslav History

Exhibition texts: Jovo Bakić, Srđan Cvetković, Ivana Dobrivojević, Hrvoje Klasić, Vladimir Petrović

Exhibition curator: Ana Panić

Curatorial exhibition concept and object selection: Ana Panić

Timeline editor: Dragan Bakić

Research associate: Marija Vasiljević

Reviewers: Tvrtko Jakovina, Husnija Kamberović, Oto Luthar, Predrag J. Marković

Proofreading: Jelena Bajić, Lidija Kusovac, Jelena Mitić

Translation: Jelena Bajić, Zoran Ž. Paunović, Vanja Savić, Milan Petrović, Aleksandra Popović

Exhibit design: Marko Dimitrijević

Graphic design: Ivan Benussi

Editing of the video material: Darko Andonov and Đorđe Marković

Translation and subtitling of the video: Zvonimir Ivanov

Conservation: Ivanka Živadinović

Selection of ethnographic material: Aleksandra Momčilović-Jovanović

Selection of of library material: Vesna Mikelić

Coordinator: Ivan Manojlović

Promotions and public relations: Mirjana Slavković

Technical production: Sava Kovačević, Bojan Marjanović, Tihomir Nedeljković, Svetlana Ognjanović, Saša Vukmanović

Thanks for advice and support to : Maja Anđelković, Goran Arčabić, Višnja Azdejković, Darko Bavoljak, Andrej Ćirić, Darko Ćirić, Vesna Dragović Pop-Lazić, Maja Dubljević, Igor Duda, Goran Gajić, Dragan Golubović , Andreja Hibernik, Kristina Horjak, Rhea Ivanuš, Jasna Jovanov, Željka Kolveshi, Nataša Mataušić, Đorđe Marković, Ivana Mitrović, Admir Mulaosmanović, Maja Nikolova, Ivan Novak, Iva Plemić, Vjeran Pavlaković, Ljiljana Pekić, Vladimir Perić, Jože Podpečnik, Darko Pokorn, Andrej Smrekar, Nataša Strlič, Nika Strugar, Jovana Timotijević, Jovica Trkulja, Dinko Tucaković, Mila Turajlić, Jelisaveta Veljović, Ivana Vijatov, Koraljka Vlajo, Tamara Vučenović, Radina Vučetić, Davorin Vujčić, Danilo Vuksanović, Katarina Živanović

Partners: Antun Augustinčić Gallery / Archives of Yugoslavia / Belgrade City Museum / Croatian Radiotelevision / Croatian State Archives / Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past / Educational Museum in Belgrade / Historical Museum of Serbia / INFOBIRO - Mediacentar Sarajevo / Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb / Museum of childhood in Belgrade / National Library of Serbia / National Gallery of Slovenia / National Museum of Contemporary History of Slovenia / National Museum in Belgrade / National and University Library of Slovenia / Pavle Beljanski Memorial Collection / Program Archives of Television Belgrade / Railway Museum in Belgrade / The Croatian History Museum / The National Museum of Slovenia / Yugoslav Film Archive / Zagreb City MuseumThe exhibition has been made possible by: Balkan Trust for Democracy and Ministry of Culture and Media of the Republic of Serbia

3

Since the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, there has been no institutional framework for the development of long-term regional projects. As the overcoming of post-conflict issues requires a critical review of our common past and raising the awareness about both positive and nega-tive common heritage and its influence on the contemporary identities of new states and unions, we believed that the only way to achieve it was through reestablishment and development of intercultural dialogue throughout the former Yugoslavia.The New Old Museum project brought to-gether acknowledged experts in the fields of social history, museology, history of art, soci-ology, communication studies, the media, and students and graduates of art, sociology, history, anthropology, culture studies and the media.The aim of the project that is conceived as a long-term process, to be carried out in a number of stages is for the Museum of Yugoslav History to develop a proposal of the concept, content and organization of a new permanent exhibition at the museum, in collaboration with the partners from abroad and the region.We embarked on this “voyage” together with renowned experts and young professionals,

from all over the former Yugoslavia, at the conference / public panel discussion and a workshop, held from 10 to 12 December, 2009 at the Museum of Yugoslav History.The next step consisted of professional work with a smaller international team that for-mulated a proposal of the Yugoslavia 1918-1991 project –a permanent exhibition at the Old Museum, which is part of the Museum of Yugoslav History. The team consisted of the following members: Dr Hrvoje Klasić, professor at the Department of History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Saša Madacki, director of the Human Rights Centre of the University of Sarajevo, Dr Predrag J. Marković, resear-ch advisor at the Institute of Contemporary History in Belgrade, Marko Popović, director and co-founder of the Centre for Visual History at the Faculty of Media and Com-munications in Belgrade, Robert Rückel, director and founder of the DDR Museum in Berlin and Katarina Živanović, the then director of the Museum of Yugoslav History in Belgrade.After the adoption of the proposed exhibition concept that introduces a new reading of this period of history, including cultural and social history of Yugoslavia and contem-porary interpretations of the experience of

co-existence in Yugoslavia, a new regional team that worked on the implementation of the concept was formed. The team of authors and curators consisted of Dr Jovo Bakić, professor at the Department of Sociology, University of Belgrade, Dr Srđan Cvetković, research fellow at the Institute for Contemporary History in Belgrade, Dr Ivana Dobrivojević, research fellow at the Institute for Contemporary History in Belgrade, Dr Hrvoje Klasić, professor at the Department of History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Dr Vladimir Petrović, research fellow at the Institute for Contemporary History in Belgrade and Ana Panić, curator at the Museum of Yugoslav History in Belgrade. Dr Tvrtko Jakovina, professor at the Department of History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Dr Husnija Kambero-vić, director of the Institute of History of the University of Sarajevo, Dr Oto Luthar, dire-ctor of the Science and Research Institute of the Slovenian Academy of Arts and Science (ZRC SAZU) and Dr Predrag J. Marković, research advisor at the Institute of Contem-porary History in Belgrade were chosen as reviewers.

Throughout the most of the 20th century, in the Balkan peninsula, there was a country inspired by the desire to form a union of South Slavs. Yugoslavia, which was formed and disappeared several times, changed its name, borders, political and social systems, was marked by an exceptional diversity of ethnic groups, religions, cultures and customs existing in a comparatively small geographical area. Praised and disputed, built and undermined, it vanished from the geographical and political map of the world, in the late 20th century, but it legacy still exerts a strong influence on the lives of people in the region.

ABOUT THE PROJECT

P

4

The exhibition Yugoslavia from the Be-ginning to the End is part of a project lasting several years and it provides a basis of the work on the future permanent exhibition at the Museum of Yugoslav History.Researchers and experts from the former Yugoslavia were involved in the project, while museum, archival, library and film material, belonging to other institutions in Serbia and the region was used for the purposes of the exhibition. This is the first time that the he-ritage kept in the cultural institutions in the former Yugoslavia has been united in one place, in the context of the Yugoslav legacy. On this occasion, certain material has been museologically contextualized for the first time, whereas, on the other hand, an ac-companying result of the exhibition-related research was the expansion of knowledge about some exhibition material. In keeping with the contemporary definition of herita-ge, which does not necessarily have to be institutionalized in order to be perceived as valuable, exhibits were borrowed from indivi-duals, as well.The nature of our ambition, when preparing the exhibition was not encyclopaedic – to include all aspects of the social system or to present all available data. The aim of the exhibition was to create a space that will introduce the visitors, in a modern, attra-ctive and objective way, to one of the most interesting and most controversial state-bu-ilding experiments in the 20th century, as part of a modular exhibition, which opens up possibilities for adding content, the creation of multiple perspectives and involvement of visitors. While working on the exhibition, we under-stood that light has still not been thrown on many topics related to the Yugoslav legacy, which remain “sensitive” and controversial, that many wars are in people’s heads and some battles have not ended as of yet, while Yugoslavism in the public discourse is most frequently reduced to Yugo-nostalgia. Aware of the fact that memories and history are not synonymous and that selection criteria will always be subject to criticism, since something can always be added or taken away, we bravely decided to present the results of our previous work and enter into a dialogue with exhibition-goers, experts and academia alike. We were also determined to offer interested exhibition-goers a chance to participate in discussing the new permanent exhibition by means of comments in the co-urse of the exhibition, questionnaires, polls, discussions and public debates organized on the occasion of the exhibition, throughout its three-month run.

Although the exhibition and the texts ac-companying the exhibits are a product of teamwork, personal views of the members of the team of authors differ on many issues. Their professional CVs are different too, which provided an excellent basis for a high quality exchange of expertise and creativi-ty. The idea was not to show a timeline of crucial events, but to cover some important phenomena and features that left their mark on the countries and the societies in the land that had been known, for more than 70 years, as Yugoslavia. The word Yugoslavia lingered on, until 2003, in the name of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the coun-try in which only Serbia and Montenegro remained. It, however, was no longer built around the idea of Yugoslavism. The name was purely the result of a political decision, motivated by a wish to establish continuity with the former country, which is why this period of the life of Yugoslavia was not in the focus of the exhibition. In this pioneering project, we were driven by a shared desire to stage the first compre-hensive exhibition on Yugoslavia from 1918 to 1991 in the region and to provide the Mu-seum of Yugoslav History with a permanent exhibition, having in mind the fact that the content of its collections currently does not correspond to the museum’s name.The fundamental concept is based on a thematic approach and the entire exhibition was conceived in such a way so as to corres-pond to the configuration of the space in the Old Museum building, which is part of the complex of the Museum of Yugoslav History, envisioned to house the future permanent exhibition on the history of Yugoslavia. Con-ceptually speaking, the exhibition is divided into six larger entities: Yugoslavia – ID, The Peoples of Yugoslavia, The Seamy Side of the Regime, Yugoslavia in the World - the World in Yugoslavia, Economy and Society and The End of Yugoslavia and four smaller sections outside the main narrative of the exhibition, (the so-called niches): Assa-ssinations, Croatian Spring and Serbian Liberals, Bad Debt – the Agrokomerc Affair and Neue Slowenische Kunst. In each room, the visitors will gain an insight into one well-rounded thematic whole, while they will be able to get the complete picture only after discovering all the rooms. The purpose of the “niches” is to highlight the “details”, mainly crisis situations that should point to the permanent presence of destabilizing elements in the above-mentioned territory and the above-mentioned period of time.

Ana Panić

ABOUT THE EXHIBITION

A

5

6

The idea of establishing South Slavic cultu-ral ties and political cooperation developed in the context of national awakening inspired by the European Romanticism, as part of the Pan-Slavic movement and in an effort to add concreteness to the principle that the Balkans belong to Balkan peoples. It emerged sporadically, as early as the 17th century, gaining momentum in the 1830s and becoming known as Illyrism in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia that were part of the Habsburg Monarchy. In Serbia and Montene-gro, this idea appeared in the 19th century. However, it was not until after 1903 that it assumed a more concrete shape, when Ser-bia embraced the Yugoslav idea as the basis of national survival.

The situation changed during World War I, when concrete programs of political unifica-tion were developed. They provided a basis for the establishment of a South Slavic state for the first time in history. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed after the decision of the big powers, in the second half of 1918 that the Habsburg Mo-narchy was beyond hope. In spite of the different administrative divi-sions, first into 33 oblasti (regions) (1922-1929) and subsequently, into 9 banovine (1929-1939), during most of the existence of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia), the country was a unitary state with a centralized system of government. These administrative divisions, as a rule, followed neither ethnic nor historical logic,

reflecting geographic features of the land instead. Thus, the administrative units – banovine introduced after the imposition of a royal dictatorship by King Aleksandar were named mostly after rivers (Dravska, Savska, Vrbaska, Primorska, Drinska, Zetska, Dunavska, Moravska and Vardarska bano-vina). This situation was changed after the Cvetković-Maček agreement when the Ba-novina of Croatia was formed as a result of the application of the ethnic principle, while the rest of the country was yet to undergo administrative reorganization.

During World War II, the Kingdom of Yu-goslavia was ripped apart and a number of provisional state structures formed in its occupied territory. The four-year chaos that followed was not only a war against the occupying forces, but it also had the features of a remarkably cruel inter-ethnic and ideological war where everybody fought everybody else and more than a million people perished.The end of World War II brought big chan-ges. In addition to territorial changes, the capitalist social system was replaced by the socialist one, while the monarchy was substituted by a federation consisting of six republics. The federation changed its name several times: Democratic Federal Repu-blic of Yugoslavia in 1945, Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia from 1946 to 1963 and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1963 until the dissolution of the coun-try in 1992.

YUGOSLAVIA – ID

Y

7

8

Jovan Cvijić (1865–1927)

Founder of the Serbian geographic society, president of the Serbian Royal Academy of Sciences and rector of the University of Belgrade:“The orientation of the Serbian state towards the west and the south was not the aspiration of the dynasty or the military class, but an unconsciously strong idea and the will of an entire nation.”

Catholic priest and historian, Franjo Rački (1828–1894)

(Slobodan Jovanović From Our History and Literature, Srpska književna zadruga, kolo XXXIV, br. 229, Belgrade 1931, pp. 79–80):“I consider Croats and Serbs to be two tribes of one and the same people, sepa-rated by history itself.“

Archbishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer (1815–1905)

Political Writings, Zagreb: Znanje, 1971, pp. 218-219:“For that same purpose, there have been campaigns for quite some time now among Slavs, Croats and nothing is allowed to cause futile competition and strife between two brothers, Serbs and Croats,which would, surely, benefit the third party that is a mortal enemy of both.”

YUGOSLAVISM (from an idea to a reality)

The two versions of Yugoslavism, the Serbian and the Croatian one differed considerably from one another in the 19th and early 20th century, even becoming mutually opposed. While the Croatian idea, in principle, implied Yugoslavism within the Habsburg Monarchy, where the Yugoslav federal entity, with a Croatian majority would be equal to Austria and Hungary, the Serbian idea of Yugoslavism me-ant an independent and unitary South Slav state, led by the Serbian dynasty and Serbs as a majority population.

Vatroslav Jagić (1838–1918)

Letter to the Editor, Bosanska Vila, 15. III 1912:“As far as I can follow the main events in our cultural live from here – leaving politics aside – it seems that recently a message of the need for peoples to unite, Serbs with Croats, Croats with Serbs has been reverberating strongly throughout the land that we live in. The public took up that idea with an apparent enthusiasm and I cannot tell if it will last, although I have believed in this idea for 50 years, together with the best people of the time. But it bore no significant fruit for a long time. (…) Today, it seems as though there is some progress concerning that idea, at least because, people are beginning to think seriously about joint cultural activities. In my view, these activities inc-lude some attempts at organizing things together in the field of art, dissemination of literary products acrossthe region, our two academies joining forces to publish the encyclopaedia, etc. (…) I’d have one wish in this matter, though. In the enthusiasm for the idea of unity, two attributes, i.e. two names and two scripts should not be denied, as they were introduced into the life our people at the dawn of history and with the passing of many centuries became our heritage and even today represent the main features of national unity. Those objecting to this duality are not friends of unity. (…) But both names should be equally close to our hearts, the intelligentsia that thinks and acts in the interest of the people should be made aware of the fact that the two names cannot exist one without the other, that they are two halves of the same whole and that when one is mentioned, the other immediately comes to mind. (…)

Ivan Lorković (1876 – 1926)

Letter to Meštrović in: Ivan Meštrović, Uspomene na političke ljude i dogadja-je (Memories of Political Figures and Events), Buenos Aires, Knjižnica Hrvatske revije, 1961:“Some have started coming to their sen-ses, but Dalmatians are terrorizing the whole city and everyone saying: ‘If you do not want to do it, we will go to Belgrade ourselves and proclaim the unification of Dalmatia with Serbia’ – because they hoped to save Dalmatia from Italians in that way.“

Petar II Petrović Njegoš (1813–1851)

New Year’s Greetings to My Kin (1. I 1847):Lipo, ljepo, lepo and lijepo*,bilo, bjelo, belo and bijelo** –are the petals of a single flower,born from a single bud.“

* beautiful and **white - pronunciation variants, typical of different dialects are reflected in the spelling

Svetozar Pribićević (1875 – 1936)

The Leading Idea of Serbs and Croats in: Almanah Narodna misao (People’s Thought Almanac), Zagreb 1897:“Since the historical development of our nation did not dissolve its organism, but instead, unity of language emerged as a product of that historical development, along with the uniformity of the national character, it is beyond doubt that Serbs and Croats cannot be defined as two diffe-rent peoples. Rather, they must be taken to be a single individual national entity.“

9

Božidar Marković, (1874–1946)

Frano Supilo (1870 – 1917)

Ante Trumbić (1864 – 1938)

Hinko Hinković (1854 – 1929)

Professor at the Faculty of Law in Bel-grade, Archive of Yugoslavia, J. Jovanović Pižon Collection, Letter of 28 October 1916: “The creation of solid state is possi-ble only through cooperation of everyone and of all regions. This is the fundamental idea that is the basis for everything else. If it is embraced openly and loyally, then everything will come naturally. A different solution is impossible, because only the solution that is universally agreed upon can be reliable.”

Political Approach and Confession of Frano Supilo, read at the plenary session of the Yugoslav Committee, Paris 22 February, 1916. in: Nikola Stojanović, Ju-goslovenski odbor (Yugoslav Committee), Zagreb: Nova Evropa 1927:1) Croats, Serbs and Slovenes are poli-tically one nation with three names and different historical, public-law and cultu-ral traditions, but with the same language and belonging to the same tribal race.2) In this nation in the Habsburg Monar-chy, the leading role belongs to Croatia as prima inter pares. Outside the Habsburg Monarchy, that role belongs to Serbia. In any case, full equality of the tribal elements of different names and full free-dom and equality of worship apply.

Letter to Nikola Pašić, Paris 27 October 1918. in: Građa o stvaranju Jugoslovenskedržave (1. I-20. XII 1918) (Materials on the Creation of Yugoslav State(1. I-20. XII 1918)), edited by Dragoslav Janković, Bogdan Krizman, Institut druš-tvenih nauka: Belgrade 1964:“In your opinion, the only thing that the Allied Governments are to recognize is that Serbia is liberating our people from Austria-Hungary and that Yugoslavia is to be created under the aegis of Serbia. You are vindicating Serbs in Austria-Hungary, leaving it to Croats and Slovenians to decide whether they want to join Serbia or not. In this way, you are segregating Serbs from Croats and Slovenians, while our people is to be the object of liberation, rather than the subject of law. Our unifi-cation and independence are to be based exclusively on the principles of unity of people, full freedom and equality.”

Session Records in: Radovi Arhiva JAZU, sv. 1, Zagreb, 1972:“We must carry out action, while taking facts into account. We must primarily work on the unification of Croatia and Slo-venia with Serbia. The public programme must include Dalmatia into the unification agenda. The strictly diplomatic work must be successful in the first direction.“

King Petar (1844 – 1921)

Letter to Ante Trumbić, 17 June 1917:“(...) Although I no longer run the affairs of state, I still follow with interest the work of the Yugoslav Committee whose worthy President you are. I can only say thank you for what the committee has done up to now. I already belong to the past, and I have charged my son to bring the process of unification of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, that was so beautifully initiated, to completion and I hope that you and your friends will be by his side, as he handles this great task (…)”

Nikola Petrović, King of Montenegro (1840–1921)

A Proposal of the Union between Monte-negro and Serbia, 2 III 1914:“The signing of this agreement will make happy not only the people of Serbia and Montenegro, but also our Serb brothers who are not free and even all South Slavs and it will cheer up my soul, in the hope of an all-encompassing union.”

King Aleksandar I Karađorđević (1888 – 1934)

had three sons, whose names he chose from the three sibling tribes making up the triune nation: Petar (Serbian), Tomi-slav (Croatian) and Andrej (Slovenian)

Franko Potočnjak (1862–1932)

Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Srpski književni glasnik, knj. 15, sv. 3, sv. 4, sv. 5, 1905:“The work aimed at unifying churches, today seems pretty anachronistic. Just as we do not find the unity of churches led by Vatican in the least bit appealing, we wholeheartedly advocate unity of people, even if they bring in as many religious beliefs.”

Jovan Skerlić (1877–1914)

Srpski književni glasnik, knj. 13, sv. 2, 1904:“All intelligent people in our country, except the reactionary press, which hides its impure ulterior motives behind a veil of a purist, uncompromising form of natio-nalism, full-time patriots who exploitpatriotism in campaigns, few harmless dreamers who find it hard to pull them-selves away from the dreams that rocked the cradle of their youth, all thinking people have come to a conclusion that oursmall nations have just two options: “to be or not to be”, reach an agreement, uni-te and live and develop or remain torn by cruel and lethal internal strife, spending their days independent in name onlyand await the day when they will become a Russian guberniya or an Austrian pro-vince. Knowing our circumstances, have only one way ahead of us, which is not only the best, but also the only possibleway: unity.”

Y YUGOSLAVIA – ID

10

Nadežda Petrović, Beta Vukanović, Matej Sternen, Rihard Jakopič with group of artist in the school of An-ton Ažbe, Slovenian painter, Munich, 1899/1900, National Gallery of Slovenia

A group of artists with journalists at the Second Yugoslav Art Exhibition, Sofia, 1906, Pavle Beljanski Memorial Collection

From the moment of its emergence, until the moment of its be-coming a reality in Yugoslavia, the idea of Yugoslavism was, in a political sense a desperate cry of the oppressed in the big empires, such as the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire. Being politically weak individually, the ethnically related South Slav com-munities veered towards cooperation. At first, it was necessary to develop the awareness of mutual closeness. A campaign promoting cultural kinship or even cultural sameness of South Slav ethnic gro-ups, primarily Serbs and Croats and subsequently Bulgarians and Slovenians was conducted to that end.

CREATION OF THE YUGOSLAV CULTURAL AND POLITICAL SPACE

A group of artists during the Second Art Exhibition of the Croatian Medulić Society at the Rihard Jakopič Pavilion, Ljubljana 1909From left to right: Miho Marinković (?), Emanuel Vidović, Rihard Jakopič, Branislav Dešković (sitting), Frano Meneghello-Dinčič, Ivan Grohar, Ante Katunarić and Ante Gaber (standing), National Museum of Slovenia

Nadežda Petrović, Beta Vukanović, Matej Sternen, Rihard Jakopič with group of artist in the school of Anton Ažbe, Slove-nian painter, Munich, 1899/1900, National Gallery of Slovenia

11

Ivan Meštrović, Prince Marko on the Hor-se, 1910. Model of an imagined archite-ctural and sculptural structure Vidovdan Temple, National Museum, Belgrade

Nadežda Petrović at the Fourth Yugoslav Art Exhibition, next to Ivan Meštrović’s sculpture Mother, Belgrade, 1912, National Museum, Belgrade

“Meštrović is the artist of all our people, as much Serbian, as he is Croatian, the artist of those who are not liberated or united, those who should become free and united and that is why, it is the duty of us all to get to know him and to make him well-known, to understand and interpret his work. But, primarily, it is the duty of the liberated part of our people, the duty of our Serbia, to let Meštrović’s cry, which is the cry of all of us, reach the bottom of its heart and show the willingness to make Meštrović’s dream, his Vidovdan Temple, a reality.“(Dimitrije Mitrinović, The Artist of Our Pe-ople, Ivan Meštrović“, editorial in Slovenski jug, published on 25 XII 1910, with a photo-graph of a long-haired and handsome Ivan Meštrović)

Y YUGOSLAVIA – ID

12

The unity of the language of Croats and Serbs, brought about by Croatian acceptance of the štokavian dialect and the subsequent language reform conducted by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (1850), provided an impetus for the strengthening of Yugoslavism in the Habsburg Monarchy. The catholic bishop, Josip Juraj Strossmayer and historian, priest and politician Franjo Rački, in particular, were dedicated to strengthening Yugoslavism and they founded the Yugo-slav Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb in 1866.

The fact that the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 posed a long-term threat to Serbs and Croats alike, in time, forced them to leave behind the conflicts that occurred after the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, the resolutions of Rijeka and Zadar (1904 and 1905) led to the formation of the Cro-at-Serb Coalition which was the strongest political force in Croatian politics up until the beginning of the of World War I. In Serbia, the Independent Radical Party, one of the two biggest parties on the eve of World War I and especially the leader of its left wing, Jovan Skerlić provided ideological leadership to the young generation of intellectu-als, who were increasingly inclined to embrace Yugoslavism, as an extension of the Serbian nationalism.

The dream of Yugoslavism of the Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian scientific, artistic and literary elite became a reality on 1 December, 1918. With the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Yu-goslavism was implemented as a state-level idea, but the process of its implementation as a national idea was yet to begin. The process of uniting South Slavs in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was underway during the war and towards the end of World War I. In the beginning of the war, the Kingdom of Serbia emphasized the formation of a South Slav state as its war aim in the Niš Declaration (XII 1914). In Cor-fu, the Serbian government and the Yugoslav Committee issued the Corfu Declaration on 20 VII 1917, confirming their goal to form the Kingdom of Yugoslavia under the sceptre of the Serbian Karađorđević dynasty. That same year, sometime before the Corfu Dec-laration, the Croatian, Serbian and Slovenian delegates in Austria-Hungary adopted the May Declaration proposing the creation of Yugoslavia, as part of the Habsburg Monar-chy that would exclude Serbia and Montene-gro on the basis of Croatian historical right to statehood.

UNIFICATION 1918

The Vienna Agreement on a joint langua-ge, 1850, Matica Srpska Library

Corfu Declaration, 20 July, 1917, National Library of Serbia

Niš Declaration issued by the government of the Kingdom of Serbia, 7 December, 1914, National Library of Serbia

13

Towards the end of the war, after the breakthrough of the Salonika front, the National Coun-cil of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, established in October, 1918 in Zagreb, reno-unced the May Declaration, despite the fact that the Austrian emperor issued a proclamation accepting trialism, and drew up Naputak (Instructions) with the conditions for unification that its delegation brought to Belgrade to a meeting with Prince-Regent, Aleksandar Kara-đorđević. Having proclaimed the unification on 1 XII 1918, and relying on the army that was the only force able to maintain order in the entire territory of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Prince-Regent Aleksandar did not feel obliged to take the Naputak conditions into consideration and thus began the troubled history of Yugoslavia.

Members of the Yugoslav Committee at a session in Paris in 1916: Dr Niko Županić, Ćiro Kamnenarović, Dr Milan Srkšić, Dr Nikola Stojanović, Dr Franko Potočnjak, Jovo Banjanin, Frano Supilo, Dušan Vasiljević (standing from left to right), Dr Julije Gazzari, Professor Pavle Popović, Dr Ivo de Giulli, Dr Bogumil Vošnjak, Dr Ante Trumbić, Dr Hinko Hinković, Ivan Meštrović, Dr Josip Horvat (sitting from left to right)

1 Ivan Meštrović’s letter to Nadežda Petrović, Paris, 1909, National Museum, Belgrade 2 Ivan Vavpotič, postage stamp design, 1930, National Museum of Contemporary History, Slovenia3,4 The reading of the Address of the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to Prince-Regent Aleksandar, after which the creation of the Kingdom of Ser-bs, Croats and Slovenes was proclaimed, Belgrade, 1 December, 1918, Museum of Yugoslav History

1

2

3

4

Y YUGOSLAVIA – ID

Dragiša Cvetković, Prime Minister of the Government of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Museum of Yugoslav History

Belgrade, March 27, 1941, Museum of Yugoslav History Mihailo Petrov, Better the Grave Than to Be a Slave, March 27th 1941”, Belgrade, 1945. Illustrated colour poster, 49.5 x 69 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Josip Broz Tito, president of the Council of Ministers, reads the Declaration of the People’s Government on Radio Belgrade, March, 9th, 1945, Museum of Yugoslav History

THE CVETKOVIĆ-MAČEK AGREEMENT

THE CREATION OF NEW YUGOSLAVIA

27 MARCH 1941

A constitutional monarchy since 1921, the country had its name changed to Yugoslavia in 1929. The Cvetković-Maček Agreement (26 VIII 1939) saw Croatia’s state borders clearly outlined, and not only Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, but also parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina with an absolute or relative Croatian majority added to its territory.

During the war, the Independent State of Croatia committed geno-cide against Serbs in its territory, while Chetniks committed several genocide-like massacres of Muslims in Sandžak and in east Bosnia. In addition to national movements, the partisan army led by the Com-munist Party of Yugoslavia and Josip Broz Tito participated in the war, as well. From 1943 onwards, the army got the support of all the then important allies (the U.S., Great Britain, the USSR ) and managed to established the internationally recognized socialist Yugoslavia.

After the signing of the Tripartite Pact, on 25 March, 1941, a coup was executed on 27 March, followed by anti-fascist demonstra-tions in Belgrade. The Third Reich attacked the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Croatian fascist movement, Ustaše declared the for-mation of the so-called Independent State of Croatia only four days later, on 10 April, 1941. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia officially capitulated seven days later.

14

ASSASINATIONS SHOTS AT YUGOSLAVIAThe shot that profoundly undermined the country in the period between the two wars was fired on 20 June, 1928 from the podium in the parliament that was temporarily housed at the cavalry barracks building. The dramatic events during the parliamentary session, marked by a heated argument between People’s Radical Party and Croatian Pea-sant Party MPs took an ominous turn when Radical Party MP, Puni-ša Račić opened fire at the representatives of the Croatian Peasant Party and shot Stjepan and Pavle Radić, Đuro Basariček, Ivan Gran-đa and Ivan Pernar. Pavle Radić and Đuro Basariček died instantly, while Stjepan Radić died from his wounds on 8 August that year. This act gave King Aleksandar a pretext for the dissolution of parliament announced on 6 January 1929. However, the memory of the killing of the Croatian leaders was poisoning the political atmosphere and fuelling extremism in the relations between Serbs and Croats. One of the Croatian MPs who witnessed the assassination, Ante Pavelić left the country shortly after and together with his followers founded the Ustaša movement with the objective of overthrowing the monar-chy and establishing an independent Croatia. The centralization of power in the hands of King Aleksandar made him an obvious target of such aspirations and led to new attempts to assassinate him, the last of which was successfully carried out in Marseille on 9 Octo-ber, 1934. The assassination plot was a result of the collaboration between the Ustaša and the IMRO, and claimed the life of the French foreign minister, Louis Barthou as well. The hitman, Vlado Georgijev Černozemski too lost his life in Marseille. With the violent removal of the leading figures in Yugoslavia in the interwar period, which was a symbol of a complete and utter failure of the effort to define the relations between the two biggest ethnic groups in a sustainable manner, the country entered a new era of instability.

3

2

4

1

15

1 At the time of the multiple assassination of the leadership of the Croatian Peasant Party, the parliament had, for almost a decade, been temporarily housed at the pre-war cavalry barracks building, Belgrade City Museum2 Funeral procession with a hearse in Jelačić Square in Zagreb. Photograph by Vinko Neugebauer. Gelatine silver photograph, 9.9 x 13.9 cm, Croatian State Archives3 A version of events appeared in the French press, immediately after the assassination, according to which the king’s last words were: “Preserve Yugoslavia and Franco-Yugo-slav friendship!”. However, since it was obvious that the dying man was not able to say anything to that effect, the sentence that became his legacy was shortened to fit what the Minister of Finance, Bogoljub Jeftić, who later became Prime Minister claimed to have heard, being among the first people who rushed to the dying man’s rescue.4 Kralja Milana Street during the funeral of King Aleksandar, Belgrade, Belgrade City Museum

Y YUGOSLAVIA – ID

16

TERRITORY AND SYMBOLS OF THE STATE

The idea of Yugoslavism was, to a large extent, inspired by political weakness of South Slav nations and states. Croatia and Slavonia were under the rule of Hungary, Dalmatia was ruled by Austria and the autonomy of the former two provinces was often reduced. Slovenians and Serbs in the monarchy could not even count on such limited au-tonomy. Bosnia and Herzegovina was ruled by the joint institutions of the Habsburg Monarchy. The Kingdom of Serbia, although formally in-dependent since 1898 was essentially dependant on Austria-Hungary. The Kingdom of Montenegro also functioned as a weak state, whose military expenses were covered by its political patron, Russia.

The state covered the area of 247,542 square kilometres and had 12,017,323 inhabitants, according to the 1921 census data. The ethnic structure was mixed: Serbs 44.57%, Croats 23. 5%, Muslims 6.29%, and Slovenians 8.51%. The biggest ethnic minorities were: Germans with a 4.22% participation in the entire population (505,790), Hungarians with 3.9 % (467,658) and Albanians with 3.67% (439,657). The 1931 data show that the population in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was 13,934,038.

The country gained 7,728 square kilometres (its total area was 255,804 square kilometres), and included Istria, Rijeka, Zadar, the islands of Cres and Lošinj (with the surrounding islets), Lastovo and the surrou-nding islets and Palagruža. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) was made up of six socialist republics and two autonomous provinces. The 1981 data show that the population in the SFRY was 22,424,711.

The National Liberation Army of Yugoslavia (NOVJ), better known among the general public as the Partisans was led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY) headed by Josip Broz Tito. The CPY issued a call to arms on 4 July, 1941, less than two weeks after the forces of the Third Reich attacked the Soviet Union (USSR). Throughout World War II, the National Liberation Army of Yugoslavia employed guerrilla tactics with the goal of both fighting the occupying forces and carrying out a socialist revolution. It caused considerable problems to the occupying and collaborationist forces alike, who waged a total of seven offensives against it. These offensives often put the Partisan movement to a hard test. Indeed, during the battles of Neretva and Sutjeska, the Natio-nal Liberation Army of Yugoslavia suffered heavy losses and its very headquarters was under direct attack. Even its supreme commander, Josip Broz Tito was wounded during the battle of Sutjeska, making him the only commander of an army in World War II to have met that fate.

MAP OF THE BALKANS IN THE XIX CENTURY

MAP OF YUGOSLAVIA DURING WORLD WAR II

MAP OF THE KINGDOM MAP OF THE SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA

Occupied and annexed by Italy

Independent state of Croatia

Serbia under German occupation

Montenegro (Italian protectorate)

Albania (Italian protectorate)

Occupied and annexed by Bulgaria

Occupied and annexed by Hungary

Banat under German occupation

AuSTRO-HuNGARIAN EMPIRE

BOSNIA

ADRIATIC SEA MONTENEGRO

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

ROMANIA

BuLGARIA

BLACK SEASERBIA

Counting in both Yugoslavias, the kingdom and the republic, 5 Constitutions, the agreement Cvetković-Maček, and one constitutional law were adopted in the period from 1921 to 1974, meaning that the fundamental law was changed every 7 years, on the average. The SFRY consisted of six nations and their respective republics and two autonomous provinces. The 1974 Constitution, which was its last, was the longest in the world at that time, comprised of 406 articles. It introduced the elements of a confederation, whereby the republics were given independence, since every federal unit (the two Socialist Autonomous Provinces, Vojvodina and Kosovo too where then granted the status of federal unit) had veto rights.

The coat of arms and the national anthem of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia respected the principle of equality, according to which the country is represented by three sibling tribes: Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The national anthems of all three South Slav tribes were merged into the national anthem of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes / Yugoslavia. The verses of the Serbian national and state anthem, God of Justice were sung, followed by the Croatian national anthem, Our Beautiful Homeland and the Slovenian counterpart Forward, Flag of Glory.The coat of arms of the socialist Yugoslavia was the result of collaboration between artists Đorđe Andrejević Kun and Antun Augustinčić in late 1943, at the time of the second session of the Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ) when the foundations of the new Yugoslav society were laid. The five torches represented Yugoslavia’s five peoples, while the sixth torch was added in 1963 when the name of the country was changed to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The old Pan-Slavic song Hey, Slavs was accepted as the temporary national anthem as early as World War II, although it was only in 1988 that it was declared official national anthem of the socialist Yugoslavia.

CONSTITUTIONS

COATS OF ARMS, NATIONAL ANTHEMS

1 Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia; by Dragutin Inkiostri Medenjak, Croatian History Museum2 Coat of arms of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

1

2

Y YUGOSLAVIA – ID

17

THE PEOPLES OF YUGOSLAVIA

P

18

The problem that burdened the South Slav state throughout its existence was the ethnic issue. Although it was named the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, members of other Slav peoples also lived in the country. At that time, Macedonians and Montenegrins were considered to be part of the Serbian ethnic group, achieving full equality and sovereignty in the socialist Yugoslavia. A large number of Muslim inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina too were of Slavic descent. When required to state their national affiliation, they had to declare themselves as ethnically undecided Yugoslavs or as Croats or Serbs. They were granted the right to declare not only their religious, but also national Muslim affiliation, as late as 1968. The non-Slavic peoples that became part of the new South-Slavic union had ethnic minority status. Germans, Albanians, Hungarians, Italians, Turks, Vlachs and Romanians distinguished themselves as being more numerous than others.

Ethnic heterogeneity was further strengthened by multiconfessiona-lity, i.e. the fact that three major denominations: Orthodox Christian, Catholic and Islam coexisted in Yugoslavia. The estimates made not long before World War II indicated that out of 15,781,000 citizens of Yugoslavia, 8,000,000 were Orthodox Christians, 5,000,000 Catholics and 1,750,000 Muslims.

DIVERSITY/ BUILDING A YUGOSLAV IDENTITY/ MANIFESTATIONS OF UNITY, COLLECTIVISM

1 Women’s DOLMAN, women’s midd-le-class dress, Kosovo, Serbia, late 19th century 2 Men’s COAT, Slavonia, Croatia, mid-20th century

Museum of Yugoslav History

1

2

THE PEOPLES OF YUGOSLAVIA

Panonian folk costumes reflect ethnic and religious diversity of a mixed population: Slovenians, Croats, Serbs, Hungarians, Germans, Slovaks, Roma, Šokci,Bunjevci, Ruthenians, Romanians, Czechs… There are numerous regional variations and overlaps with the elements of the Dinaric variety of costumes, as well as with those typical of the Central Balkans, coupled with the traces of Central European cultural influences. The main articles of clothing: long white trousers, shirt and apronare visible heritage of an ancient Slavic cattle-raising culture. In the border region – the Sava and the Danube River basins, the presence of Turkish and 19th century middle-class dress is felt, along with the influence of theuniforms of soldiers on the Military Border. Dinaric region costumes are made of heavy woollen cloth, the styles are characterized by straight lines and geometric shaped ornaments. Recognizable Old Balkan, Slav, Byzantine and Oriental traits combine with European cultural influences, from the second half of the 19th cen-tury onwards. The population of the Dinaric culture zone is amix of ethnic groups of all three major denominations. The costumes of Central Bosnia come in different varieties among members of Serb and Croat communities, while, as in the Dinaric region,Muslim dress is much more unvarying. The familiar elements of women’s costumes are zubun (short sleeved or sleeveless jacket) made of heavy cloth and an unembroidered headscarf work over a cap, while men’s costume includes the fez with ascarf.The costumes of the Central Balkans are characterized by the blending of articles of crop farmers’ and cattle-ra-isers’ clothing.Since the 14th century, this region has experienced significant migrations of the population flee-ing the Ottomans, but some remote mountainous regions of south-eastern Serbia preserved some archaic forms of dress, like theshoes made of unprocessed leather. The remnants of Classical, Slav, Byzantine, medieval Serbian, Turkish and Western European cultures can be perceived in these costumes. The population consists mainly of Serbs, Vlachs, Muslims, Albanians, Macedonians and Bulgarians. The Shopskaregion was spared large-scale migrations. It is inhabited mainly by indigenous cattle-ra-ising ethnic groups: Shopi, Sarakatsani, Vlachs and also Serbs, Bulgarians and Macedonians in the border areas and its costumes are rich in archaic elements. Coastal/Adriaticregion costumes are marked by Medi-terranean and Dinaric elements, cultural influences of Venice and Turkey, as well as of middle-class European dress. Pricey ready-made fabrics are combined with the authentic elements like lace and embroidery. The folk costumes in these areas, inhabited by Italians, Slovenians, Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins and Albanians are distinguis-hed by elegance and refinement. Alpine region costumes feature styles, fabrics and ornaments that revealthe European influence and with it faster dropping of archaic elements and adoption of newer fashions by people living in urban and rural areas alike. The middle-class costume on the Balkan peninsula in the 19th and early 20th century mirrors more clearly the zones of influence of the East (in south-eastern) and the West (in north-western regions). In urban areas, the in-fluences of big cities: Vienna, Venice, Istanbul were embra-ced in a more direct andfaster manner, while clothing also reflected different social changes. The pace of innovation in townswasmatched by theslower and more moderate tempo in rural areas.

P

1 Women’s SHOES, Montenegro, mid-20th century2 PART OF WOMEN’S COSTUME, Imljani, Bosnia and Herzegovina, first half of the 20th century3 Men’s SHIRT, Slovak folk costume, Vojvodina, Serbia, mid-20th century4 PARTS OF WOMEN’S COSTUME, Smilevo, Macedonia, mid-20th century 5 Men’s CAP, Montenegro, first half of the 20th century

6 JEWELERY, part of women’s costume, Karlovac, Jastrebarsko, Croatia, mid-20th century7 JEWELERY, part of women’s costume, Tetovo, Macedonia, mid-20th century 8 Women’s SLIPPERS, Krk Island, Dalmatia, Croatia, 20th century

Museum of Yugoslav History

1

3

5

7

4

6

8

2

19

20

The different historical circumstances of each of the peoples before the unification also put a strain on inter-ethnic relations. Thus, for example, the life in the Ottoman Empire differed to a large extent from the way of life in the Habsburg Monarchy. The numerous and largely never reconciled differences in the level of economic, cultural and political development derived from these experiences. In spite of the similarities, one and the same language was never spoken by everyone in the Slavic South. Slovenians always spoke Slovenian, Macedonians spoke Macedonian, while the language spoken in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro was referred to by different names (Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, Serbian or Croatian, Croatian or Serbian). Furthermore, members of the numerous ethnic minorities continued using their respective languages (for example, Albanian, Hungarian, German, Italian, etc.). The situation was further complicated by the use of two scripts – Latin and Cyrillic. Unlike in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, where the fact of proclaiming Serbo-Croato-Slovenian official language was partly the result of a unitarist policy, with the formation of the socialist federation, the languages of its equal peoples were declared equal. However, things were just the opposite in practice. So the language issue was incre-asingly becoming a very sensitive political issue too. The Croatian linguists were at the forefront of a campaign maintaining that all languages were, in fact, unequal and that there was an effort to impose Serbian as the official language in the entire country.

Contrary to what is often believed, the Yugoslav communists did not seek to resolve the ethnic issue by creating a unified Yugoslav nati-on. A short-lived Yugoslavism campaign was a tactical move on the part of the state, faced with the Soviet menace after 1948 and with the need to strengthen the central role of the federation, rather than the role of its constituent parts. Until that time, no strategic plan to build a transnational Yugoslav identity existed, as shown in the cen-sus data, where the Yugoslav category appears as late as 1961. Until the disintegration of the country, the number of people who declared themselves as Yugoslavs remained small (5.4% in the 1981 census). Among the most frequent reasons for choosing this category were mixed marriages, with spouses of a different ethnicity, and particu-larly children born in these marriages, who found it “easier” to opt for a transnational category.

Yugoslavia, An Illustrated Review, volume fifteen: Traces and the Present Day. Man and the Social System. Continuity of cultures in the volatile region where today’s Yugoslavia exists and is being built Published by Publicističko-izdavački zavod “Jugoslavija“, Belgrade, 1958, Museum of Yugoslav History

21

Coexistence in the new country proved to be a big challenge for everyone. Its peoples began getting to know one another, earning each other’s respect and therefore forging ties, despite ethnic, religious and regional differences. The sense of togetherness and solidarity that developed in hard times was a necessary precondition for the survival and development of their shared country. At the same time, the above-mentioned contradi-ctions were not eliminated. On the contrary, they remained a lasting factor of instability. Instead of providing solutions that would result in a genuine sense of equality and sameness of rights, an increased level of unity between peoples was often attempted to be achieved in a wrong way, through de-crees issued by the ruling elites. No matter whether the issue was King Aleksandar Ka-rađorđević’s “Yugoslavism” or “brotherhood and unity” of the Yugoslav communists, the result was the same.

1 V. Kostić, Highway connecting Belgrade and Zagreb, propaganda poster. Illustrated colour poster, 35 x 50.5 cm.2 Construction of the railway connecting Brčko and Banovići, 1946.3 A. Jov, People’s Youth of Yugoslavia, propaganda poster. Belgrade, 1948. Illustrated colour poster, 23.6 x 34.1 cm.4 Yugoslav People’s Army troops helping out after the Skopje earthquake, Skopje. July 27th, 1963.5 Youth Holiday Association6 Transport of crops from Titovo Užice to Sandžak, 1945.

Museum of Yugoslav History

1

3

6

2

4 5

P THE PEOPLES OF YUGOSLAVIA

In the early 1970s the discussions about further economic and poli-tical decentralization and liberalization of Yugoslavia intensified. The processes that began in the mid-1960s, the key ones being econo-mic reform and reorganization of the state security service, opened the door to such aspirations. The political leaderships of Croatia and Serbia were the chief proponents of reform. In Croatia, there was a debate about the need to redefine the relations within the Yugoslav federation. The demands included consistency in conducting the economic reform, decentralization of the state (the so called “federalization of the federation”) and clearly defined relations between the republics. The problems thought to burden inter-ethnic relations (for example, the issue of the langua-ge, inadequate ethnic representation in the federal administration, in the Yugoslav People’s army, namely among the commanding personnel, etc.) were emphasized. In addition to the League of Communists of Croatia, various cultural institutions (e.g. Matica hrvatska) students and the widest possible public actively participa-ted in the debates. In order to make sure that the proposed changes were understood as a precondition for the further strengthening of the socialist Yugoslavia, the events in Croatia were beginning to be referred to as the “Croatian Spring” after the developments in Czechoslovakia several years before. On the other hand, the process of bringing politics to the masses, which was also frequently marked

CROATIAN SPRING AND SERBIAN LIBERALS

by nationalist disturbances was perceived as the creation of a natio-nal movement opposed to the official line of the League of Commu-nists. That is why, the events in Croatia were called “Masovni pokret” (Mass Movement) or “Maspok” (short for “Mass Movement”).The Serbian leadership too maintained that further development of a modern Yugoslavia and modern Serbia was possible only if economic and political reforms were carried out in a consistent manner. In the beginning of the 1970s, Serbian politicians offered an alternative to the view of Serbia as a source of hegemony in Yugoslavia, outlining a vision of it as an equal partner to other republics. They placed emp-hasis on the strengthening of the economy and democratic values in the society. Because of their overly pro-western views on the econo-mic, political and social development, the members of the Serbian leadership were beginning to be disparagingly dubbed “liberals”. In the late 1971 and in 1972, the proponents of the Croatian Spring movement and Serbian “liberals” were accused of offences against socialism and the state and removed from political and public life. Soon after their removal, repression against everyone who lent them support in any way followed, along with a massive purge in cultural and scientific institutions, the media and enterprises. A large num-ber of Croatian intellectuals and students ended up in prison, while others, fearing retribution, opted to emigrate and get on with their lives elsewhere.

22

1 Marko Nikezić, diplomat and politician, Chairmen of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia from 1968 to 1972, when he was removed from office, having been accused of “anarcho-liberalism”.2 Latinka Perović, historian and politician, Secretary of the League of Communists of Serbia, from 1969 to 1972, when she was removed from office, having been accused of “anarcho-liberalism”.3 Savka Dabčević-Kučar, economist and politician, the leading figure of Croatian Spring, chairwoman of the Central Committee of the Croatian League of Communists from 1969 to 1971, when she was forcibly removed from office.4 Leaflet of the Presidency of Student Association in Zagreb calling students out on strike in support of the members of the Croatian Spring movement, Zagreb 1971, Croatian History Museum5 Miko Tripalo, lawyer and politician, one of the leaders of the Croatian Spring movement, was member of the Executive Bureau of the Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1969 to 1971, when he was forcibly removed from office. Croatian History Museum

3 4 5

21

23

The squaring of accounts with political oppo-nents and their perception as the ‘enemy that must be destroyed’ (even physically removed from social life) has a long tradition in the Balkans, occasionally manifested in brutal inter-party or inter-dynasty bickering, as early as the late XIX century. Creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918 brought about escalation of intensity and complexity of political showdowns. The absence of democratic tradition, low level of political culture, poverty and illiteracy, inter-ethnical and religious differences (especially among the Serbs and the Croats), the emergence of revolutionary communist ideas, but also actions on the part of extre-mist separatist groups rejecting this state as a ‘Versailles creation’, further hampered the progress of democracy. Both the leftist and the rightist radicalisms seeking to resolve social and national issues, as well as the separatist intentions by the extreme nati-onalists, all provoked repressive response on the part of the state. The Decision of the Council of Ministers, called the Proclamati-on (Obznana), expected to serve as a tool of political affront and intimidation, put a ban on communist propaganda.

The attempted assassination of King Alexan-der I on 28 June 1921 by Spasoje Stajić, member of the Communist Party of Yugo-slavia, as well as the murder of Minister of the Interior, Milorad Drašković, gunned down by a member of the Red Justice organiza-tion, Alija Alijagić, triggered a clampdown on activities of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, revocation of all mandates won in the assemblies and persecution of the communists. The government adopted the Law on Protection of Public Security and State Order, better known as the Law on the Protection of the State, of 2 August 1921; the number of political prisoners surged while this law was in effect, as did the number of adjudicated death penalties (30% for the political offenses, primarily by communists).

MONARCHIST DICTATORSHIP AND THE RUMP PARLIAMENTARISM

THE SEAMY SIDE OF THE REGIME

R

Proclamation (Obznana), decision of the top of the King-dom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes to ban the Commu-nist Party of Yugoslavia, of 29 December 1920, Museum of Yugoslav History

24

The abolishment of Parliamentarism in 1929 resulted in tens of civilian politicians and hundreds of communist underground operators being convicted for their political engagement, interned or prohibited from appearing in public, and from political activi-sm. Both indictments and verdicts qualified the Communist Party of Yugoslavia as an anti-state and revolutionist organization, equalling it to anarchism and terrorism, and often it was only membership in the Com-munist Party that warranted persecution. As convicts, the communists used prisons to educate themselves and later referred to them as their Universities – they wrote, read and translated Marxist literature, and distributed political leaflets and pamphlets in secret.

To curb the extremist revolutionary move-ments, the Court for Protection of the State was established in 1929. Except for a stricter criminal legislation and the pressure exer-ted on the courts of law by the executive aut-horities, treatment of political prisoners was satisfactory and the right to an attorney was observed. In terms of a policy of punishment of political offenses, observance of funda-mental norms of a legal state and conditions of serving a prison sentence, Yugoslavia did not much differ from the countries in the region, or from European democracies.

1 Nada Dimić, textile worker, member of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Killed in the Stara Gradiška camp in 1942.2 Moša Pijade, in the Sremska Mitrovica penitentiary.3 Aleksandar Ranković, photographed while serving his hard labour sentence. 4 Police photograph of Rodoljub Čolaković, member of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, imprisoned for participation in the assassination of the Minister of the Interior, Milorad Drašković, July 23rd, 1921.5 Police photograph of Ljubica Marić from Kragujevac, April, 25th, 1935.6 Aleksa Gavrilovski, Communist Party of Yugoslavia activist, in prison in Prilep at the time of the issuing of the Obznana (Proclamation) decree.7 Chess pieces carved by political prisoners in the Sremska Mitrovica penitentiary, dating from the period between the World Wars8 Views of prison cell in Maribor9 Hand drawn playing cards used by the prisoners in the Sremska Mitrovica penitentiary, dating from the period between the World Wars 10 Views of prison facilities in Belgarde, Ada11Views of prison cells in Lepoglava

Museum of Yugoslav History

1

5

7

9

8

10

11

6

4

32

25

Despite its relative liberalization from the mid-1930’s to the outbreak of World War II, the regime still failed to refrain from brutal police crackdowns on demonstrators. The peak of the police repression occurred at 1936 and 1937 student demonstrations, and especially escalated on December 14, 1939 protests in Belgrade, when three students lost their lives. As much as 65% of the arre-sts made involved students, the University being a stronghold of leftist ideas.

The verbal war between the Serbs and the Croats, which escalated in 1928 in a bloody tragedy at the Parliament, involving shots being fired at the delegates of the Croatian Peasant Party, only formed an overture for the establishment of a personal dictatorship by King Alexander and for imposed ideology of integral Yugoslavism, along with a ban on political parties, internment of civilian politicians and stepped-up persecution of extremist elements – the Ustaša and IMRO members and the communists.

1 Vladimir Miša Lazić, Demonstrations, 1939. Pencil drawing, 17.9 x 13.5 cm. Signed lower right Kombos, Museum of Yugoslav History2 Gendarmerie breaks up student demonstrations, 1939, Belgrade City Museum3 Dragiša Ivanović (first from the left) in hospital after becoming wounded during student demonstrations, Museum of Yugoslav History4 Poster Supreme Administration of the State – a souvenir of the law issued by His Majesty the King on January 6th, 1929, Belgrade, 1929, National Museum of Contemporary History of Slovenia5,6 Paying reverence to King Aleksandar, after establishing a dictatorship, Belgrade City Museum

1

4

3

5

6

2

R THE SEAMY SIDE OF THE REGIME

26

STALINISM IN YUGOSLAVIA 1944−1953Same as in the rest of Eastern European countries, the triumph of revolutionary forces in the wake of World War II strove to imitate the Soviet experience in building a socialist society based on interlinking ideology and repression. The post-World War II Yugoslavia followed the Soviet model, in terms of methods of repression and political crackdown, relying on revolutionary terror, confiscation of property, en mass rigging of political processes and assorted repressive actions. Summery analysis and quantifications irrefutably demonstrate that the state and the party repression peaked from 1944 through to 1953, involving more brutal and more systematic methods of crackdown. Specific ethnic groups (the Volksdeutscher) were particularly targe-ted, undergoing collective executions and widespread internment as

collaborators and war criminals, and the same applied to certain so-cial strata (entrepreneurs, former army officers and politicians, tra-ders, craftsmen, wealthier farmers, some segments of the church).Having been persecuted, imprisoned, arrested and murdered as enemies of the state in-between the two World Wars, the com-munists accumulated hatred and desire for revenge. This partly affected the terror that the new revolutionary authorities exercised on the proponents of the ‘old order’ in the wake of 1944 liberation. In Yugoslavia, as in the rest of the countries of people’s democracy, the ‘enemies of the revolution’ were gradually eliminated in line with Lenin’s theories about gradual revolution.

Along with the country’s liberation from Fas-cism, there was a massive non-institutional crackdown on political and class opponents of the revolution. In some areas of the coun-try, liquidation of class-related and political opponents without court trials started as early as in September 1944 and continued until February 1945.

The Department of National Security, better known as OZNA, was formally established on 13 May 1944 in Drvar, by a Decree issued by Josip Broz Tito, and was organized in line with the Soviet model. It was headed by a member of the Central Committee and of the Supreme Command, Aleksandar Ranković. In terms of organizing OZNA, instructions provided by the officers who presented the experiences of the Soviet service, were of great importance. The OZNA

was directly under the Ministry of Defence of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. During 1946, OZNA’s Second Division evolved into the State Security Administration, and the Third Division transformed into the military counter-intelligence service, while 1957 saw formation of the diplomatic intelligence service with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the aftermath of the downfall of Ranko-vić, the UDB-a transformed into the State Security Service.

LIQUIDATION OF ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE WITHOUT COURT TRIALS (SAVAGE PURGES) FROM SEPTEMBER 1944 TO MARCH 1945

The list of the executed in the Politika daily of 27 November 1944For a long time, a misguided public belief was that the liquidation of enemies of the people was carried out by following oral orders and that it was not documented. The latest research by the Commission for secret graves established that in fact record-keeping existed in form of the Book of the Executed, the Book of Anti-People’s Elements, and the Book of the Arrested, all of which inc-lude quite specific and detailed information on the arrest, charges against and the execution of every person.Military courts issued statements on enemies of the peo-ple, collaborators and war criminals sentenced to death, which could be found on lamppost and walls shortly after the executions, their objective to intimidate. The approved lists mostly contained the more renowned citizens, exe-cuted without any court procedure.

Aleksandar Leka Ranković (1909–1983) ) – the top man of the security service until he was overthrown in 1966 and accused of abuse of office at the Brioni Plenum. Ranković at a young age joinined the ranks of the Communist Youth League. As the Secretary of the Committee of the Province, he was caught distributing illegal communist propaganda, and in 1928 sentenced to six years in the Sremska Mitrovica prison. During the national liberation struggle, Ranković was also a member of the Supreme Staff of the National Liberation Army and the Partisan Units of Yugoslavia and also the organizational secretary of the Communist Party, one of Tito’s closest associates. The establishment of OZNA led to his appointment as the Head of OZNA for Yugoslavia and in early 1946 he became the Minister of Interior of the FPRY. Later he was elected to the highest party and governmental posts, held the position of the Deputy Prime Minister. In 1956 he became Vice President of SIV (Central Execu-tive Committee) and the Chairman of the Committee for Internal Affairs and Security, a member of the Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, a member of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia (CK SKS), a member of the Pre-sidency of the Federal Board of the League of Socialist Working People of Yugoslavia (SSRNJ). Since the end of the war until 1966, he was a formal or informal chief of all civilian secret services.

Slobodan Penezić Krcun (1918–1964) – the top man and a long-time manager of Serbia’s secret service. After high school, he enrolled the University of Agriculture and Forestry in Užice in 1937, where he agitated for the League of the Commu-nist Youth of Yugoslavia (SKOJ) and the Communist Youth of Yugoslavia and was arrested three times. He was nicknamed after a cartoon character Krcun (“Krcun and Moca”, the Jež cartoon) which he also used as his nom de guerre. D. Jovanović described him as a “honey and poison” man. Being a Ranković’s man, he is considered to have been self-willed and to a certain extent critical of Tito in his later years. He died in a controversial car accident on the Ibarska Highway in 1964.

27

The repression was primarily carried out through charges of collaboration, followed by charges of espionage and treason to the benefit of one or other super power, and also based on the alleged criticism or opposition

In the wake of the conflict between Tito and Stalin in 1948, a conflict ensued within the Party and all those who voted for the Cominform were punished. Charged with being Stalin’s supporters, they were persecuted and interned in camps on an island in the northern Adriatic Sea (Croatia), known as Goli otok (a barren island). From 1949 to 1958 according to the data available at the Croatian State Archives, 16,731 people had been “administratively directed to com-munal service”, 450 of whom did not survive.

to economic reforms (collectivization, state purchase of crops, self-management…). Rigged court trials were used to dispose of many political and class opponents and took place en mass until 1951.

The trial of the army General Dragoljub Mihajlović (1893-1944), lasted from 10 June to 15 July 1946. Of the 47 Counts of Indictment read by Miloš Minić, General Mihailović was convicted on eight Counts. He was not convicted of war crimes, as alleged in post-war constructions, but mainly for ‘’crimes against the People’s Liberation Movement’’. The Court decided ‘’in the name of the people’’ to senten-ce Mihajlović to death by firing squad, permanent loss of civil and political rights and confiscation of all property. He was executed secretly on 17 July 1946, and buried in a place that remains unknown to date.

Dragoljub Jovanović (1895 - 1977) was one of the most educated politicians in Yugoslavia before World War II. He was close to the leftist peasants and later led the National Peasant Party. In former Yugoslavia he was considered a commu-nist, and the Communists treated him as a reactionary. He fell out of favour with the regime because of his criticism of the undemocratic 1945 elections, the Law on Cooperatives and the Law on Public Pro-secutors. He was expelled as a Professor from the Law School in 1946 and a year after arrested and condemned for treason to 9 years of hard labour, which he served in total, without a day of parole.

Črtomir Nagode (1903 - 1947), a civil engineer with a PhD in geography, was sentenced to death for charges of participating in the creation of non-pe-ople’s association which connected with the centres of espionage in Austria and Switzerland, with a view to violently overthrowing the existing government system of the FPRY.

The “Dachau trials” in Slovenia formed an introduction to repression aimed at the party members. The collective name denotes nine trials, organized from 1947 to 1950, sentencing thirty-one former inmates of Dachau, Buchenwald and Mauthausen. They were declared the spies and collaborators of the Gestapo and other intelligence agencies, even though majo-rity of them were members or officials of the pre-war illegal Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and some were even Spanish civil war soldiers, known anti-fascists, underground operators, participants and activists of the Liberation Front. The entire duration of the largest Dachau process - called Dil-Osvald (April 1948) was directly aired by Radio Ljubljana, with public address sound system of loudspeakers in the streets and shops complementing the trial scenery. Eleven were sentenced to de-ath, five were pardoned, and the remaining twenty were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 3 to 12 years.

Alojzije Stepinac (1898 -1960), the Archbishop of Zagreb and Cardinal, who played a controversial role during World War II and after the communists rose to power, he refused to separate the Catholic Church in Croatia from the Vatican. In a rigged process, he was sentenced to 16 years of forced labour in prison. He spent five years in the Lepoglava prison, and was held under house arrest in Krašić from the end of 1951 to his death in 10 February 1960. Pope Pius XII appointed him Cardinal in 1952.

LIQUIDATIONS OF THE CLASS AND POLITICAL ENEMIES BEFORE THE MILITARY COURTS, THE NATIONAL HONOUR COURTS AND THE CIVIL COURTS, MARCH 1945 TO MARCH 1946

LIQUIDATION OF THE YESTERYEAR NON-COMMUNIST ALLIES, THE “COMPANIONS OF REVOLUTION” - 1946-1948

1 Alfred Pal, a reconstruction of appearance of the camps in July 1949 when the first group of prisoners was brought in, Croatian History Museum2 Grga Sore, the drawings illustrate the usual punishment devices at Goli otok, nicknamed “a tribute to Qiblah” and the “swan”, Croatian History Museum

1 2

R THE SEAMY SIDE OF THE REGIME

28

COMPULSORY STATE PURCHASE AND COLLECTIVIZATION

POLITICAL PERSECU-TION IN THE SELF-MA-NAGEMENT SOCIALISM

The wave of repression after 1948 was followed by mass arrests and persecution of tens of thousands of farmers in collectivization cam-paign, mirroring the one in USSR, aiming to transform small private farms into state-owned cooperatives.The compulsory purchase system was introduced in 1945, imposing obligation on manufacturers to sell their surpluses to authorized persons; every household could retain 110-290 kg of grain, of which at least a quarter had to be corn, per household member. Directi-ves regulated the turnover of grains, sunflower seeds, wool, meat, potatoes, straw, hay, corn. The purchase system was centralized and implemented with considerable involvement on the part of the UDBA, the police and sometimes the military, often with brutal use of force.The biggest and most serious case of peasants’ resistance to forced collectivization and compulsory state purchase, was an uprising which started on 6 May 1950 in the Cazinska Krajina; 714 partici-pants were arrested, while 17 persons were sentenced to death by firing squad. A total of 426 people were condemned to penalties and sent to forced labour in the “Breza” coal mine. There was also an unprecedented case of repression: 115 Muslim families from the areas around Cazin and Velika Kladuša were expelled to the villages around Srbac due to their participation in the revolt.

Early fifties brought an onset of relative liberalization. Yugoslavia’s positioning in between the East and the West, formulation of a new ideology and own path to socialism required a departure from Stalinist methods of crackdown on political opponents. The regime sought to present itself to the world as democratic. With the official introduction of self-management democracy repression however still persisted, along with the cult of personality and omnipresent ideology, as the main pillar of the undemocratic regime. The system of “controlled freedom” was established, alternating periods of liberalization and ti-ghtening. Basic liberalization never meant substantial democratizati-on of the regime, only provided a liberal facade as the regime reverted to the tried and tested ‘firm hand’ methods, at any hint that the party’s monopoly on power or accomplishments of the revolution could be jeopardized. The idiosyncrasies of the Yugoslav case in comparison to the real-socialism countries, in terms of political repression, were numerous: fewer political prisoners; more lenient and less consistent sentencing policy, with frequent amnesties; a certain degree of libe-ralism in the sphere of culture and travel; tolerance of social criticism and a specific and complex dissident scene.

Grand public trials of opponents of the regime became a typical form of political persecution in the self-management socialism, pompously covered by the press, organized for the purpose of intimidating the public or signalling a message to the political factors abroad. A pattern of court prosecution emerged, a set of unwritten rules of a three-act play (“announcing the arrest in the media”, “investigation” and “sentencing”). These court processes typically involved a scathing first instance verdict, followed by a gradual reduction of the penalty (from the first instance court to the federal level), and completed with an amnesty on the occasion of a visit to Tito by foreign dignitaries and delegations, or under the pressure of international organi-zations for human rights protection, or due to external factors. “Manufacturing cases” and an increase in the number of public political trials grew particularly frequent whenever there was a need for a campaign crackdown on any of the many marked negative social tendencies (“đilasovština”, “rankovićevština”, “liberal tendencies”, “clerical fascism” etc).

Milovan Đilas, leaving, after the first trial, 1955 and with Josip Broz Tito on the island of Bled, 1948, Museum of Yugoslav History

1 Andrija Maurović, Life in a Peasant Cooperative Made My Work Easier, Allowed Me to Have More Food, More Clothes and More Money and Relieved Me of the Burden of Hard Labour on a Small Backward Farm. Zagreb, 1929. Poster, colour lithograph 50 x 71 cm, Croatian History Museum

2 Compulsory Crop Purchase Station, Bijeljina, 1945, Museum of Yugoslav History3 Crop Surplus Purchase, Museum of Yugoslav History

1

2 3

29

ELECTIONS

CULT OF PERSONALITY

Despite the formal observance of fundamental elements of the electoral process, the parliamentary elections in the Kingdom of Yu-goslavia were marked by police pressure, verbal and physical violence against political opponents, manipulation, threats and corruption and electoral rigging by the regime. Aggressive state propaganda, corrup-tion and unfair election game contributed to the difficulty of replacing a government in elections.

The cult of the King as the liberator and unifier was systematica-lly cultivated in interwar years and any criticism could have led to attacks on and persecution of those who dared belittle, criticize and/or ridicule the deified leader. The cult of King Alexander I culminated in the year of his tragic death in the Marseille Assassination.The ideological propaganda and building Tito’s cult over the time proved to be more important in maintaining the system than repres-sion, which became rationalized in the system of self-management. Both demagogy and ideological propaganda running parallel to the cult of the leader increased acceptance of the ideology and as a result the need for violence decreased over time. Systematic efforts were invested in bringing external and internal political successes of the regime, as well as Tito’s personal traits, closer to the masses. These efforts fell on fertile ground of political culture steeped in a tradition of mythologizing and divinization of political leaders.

Despite the fact that in the socialist Yugoslavia the formal right to vote was extended to women, it all boiled down to fiction, since any kind of opposition and political organization were brutally suppres-sed, and all parties were eliminated from political life.

The time of self-management has feigned the democratic process with a delegate self-management system, because the levers of actual power were still wielded by the pyramid structure of the Commu-nist Party, with key decisions still being made in the narrow circle of top manage-ment and for the most part in Tito’s close surroundings.

1 Augustinčić’s master workshop, Zagreb, Croatia, 1976. Sculptors, Ivan Pavić and Vladimir Herljević make a bigger model of Augustinčić’s monument to Marshal Tito. Photographic collection of Antun Augustinč’s Gallery2 Antun Augustinčić and Frano Kršinić, monument to King Aleksandar, Sušak, Croatia, 1935. The monument was removed by Italian occupying forces in 1941. Courtesy of Mr Maro Grbić

1 Election campaign poster, 1924, Belgrade City Museum2 Leaflet, the campaign by the supporters of Nikola Pašić, Belgrade City Museum 3 Leaflet, the campaign before the elections scheduled for May 5th, 1935, Belgrade City Museum 4 Leaflet, the campaign against Vlatko Maček and Ljuba Davidović before the elections scheduled for May 5th, 1935, Belgrade City Museum5 Rally in Kumanovo before the elections scheduled for November 11th, 1938, Museum of Yugoslav History6 Ballot box at Constitutional Assembly elections held on 11 November 1945Museum of Yugoslav History7 Poster ALL WORKING PEOPLE TO THE POLLS, Zagreb, 1960, 97x68 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts8 Slogan Long Live Josip Broz Tito, Marshal of Yugoslavia! Belgrade, 1944, 56.5 x 21 cm, Belgrade City Museum

1

6

8

75

3

4

2

1 2

R THE SEAMY SIDE OF THE REGIME

30

YUGOSLAVIA IN THE WORLD – THE WORLD IN YUGOSLAVIA

W

As a newcomer to the map of Europe after World War I, exhibiting gre-at diversity in a small territory, the Yugoslav state dramatically oscilla-ted, lost for direction, trying to find its place in the world, throughout its existence. During the first decade of the inter-war period, it used to be said that the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes “tied its small boat to the French ship”. Its policy of reliance on France and participa-tion in regional alliances like Little Entente (together with Czechoslo-vakia and Romania) and the Balkan Pact (with Greece, Romania and Turkey) were aimed at securing the country’s status as a winner of the war. It was only in the wake of the global economic crisis and a shift in the balance of power in Europe in the mid-1930s that an increased openness in the domain of business and, by the same token, in the field of foreign policy, towards Italy and especially Germany followed. After World War II and the victory of the Communist Party of Yu-goslavia, this orientation underwent a profound change, with the Soviet Union becoming key foreign policy partner and protector of the country, at least until 1948-9 and the split between Yugoslav and Soviet communists. At that moment, Yugoslavia faced a short-lived isolation, because its neighbours belonged either to the capitalist West (Italy, Austria and Greece) or the East under the Soviet influen-ce (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania). The initial letters of the names of these neighbouring countries spell the word “BRIGAMA”1 (“worries”) and that acronym was the source of a witty remark that Yugoslavia is surrounded by worries. In an effort to add legitimacy to its unusual position of a communist country whose economy was getting support from the capitalist West, Yugoslavia opted for a policy of balancing between the opposed power blocks and active development of relations with countries that were not part of power blocks. Thus, it was among the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement established in Belgrade in 1961. Non-alignment was the principal doctrine of the foreign policy of Yugoslavia until the very end of the country, which managed to simultaneously bring distant African and Asian countries closer to Yugoslavs and ease the pre-ssure coming from the power blocks. However, it also alienated the country from its geographically closer, surrounding area. During the Cold War, the importance of Yugoslavia and the role it played in the international relations were far greater than the coun-try’s size and significance. The door was opened not only to political and economic cooperation, but also to global cultural influences. The process went both ways: Yugoslav sports, tourism, art, scien-ce, music and film crossed borders, too. This exchange allowed the Yugoslav model of self-management socialism to become not only recognizable, but also, in its own way, popular. The world’s most influential statesmen of the time (Khrushchev, Nixon, Brezh-nev, Ford, Nehru, Nasser...) visited the country, which was popular among world famous actors, scientists and even astronauts, along with an increasing number of tourists from the East and the West alike. Pablo Picasso made the poster for the film Neretva, while the film Valter brani Sarajevo (Walter Defends Sarajevo) became a hit in China, Ivo Andrić become the first Yugoslav Nobel Prize winner, the world’s leading philosophers gathered at a summer school in Korčula, Sarajevo hosted the 1984 Winter Olympic Games. Ordinary Yugoslavs travelled too. The Yugoslav passport achieved legendary status for allowing its holders visa-free access to most of the coun-tries around the world. But, this position of Yugoslavia resulted, to a large extent, from the bipolar context of the Cold War. The end of the Cold War found the country without a new concept. The crisis of the Yugoslav society that grew deeper and deeper after Tito’s death, eventually led to the disintegration of the country, its international isolation and the war after which all successor states have been striving, with varying degrees of success, to achieve the goal of EU membership and thus redefine their position in the world again.

1 Plural instrumental case of the noun “briga” (eng. worry)

31

INTERNATIONAL POLICY In the course of more than eighty years of its existence, Yugoslavia radically changed the foundations of its foreign policy several times. As a winner of World War I, in the first period of its life, the country viewed itself as a pillar of the so-called Versailles order. It strived to establish close cooperation with Czechoslovakia and Romania. In 1922, King Aleksandar Karađorđević married Maria, daughter of the king of Romania. The Little Entente, a military and political alliance between Czecho-slovakia, Romania and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed in 1920. The collaboration between these countries was based on the need to remove the threat of revision of the outcome of World War I, the objective that primarily Italy, Hungary, Austria and Bulgaria were dedicated to achieving. The Balkan Pact between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania and Turkey was concluded in 1934 for similar reasons.The rise of Nazi Germany and its building closer ties with fascist Italy had destabilized these alliances. Like other countries in the region, Yugoslavia too tried to adjust to this by establishing closer relations with Germany. Thus, Prime Minister, Milan Stojadinović

and Prince Regent Pavle Karađorđević met with Hitler. This policy culminated in Yugoslavia’s joining the Tripartite Pact on 25 March, 1941. With the overthrow of the government that signed the pact, in the coup carried out two days later, Yugoslavia became the target of an attack by the Axis Powers. Defeated in the short April War, the country was occupied, divided between the winning powers and temporarily obliterated from the political map of Europe. After World War II, the foreign policy of the socialist Yugoslavia was dynamic, personified by its leader, Josip Broz Tito, head of the party and state and his activities. As early as during the war, Tito esta-blished direct contacts with Churchill and Stalin (see the pictures), but Yugoslavia’s true breakthrough onto the international scene happened after it had left the Eastern Block and became more open to the West, normalizing its relations with the East and assuming one of the key roles in the Non-Aligned Movement. Maintaining this position, Tito kept meeting the world’s leading statesmen, until the very end of his life.

1 Hermann Goering in Belgrade, 1935, Belgrade City Museum2 Prince Paul Karađorđević of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakian President Eduard Beneš, Belgrade 1937, Museum of Yugoslav History3 Princess Olga of Yugoslavia in The Prince Paul Museum, 1939, Museum of Yugoslav History

4 Little Entente Conference, December, 18th, 1932, Belgrade City Museum5 Russia and Yugoslavia signed a 20-year pact of friendship and alliance, Mosow, April 11, 1945, Museum of Yugoslav History6 Tito paid a visit to the USA where he conferred with the President Kennedy, October 1963, Museum of Yugoslav History

7 The state visit of his excellency JoipBroz Tito president of The SFRY, andmadame Broz, october 28, 1971, Museumof Yugoslav History8 Josip Broz Tito with Jimmy Charter inWashington, by John Philips, March 1978,Museum of Yugoslav History9 Josip Broz Tito and Churchill meetin the Bay of Naples, August 13, 1944,Museum of Yugoslav History

7

1

2

5

3

6

8

4

9

W YUGOSLAVIA IN THE WORLD – THE WORLD IN YUGOSLAVIA

32

Since he became President of Yugoslavia in 1953, Josip Broz Tito visited seventy coun-tries, many of them several times, heading as many as 160 state delegations (38 on the visits to socialist countries, 35 to the West and 87 to third-world countries). Tito’s first voyage on the Galeb took place in March 1953, as part of his visit to Great Britain, while the trip to India and Burma in 1954-1955 was his overseas first diplomatic mission. Tito travelled on board the Galeb a total of 14 times, spent 478 days aboard and covered the distance of 85,000 nautical miles (157.420 km). The Galeb played host to a number of world’s statesmen, from Winston

Churchill and Nikita Khrushchev to Haile Selassie, Jawaharlal Nehru, Achmad Sukar-no and numerous public figures from around the world. During the 5th Non-Aligned Movement Summit held in Colombo in 1976, Tito gave a reception for all the participants in the summit on the Galeb.Tito liked traveling and he also was a good host. He entertained 175 heads of state, 170 heads of government, almost 200 ministers of foreign affairs and as many parliamentary delegations, as well as to more than 300 de-legations of different movements. In addition to politicians, the country was visited by pu-blic figures, artists, astronauts and actors.

Yugoslavia had not always been a champi-on of good neighbourly relations. After the country was formed in 1918, at least one of its borders, the border with Albania was always the place of low intensity conflict. Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy and partly Austria were also considered to be hostile neighbo-urs. After World War II, the country gained a new territory of around 8000 km2, while its land border was shortened from 3047 to 2999 km2, but the dispute between Yugo-slavia and Italy over the city of Trieste and the surrounding area went on for more than a decade after the war and threatened to

escalate into an armed conflict. The border with Greece too was porous, it was over that border that aid was supplied to Greek communists, the losing side of the civil war. Following the break-up with the Informbiro (Cominform), the borders with Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania became the sites of incidents that claimed the lives of many border guards on both sides. With the normalization of relations with the neighbo-uring countries, open hostilities ended, but suspicion remained. With rare exceptions, Yugoslavia sought foreign policy partner outside the region of the Balkan peninsula.

1 Dragan Savić, Fear Has Magnifying Eyes. From the portfolio of cartoons published in the Borba newspaper. India ink / pen, blue crayon, 24.5 x 35 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History2 The Treaty of Rapallo, signed on 12 November 1920,

determined a new border between Italy and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (SCS). Members of the border commission of the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of SCS at the Luknja pass on 6 Augiust 1921, National Museum of Contemporary History of Slovenia

1

2

33

enormous amount of time establishing con-tacts with politicians from member-states. Important preliminary work aimed at bringing the countries, members of the movement, closer was done at the meeting between Tito, Nehru and Nasser on the island of Brioni in July 1956, as well as at the meeting between Nasser, Nehru, Tito, Sukarno and Nkrumah in New York in 1960. (Photographs)The Conference of Heads of State or Gover-nment of Non-Aligned Countries was held in Belgrade in September 1961, at the initiative of Tito and Nasser. It brought together parti-cipating representatives of 25 countries (Afg-hanistan, Algeria, Burma, Ceylon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia Iraq, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Cyprus, Congo, Cuba, Lebanon, Morocco, Mali , Nepal, Saudi Ara-bia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia and the United Arab Republic) and three observer countries (Bolivia, Brazil and Ecuador). In the years that followed, the practice of periodically holding conferences survived and the number of participants grew, despite the resistance of the superpowers and the controversies between the non-aligned countries themse-

lves. At the 1964 Cairo conference there were 47 full members and 10 observer countries, in Lusaka (1970) 54 members and 9 observer countries, in Algeria (1973) 75 members and 9 observer countries, in Colombo (1976) 86 members and 10 observer countries and in Havana 94 full members, 12 observer coun-tries and 8 guests. The increase in the members added weight to the movement, but at the cost of cohesi-on. Considerable differences among mem-bers and conflicts between them, jeopardi-zed the unity of the movement in the 1980s, while the crisis and collapse of the socialist block challenged its purpose. The confe-rences were still organized – in New Delhi (1983), Harare (1986) and in Belgrade (1989), just before the demise of Yugoslavia.

1 Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Yugoslav President Josip “Tito” Broz, Brioni, July 1956, Museum of Yugoslav History2 From left to right: Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, President Sukarno of Indonesia and Yugoslav President Josip “Tito” Broz, in New York, June 1960, Museum of Yugoslav History3 Yugoslav President Josip “Tito” Broz and Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie, Belgrade, July 1954, Museum of Yugoslav History

1

2 3

The Non-Aligned Movement, a phenomenon that lasted several decades, was inextricably linked to the destiny of the socialist Yugosla-via. It was one of the constituent factors of the country’s identity and a cohesive force that bound together the people living in a multi-ethnic community. Josip Broz Tito played a key role in the creation of the mo-vement and its inner dynamics. In an effort to strengthen the role of Yugoslavia as one of founders of the movement, he spent an

W YUGOSLAVIA IN THE WORLD – THE WORLD IN YUGOSLAVIA

34

POPULAR CULTURE

FILM In the period prior to the end of World War II, there was no organized or unified film industry in Yugoslavia. However, there were talented individuals, filmmaking pioneers who worked with foreign film crews. After 1945, thanks to the interest the new authorities showed for film that they viewed as a powerful propaganda weapon for the “ideologi-cal shaping” of the masses, the national film industry emerged, with 1947 marking the beginning of a continuous production of dome-stic films. In the early 1950s, the cooperation with foreign partners began, i.e. the work on co-productions as a solution for the economic problems of the domestic film industry whose potential lay not only in the scenery, but also in cheap labour, numerous extras available for historical spectacles and the support of the Yugoslav People’s Army. Until the beginning of the 1980a, around 80 co-productions were shot.

The film Bitka na Neretvi (The Battle of Neretva) (1969) focuses on one of the most spectacular World War II military operations in Yugoslavia. The strength of this production was the cast, impressive even by Hollywood standards. Yul Brynner and Sergey Bondarchuk portrayed Partisans, while Orson Welles played a Chetnik vojvoda (commander). The film Sutjeska (1973), where the leading role of Marshal Tito was given to Richard Burton, following the president’s wishes was less successful. As part of the preparations for the film, Burton and his wife Elisabeth Taylor were Tito’s guests.

“For the epic strength” with which he “shaped the motifs and fates from the history of his country”, Ivo Andrić (1892-1975) received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1961. Although a considera-ble number of his works had already been translated into many languages, after he received the Nobel Prize there was enor-mous interest in the world for the works of this writer from the Balkans, and his novels and short stories were printed in more than thirty languages. Andrić went to Sweden, Switzerland, Greece and Egypt those years. He donated his entire Nobel Prize money to the library fund in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in two parts.

The crew of the Apollo 11 spacecraft that landed on the Moon on 20 July, 1969 visited the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 18 to 20 October, 1969 as part of the one-month good-will mission during which the famous astronauts toured 24 cities in 22 countries, flown in the presidential aircraft Air Force One. Yu-goslavia was the only communist country to have been included in the itinerary. The main stars of the numerous American delegation were Neil Armstrong, Edwin

Aldrin and Michael Collins. They were welcomed in Belgrade by Tito, who was given fragments of the lunar surface and the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that the crew carried to the Moon. Tito awarded the astronauts the Order of the Yugoslav Great Star. “I don’t like conquerors on Earth, but in space, conquering new celestial bodies, that’s a different thing. That I value highly and I wish you great success in that regard”, Tito pointed out in this speech.

Dušan Vukotić (1927 – 1998) won an Oscar in 1962 for his film Surogat (The Substi-tute), a critique of consumer society. That was the first time that the Academy Award went to a non-U.S. cartoon, which also earned the “Zagreb Cartoon School”, that Vukotić was a member of, worldwide recognition.

Dušan Vukotić, a scene from the animated film Surogat (The Substitute) produced by Zagreb film, 1961.Acrylic paint celluloid drawings Courtesy of the Zagreb City Museum .

35

SPORTSSporting activities in Yugoslavia began developing as part of the Sokol Society. In the 1920s and 1930s, sports in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia became a mass phenomenon of an increasing popularity. Many Sokol Societies were founded and mass games (called Sokol Slet(s)) held. It was then that the state became the main force behind the campaigns to promote sport. While among the people living in towns, sports were con-sidered to be primarily a source of fun and a pastime, the authorities saw the spread of sports in the rural areas as an opportunity for non-military training and raising the level of endurance and enhancing physical ability of young men. The regime in both Yugosla-vias was aware of the benefits of sports, especially at the international level, since the community laid claim to the sporting achievements of the winners. Yugoslav at-hletes participated in the summer Olym-pics 16 times, appearing at every Games since Antwerp 1920. Yugoslavia hosted the biggest sporting events, including the 1962 European Athletics Championships held in Belgrade, XIV Olympic Winter Games held in 1984 in Sarajevo, VIII Mediterranean Games in Split in 1979, World Student Games in 1987 in Zagreb. Athletes become stars of mass culture. The arrival in Belgrade of the French tennis player, Henri Cochet in 1929 was used by the media, in the spirit of the dominant pro-French sentiment, to emp-hasize once more the traditional friends-hip between France and Serbia. Sporting victories began to be described as victories of the regime and its ideology and, thus, the victory over the Soviet Union at the 1952 Olympic Games in Helsinki was interpreted as a patriotic act, while the public in the USSR had not been officially informed about the defeat of its national team for as long as Stalin was alive.

1 The first Yugoslavmass games of all Sokol Societies, Ljubljana, 1922, Museum of Yugoslav History2 Mass gamesof all Sokol Societies held in Belgrade at the stadium that was built at the current location of the School of Engineering, 1932, Museum of Yugoslav History3 Miroslav Cerar, one of the most popular gymnasts in Yugoslavia4 European Figure Skating Championships, Zagreb, 1974, Museum of Yugoslav History5 The Yugoslav national team won the Basketball World Cup held in Ljubljana 16 -24 May, 1970, Museum of Yugoslav History

1

3

4

5

2

W YUGOSLAVIA IN THE WORLD – THE WORLD IN YUGOSLAVIA

36

TOURISMIn the immediate post-war years, tourism was virtually non-existent and developed slowly. It was only after the liberalization in the mid-1950s that a more significant development of foreign and domestic tourism began. Domestic tourism was also, in a way, a tool for promoting brotherhood and unity. The party tried to develop tourism and attract foreign guests, even while Yugoslavia was behind the iron curtain, which was quite uncommon, given the totalitarian nature of the regime. In 1955, a total of 485,000 tourists visited the country. Ten years later, that number rose to 2,658,000. Compare that to 250,000 foreign tourists visiting Yugoslavia in 1935, when tourism in pre-war Yugoslavia was at its peak. The development of the transport infra-structure was a prerequisite for tourism investment. The Adriatic Highway was finished in 1964 and the construction of a number of tourism facilities along the Croatian coast followed. Belgrade got a new airport in 1962, while the Ćilipi airport in Dubrovnik was built the same year. Seaside tourism was given priority, since it was a source of foreign currency and provided a way of promoting the country that tourist from the East and the West alike could visit without any major

problems. The guests from the East very often seized the opportuni-ty and used Yugoslavia as a point of departure to immigrate in third countries, (to which the regime turned a blind eye). In time, winter, spa and rural tourism began developing too. Ski resorts were popping up and included Kranjska Gora, Kopaonik, Brezovica and Jahorina where the 1984 Winter Olympic Games were held. The construction of tourist facilities in the administrative centres and the capitals of federal republics, but primarily Belgrade, was an important area of tourism investment. Thus, in addition to a number of hotels, Belgrade got its conference centre – Sava centar in 1977. In the mid-1980s, tourism was at its peak – 8.436,000 foreign tourists visited the country. In 1985, in Serbia and Montenegro alone, there were 6,000,000 domestic and 1,250,000 foreign guests. In 1990, a total of 8,500,000 tourist stayed in Croatia, 83% of whom were foreigners. Some of them came to see the 35th Eurovision Song Contest held in Zagreb in May that year. Being a very vulnerable area of economic activity, the tourist business crum-bled, as the economic and political crisis gained momentum and with armed conflict looming over the country.

1 Beach in Makarska, 1973, Museum of Yugoslav History2 Skiing runs on Mount Jahorina, 1977, Museum of Yugoslav History3 In the Inex-turist office in Belgrade, Museum of Yugoslav History4 Workers’ resort in Opatija, 1948, Museum of Yugoslav History5 Skiing runs on Mount Kopaonik, 1978, Museum of Yugoslav History6 Dubrovnik, 1964, Museum of Yugoslav History7 Inex tourist agency in Belgrade, Museum of Yugoslav History

1

4

5

2 3

7

6

37

In less than seventy-three years of its existence, from a backward, poorly urba-nised country, the country that came to be known as Yugoslavia transformed itself into a medium-developed industrial economy. Slow but steady modernisation processes at the time of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were made difficult and at times halted, not only by bleak economic circumstances but also by constant political crises and growing nati-onal tensions which meant that the elites were obliged to spend more time on the machinations of day-to-day politics than on the economy. However, during the inter-war period, industry recorded considerable growth. The number of factories doubled and the share of agricultural production in the overall national income decreased. Despite a certain degree of business and economic modernisation and a slight increa-se in the standard of living, with a per capita income of only eighty dollars, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was at the bottom of the Eu-ropean ladder.Belated industrialisation and slow urba-nisation were cut short by the war from which the Communist Party emerged as the leading power. Internally, the revolution continued after the liberation, and the need for a swift transformation of the society to Socialism opened the way to rapid indu-strialisation, deagrarianisation and urbani-sation. At the beginning of the 1950s there was a limited but perceptible liberalisation of circumstances. Self-management was introduced, the rigid administrative mana-gement of the economy abandoned, partial decentralisation was carried out, a new planning and financial system adopted, and goods were allowed to be sold freely on the market. However, differences in the rates of development of the individual republi-cs, galloping inflation, unemployment, the laying-off of workers as well as increasing indebtedness created discontent and con-tributed to the emergence of nationalism. The ruling elite did not have a solution for overcoming the deep economic and political crisis. Swingeing cut-backs, drastic redu-ction of imports and a price and wage freeze did not yield long-term results, so that by the mid-1980s Yugoslavia had an unemploy-ment rate of 18%, a large foreign debt and the highest inflation rate in Europe.

ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

E

38

THE CULT OF LABOUR AND THE WORKER, RENEWAL AND CONSTRUCTI-ONAfter the liberation, hard work and physical exhaustion were placed on a pedestal as the most desirable social value and chief measure of patriotism. According to Party understanding, work represented a logical continuance of the struggle for liberation and proof of affiliation to the new regime. Citizens were called upon to work like “shock-workers”, and slogans constantly warned of the necessity of fulfilling “the plan”. As the Party saw it, a true shock worker could not be just anyone who distin-guished him- or herself at work, but only someone who understood “attitude towards work as a duty towards the Socialist home-land”. The norms set in the first post-war years were too low and easily surpassed, so all were declared shock workers, if they worked in production, that is, as the Party believed that they were the only ones who had the right to the title. However, depar-tmental officials whose endeavours were only supposed to be commended and finan-cially rewarded were also included. “Shock work” was supposed to have an educational effect, while ensuring and stimulating a “constant and systematic increase in produ-ctivity”. The honorific was awarded unspa-ringly, and in Serbia alone, in the period from January to October 1947, as many as 28,897 shock workers were declared. However, for the workers themselves, the reward of extra supplies existed only on paper. Many district and towns people’s committees did not have the goods in stock to which the decorated workers were entitled according to the regulations. Furthermore, it seems that their efforts were not held in high esteem by the local Party chiefs, who thought “that workers became shock workers because they needed money and other benefits”.

1 The construction of the Fužine-Tribalj hydroelectric power station, Museum of Yugoslav History2 Construction foreman, Jovo Orlić, ran the construction of tunnels on the railroad connecting Doboj and Banja Luka. The Order of Labour and Order of Bravery are among his many decorations, Museum of Yugoslav History

5

6

1

3

4

2

3 Alfred Pilc, Miner, 1961, Museum of Yugoslav History4 Unknown artist, Blacksmith, pre-1948. Sculpture made for serial production awarded to workers, Museum of Yugoslav History5 Đuka Janković, Long Live the Rally of the Decorated Shock Workers of the People’s Republic of Serbia, February 13th, 1949! Belgrade, 1948. Illustrated colour poster, 63 x 84 cm, Belgrade City Museum6 Selim Sejdić, Mionica resident, twenty-time shock worker, worked at Youth Voluntary Labour Campaigns from 1945 to 1951, Museum of Yugoslav History7 The construction of the railway connecting Banja Luka and Doboj, near Kulaš, April 25th 1951, Museum of Yugoslav History

7

39

THE FIVE-YEAR PLAN

FAILED INVESTMENTS

The general etatization and centralisation of the economy, central planning, insistence on building heavy industrial plants, and the sub-mission of economic principles to political and military requirements marked the first years of the Socialist Yugoslavia. In 1947, the First Five-Year Plan was passed in the form of a law and it foresaw a rapid development of the heavy industry, with major investment in electrification and the building of hydro-electric plants, ferrous and non-ferrous metal factories, industrial machine plants, chemical industry factories, the opening of new mining basins, the introducti-on of machinery into mining production and the development of the traffic infrastructure. Money from agriculture (mainly obtained by forced purchase from farmers) was poured into industry. Although there was major investment, it was often irrational. Coupled with the obstacles placed in the way of every economic initiative and the suppression of market laws and economic logic resulted in econo-mic collapse and a dramatic deterioration in the standard of living, instead of the announced economic miracle. Because of conflict with the USSR, the plan was extended for another year, until 1952.

In the desire for even the most remote area to have its own “Socialist” factory, not much heed was taken of market requirements, availability of raw materials or transport connections. The building of expensive, unwieldy factories began across the coun-try, far exceeding Yugoslavia’s needs and capabilities. By the mid-1950s, the volume of irrational investment and superfluous fa-ctories took on troubling dimensions. – Along with six ironworks, another 101 companies of various sizes also worked on the pro-duction of metal castings and their alloys. Irrational investment and the proliferation of companies doomed to failure suited the growing tendency to accentuate the parti-cular strivings of each individual republic as their authorities sought to build as complete a national economy as possible within their own borders. This trend continued in the following decades. Thus, during the global economic crisis of the 1970s, an ironworks was built in Smederevo with money borrowed from abroad, a venture that showed itself to be unprofitable from the outset.

The economic reforms and partial liberalisation which ensued did not, however, put a stop to excessive investment financed by bank loans and in 1955, the country found itself on the brink of economic disaster. Announcing that only top priority projects would continue to be built, Tito stated that “the present generation has invested much effort in the construction of the country, and now deserves to live better. Some tasks must be left to the future generations.” In spite of ten years of financial effort, the per capita income of the co-untry in 1957 was only 200 dollars. Moreover, annual growth of GDP between 1948 and 1952 was lower than it had been before the war, due to the conflict with the Soviets, enormous army expenses and a chronic lack of raw materials. However, even with all the difficul-ties in development, in the first post-war decade industry became the leading area of the economy, and the structure of the national income changed accordingly with industry and mining growing from the pre-war 21.1% to 38.2% in 1956.

1 Celebrating the inauguration of the first train running on the railway connecting Šamac and Sarajevo, 1947, Museum of Yugoslav History2 Dunav Brickworks in Zemun. The ceremony promoting the first workers in the brick-making industry the rank of to shock workers, 1947, Museum of Yugoslav History3 Government bonds of the Second Loan, issued as part of the five-year plan of development of the people’s economy of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, Belgrade, July 1st, 1950, Museum of Yugoslav History4 Belgrade 1944-1949... The poster promoting the successes achieved in the reconstruction and building of the city, Belgrade, 1949. Illustrated colour poster, 70 x 100 cm, Belgrade City Museum5 Zenica Iron Works., 1950, Museum of Yugoslav History6 The fitters employed in the Đuro Đaković factory in Slavonski brod assembling the iron works in Zenica, 1950, Museum of Yugoslav History

1 43

5

6

2

E ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

40

MODERNISATION, INDUSTRIALISATION, URBANISATIONJust after unification, Yugoslavia was one of the most backward European countries. Agrarian overpopulation and industrial backwardness, like communicating vessels, prevented economic progress and impro-vement in the quality of life. Subsistence farming and minimum consumption could not stimulate industrial growth, while slow industrialisation discouraged any sizeable migration from village to town and thus a decrease in agrarian overpopulation. Following World War II, the Party attempted to completely transform and modernise the backward agrarian society in just a decade or two. Rapid industrialisation and mo-dernisation had their positive and negative sides – the percentage of urban population increased from 16.6% to 46.5% of the overall population, primitive manufacture was replaced by comparatively modern industrial companies (the rate of industrial growth at the beginning of the 1960s was one of the greatest worldwide), and the culture of living and the living standard improved dramatically. However, great numbers of unqualified workers, low productivity, faulty and irrational investment policy, low-quality and uncompetitive goods, and decisions by workers’ councils to use the company profits to raise wages instead of furthering pro-ductivity halted further development, thus opening the way to an on-going political and economic crisis which was to result in the break-up of the country.

1 Belgrade in the interwar period, the corner of Kneza Miloša and Nemanjina streets, Museum of Yugoslav History2 Street clock in Terazije, May 1941, Belgrade City Museum3 The Parliament of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, around 1929, Belgrade City Museum4 The construction of the first high-rise in a housing project in Voždovac, Belgrade, 1963, Museum of Yugoslav History

5 Bridge on the river Sava in Belgrade, 1969, Museum of Yugoslav History6 Zastava 750 passenger cars ready for transport, Museum of Yugoslav History7 New multi-storey buildings in Ljubljana, erected from 1950 to 1970, Museum of Yugoslav History

8 Express train line connecting Belgrade and Zagreb, intended for business people, Museum of Yugoslav History 9 Belgrade, Hotel Jugoslavija, opened in 1969, Museum of Yugoslav History 10 Avala TV Tower, Belgrade, 1965, Museum of Yugoslav History

1

4

6

8 9

10

7

5

32

41

WOMEN’S EMANCIPATION

GUEST WORKERS

The process of women’s emancipation began only after the end of World War II. Women received the right to vote (in 1946) and became increasingly present on the job market. In spite of the proclaimed equality, the situation of women in the first post-war years was far from idyllic. The dividing line between male and female work was disappearing, but still women earned less and were considered to be non-profitable and expensive labour which belonged in the home “since motherhood is also an important thing”. Partial economic independence enabled women to become the initiators of divorce and take over sole care of the children. The number of extra-ma-rital children was increasing, but pressure from the surroundings and the ruling morality in all republics except for Slovenia made young mothers “for the most part want to get rid of their children”. Assistance from public institutions, on the rare occasions when there was any, in practice came down to “separating the child from the mother”, not supporting and encouraging the woman to raise the child on her own. The 1960s and particularly the 1970s brought a major change. Patriarchal notions were slowly disappearing, and an increasing number of women graduated from secondary scho-ols and universities and took on a more prominent role in society. However, up to the break-up of Yugoslavia, in the most cases women remained the lesser paid and lesser esteemed work force.

The comparative liberalisation and wea-kening of party discipline in the 1960s, the economic crisis accompanied by dramatic unemployment, the low standard of living and great pressure on the towns drove many - mainly unqualified - Yugoslavs to seek employment abroad, whether temporary or permanent. Mainly rural dwellers left, above all to Germany, Austria, France and Switzerland. The party leadership, which only a decade earlier had considered moving to Western Europe as an act of treachery, began to look with something approaching benevolence on the tide of emigration, con-sisting principally of workers who had ba-rely completed or failed to complete primary education. The departure of unqualified wor-kers benefited the workers themselves and their families, but also the state, since the revenues that flowed into the country from foreign currency remittances were enormo-us. Analyses show that the migrants sent one-third of their net wages, or two-thirds

of their savings, back to Yugoslavia. In 1973, 1,100,000 Yugoslavs were working abroad, an absolute record. By the mid-1970s, the economies of developed Western European countries had absorbed the desired number of foreign workers, and companies gra-dually began to closing their doors to the unqualified work force from Yugoslavia. The economic crisis caused by the sudden hike in oil prices in 1973 and stricter regulations governing the status of foreign workers, influenced a large number of Yugoslavs to return to the homeland. Even though the number of returnees increased yearly, the total number of Yugoslav citizens employed in Germany remained more or less constant, since a second generation of migrants was by this time joining the German economy. It thus turned out that a great number of wor-kers who left temporarily for the countries of Western Europe in the 1960s in search of work and better living conditions, remained permanently settled in those countries.

1 Seeing off emigrants at the Skopje airport, 1970, Museum of Yugoslav History2 Seeing off emigrants at the railway station in Skopje, 1970, Museum of Yugoslav History3 Assembly of electric turntables, Radio industrija Zagreb, May 24th, 1961, Museum of Yugoslav History4 The third People’s Health Centre “Boris Kidrič”, Belgrade, Museum of Yugoslav History

5 Ladies Travel Bag Department in the Leather Fancy Goods Factory in Domžale, Slovenia, July 1953, Museum of Yugoslav History6 The welding of instruments in the Sutjeska Medical Instruments Factory, January, 14th, 1951, Museum of Yugoslav History7 Magazine Žena danas /Woman Today/ No. 47, 1947, National Library of Serbia 8 Otto Antonini, draft of the Golf Club Zagreb poster, Zagreb, 1931, Zagreb City Museum

2

3

5

7

4

6

8

E ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

1

42

CRISES AND SAVINGS

BAD DEBT

The Global Depression severely affected the under-developed agra-rian Balkan countries, Yugoslavia among them. In spite of small yields and the poverty of the majority of rural families, agricultural products, primarily cereal crops, had been Yugoslavia’s chief and virtually only export product. By the mid-1920s, owing to mechani-sation and use of chemicals, American farmers on the other hand had modernised production and made it cheaper, creating enormous surpluses of quality agrarian products and flooding European mar-kets. Small, scattered production in the Yugoslav countryside, based on manual labour, could not sustain competition from modernised American agriculture, and the prices of Yugoslav wheat recorded a visible drop in 1926. Thus a process of deflation began which encompassed all the economic sectors. However, Yugoslavia’s major economic crisis occurred only in mid-1930, several months after the Wall Street crash. Between 1925-1933, revenues from the wheat trade were almost halved. The country’s balance of payments found itself under pressure, since Yugoslavia was an importer of industrial goods and raw materials. Rural impoverishment led to a dramatic drop in consumption, which also caused major layoffs and a reduction of labourers’ daily wages. However, the major losers of the depression were the peasants. According to statistical data, the average annual income of one rural household was highest in 1924 only to drop by as much as 71% by 1933. In order to survive, peasants took out loans, for the most part from money lenders – a survey of the Privilegovana Agrarna Banka (Privileged Agrarian Bank) showed that the indebted rural population paid out more than three-quarters of their income in payment of taxes and due inte-rest. The depression lasted longer in all the Balkan countries than it did in Western Europe. An improvement and general revival of the economic situation was only felt in Yugoslavia in 1935. However, the level of prosperity of the 1920s was never achieved again.The roots of the economic crisis into which Yugoslavia entered in the 1980s should be sought in spiralling oil prices on the internati-onal market in 1973 and 1979. The country’s balance of payments was badly shaken, as its industry was completely dependent on the import of oil and oil derivates. Failing to recognise the gravity of the global economic crisis, instead of implementing rigorous cutbacks and lowering the standard of living, as advised by Western econo-

At the time of deep political and economic crisis that hit the country in 1987, a major financial scandal erupted. It was named Agrokomerc affair, after the agricultural enterprise with headqu-arters in Velika Kladuša (north-western Bosnia). Managed by its director, Fikret Abdić, Agrokomerc began rapidly expanding its business, primarily in the area of poultry farming and meat processing. Although it had been considered a very successful food conglomerate for a long time, it turned out that the agro-firm owed its economic growth to excessive loans and that the bad debt was held by around sixty Yugoslav banks without their knowledge of its being bad. After the scandal broke, north-western Bosnia went into a total economic crash. The banks were out of cash, shops were

closed, as they had no money to pay for the goods they sold and the poultry farms owned by the agricultural enterprise could not afford to buy food for the animals. The army was called to burry tens of thousands of dead chickens to prevent the outbreak of diseases. The affair shook Yugoslavia to the core and there were even calls for reviewing the entire economic and political strategy introduced in 1974. However, a consensus could not be reached – some main-tained that the scandal proved that decentralization had gone too far and demanded additional strengthening of the central govern-ment, while others believed that the fall of Agrokomerc would not have happened if the central authorities had not interfered in the local affairs.

mists, the Yugoslav government turned to blithely taking out loans, for the most part from private banks. Even though credits enabled many companies to adjust to the new prices of derivates, in order to somehow satisfy the growing investment appetites of the republics, the borrowed money was mostly spent on building non-profitable industrial facilities. A new jump in the price of oil in 1979 also led to a recession in the West, because of which the Yugoslav economy was doubly hit. Exporters found it increasingly difficult to find buyers on the international market, income from tourism was reduced, and foreign currency remittances from guest workers diminished steadily. Burdened by major expenditure on the armed forces and irrational welfare payments, the government adopted an inflationary policy of printing money and taking out new loans. In 1983, the IMF ordered swingeing restrictions. The downsizing of imports resulted in shortages of petrol, detergent, sugar and coffee, long queues, the introduction of a system whereby vehicles could be used only on alternate days according to the licence plate number, and the appearance of ersatz chocolate. However, these measures did not yield results: the foreign debt grew steadily, unemployment was on the rise, the standard of living dropped, workers’ strikes became an increasingly common occurrence. It was only at this point that there was open discussion of the crisis, the depths of which were ma-sked by the euphemisms of short-term and long-term stabilisation programmes.In an attempt to find an answer to the general crisis, in 1988 the parliament passed thirty-nine constitutional amendments which were supposed to help introduce new reforms and lead to the revival of the economy. In March 1989, Ante Markovic was elected Prime Minister and in a short time he succeeded in pegging the dinar to the German mark, fighting inflation, lowering government subsidies to industry and passing laws enabling foreign companies to become majority owners of Yugoslav companies. However, Markovic’s refor-mist programme came too late, since heated national passions and constant inter-republic conflicts led to the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991 and the beginning of war.

43

ALLOCATION OF APARTMENTS One of the most difficult, virtually insoluble problems of the mushro-oming Socialist towns was the dramatic shortage of housing. The number of available apartments, deficient even before World War II, suffered a further blow. With the constant mechanical influx of mi-grants into the towns, the lack of housing made itself increasingly felt from year to year, since the speed of construction was not capable of even maintaining standards at the same level. Great poverty, inability to purchase construction material on the free market coupled with a government attitude, maintained until the 1950s, that the desire for a private house or apartment was an expression of “petty bourgeois stri-vings”, meant that in the first post-war decade, the state was virtually the only builder of new housing. The available area per person was therefore constantly declining, and in the period between 1950 and 1954 it fell by about 22% from 11.6 to 8.7 square metres. The situation was most dire in the capital, where the housing crisis increased from year to year. In 1953, the space available to every citizen of Belgrade was 9.9 square metres, far below European standards which were between 15 and 23 square metres, but also from standards in Ljublja-na (14.4), Zagreb (12.4) and Sarajevo (10.7). A government estimate of 1955, testifies to the dramatic scale of the housing crisis: it states that “for a bearable, but not satisfactory standard”, 200,000 new apar-tments needed to be built throughout Yugoslavia and another 800,000 in rural areas. According to the housing level, Yugoslavia was therefo-re almost at the bottom of the European scale, just ahead of Greece.

In mid-1955 it became clear to the authorities that they could no longer pursue the same line in housing policy since the crisis was “impossible to resolve without individual ownership of apartments”, or “without the investment of a considerable share of the wages of workers and officials for the construction of apartments”. Therefore, the close of the year saw the introduction of a contribution of 10% for housing construction, docked from “economic organisations, institu-tions, government bodies, social and cooperative organisations and other persons who employ outside work force”. From the funds thus acquired, “social” apartments were built and allocated to employees for their use in perpetuity; as far as inheritance was concerned, there was no major difference between the rights of descendants of the tenant and the rights of the descendants of a private owner of an apartment. Moreover, the rent paid by the tenants was symbolic, in-sufficient even for the maintenance of the existing housing fund. Even though the official housing policy of the Party was a class one, since it insisted on resolving the housing problems of workers, the reality was in fact different. Sociological research has shown that the higher social echelons had been favoured for decades in the allocation of apartments, with executives, professionals and officials mostly being granted tenancy rights in apartments in public ownership. However, in spite of the efforts of the state to overcome the housing crisis, it still remained acute. According to 1984 estimates, Belgrade had a chronic deficiency of about 50,000 apartments.

1 A celebration marking the 10th anniversary of the establishment of workers’ councils in the Tractor and Machinery Manufacturing Plant in Zemun, July, 27th, 1960, Museum of Yugoslav History2 Workers’ Council meeting in the Zmaj Agricultural Machinery Manufacturing Plant in Zemun, May, 1960, Museum of Yugoslav History3 Voting to elect the members of the self-management organs in the Crvena Zastava factories in Kragujevac, 1963-1965, Museum of Yugoslav History4 June 27th – Yugoslav Worker-Managers’ Day, Ljubljana, June 1983. Illustrated colour poster, 47.7 x 40 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History5 Dragomir Ivičević, Worker-Managers’ Day. The 20th Anniversary of the First Congress of Workers’ Councils of Yugoslavia, Belgrade, June 1970. Illustrated colour poster, 94 x 67 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

1

4 5

32

E ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

44

NEUE SLOWENISCHE KUNSTIn the late 1970s and especially after the death of Josip Broz Tito in 1980, the criticism of the social and political situation in the country grew louder. Laibach, one of the most controversial and provocative rock bands in Yugoslavia was formed in the year of Tito’s death. The band’s multimedia performances characterized by simultaneous use of the symbols of different totalitarian regimes sparked public outcry, often followed by political bans. Together with the members of art groups Irwin and Gledališče sester Scipion Našice (Scipion Našice Sisters Theatre) they founded a retro-avant-garde art collective named Neue Slowenische Kunst (NSK) (New Slovenian Art) in 1984. Experimenting with totalitarian symbols and highlighting the similarities between ideologically opposite totalitarian movements, culminated in the so-called poster scandal. In 1987, the events marking Youth Day were left to youth organizations in Slovenia to put together and they were also in charge of the design of the relay baton. The promotional poster for the events was designed by the Ljubljana-based design studio “Novi kolektivizem” (New Collectivism) that happened to be a mem-ber of the Neue Slowenische Kunst collective, too. However, it was soon discovered that the design was not rooted in socialist realism. As it turned out, it was a modified version of a Nazi poster from the 1930s. Their making use of several angles simultaneously to explore the issues related to the past proved to be a powerful weapon in the criticism of the situation in the society at the time.

1 Buy Victory, New Collectivism, Ljubljana, Friday, June 28, 1991, silkscreen, 100x70 cm, NSK Archives2 Become a citizen… NSK Info Center, Ljubljana, 1994, silkscreen, 100x70 cm, NSK Archives3 Youth Day Anniversery, May 1988, offset, 29,5x21,5 cm, NSK Archives

4 Design for the Youth Day poster, 1987, photocopy, 35x24,5 cm, NSK Archives5,6 NSK portrets

1

5

4

6

32

45

STANDARD OF LIVINGFrom unification up to the 1960s, the stan-dard of living in Yugoslavia was exceptionally low. The numerous rural population was, due to smallness of the properties and the traditi-onal farming of small, scattered plots of land, more hungry then fed. The situation was no better in the towns, where low buildings, crumbling unhygienic apartments and scarce nourishment formed the daily life of most Yugoslavs. The already difficult economic circumstances had been additionally en-cumbered by World War II followed by hastily carried out industrialisation. The first post-war years were marked by great destitution. A rationing system by means of coupons was introduced, which, with minor alterations, remained until the end of 1951. The cessati-on of the immediate threat of war, economic aid from Western countries and the partial restoration of relations with the Eastern Bloc did not significantly change the quality of life, whose standard dropped steadily until 1953; internal reports of 1955 admitted that the “average standard is even lower than it was pre-war”. A poll of eighteen companies in July 1956 showed that living expenses of a four-member family were 40-60% higher than the nominal wage. As actual wages were lower than they had been pre-war, and prices significantly higher, people had to seek additional employment in order to survive. The 1960s brought a certain relief – standar-ds of living rose slightly, there was increased purchase of home appliances, cars, more people were building holiday homes and taking seaside vacations. Compared to other Eastern European Socialist countries, the Yu-goslavs were living in opulence. However, the fragile Yugoslav economy could not support this growth. In the 1970s, Yugoslavia began taking out excessive loans abroad which led to the major economic crisis of the 1980s.

1 Ivan Picelj, NEW TENDENCIES 2, Zagreb, 1963. Illustrated colour poster, 70.4 x 50.3 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb2 Meblo factory promotional catalogue, National Museum of Contemporary History of Slovenia3 Department Store in Osijek, April, 1963, Museum of Yugoslav History4 Department Store “Belgrade”, November, 1968, Museum of Yugoslav History5 We are Collecting Bones to Make Glue, Bone Fat Needed to Make Soap and Bonemeal Which is Used As a Fertilizer. A call for collecting raw materials, Belgrade, 1949. Illustrated colour poster, 70.5 x 50 cm, Belgrade City Museum

6 Inkoteks Department Store in Terazije, Belgrade, Museum of Yugoslav History7 Božidar Kocmut, XIV ZAGREB FAIR, Zagreb, 1930. Illustrated colour poster, 28 x 20 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb8 Young People, Do Not Let Corn Rot in Srem, While Hunger Ravages Other Regions! Belgrade, 1945. Illustrated colour poster, 83.5 x 59.5cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

1

3

5

7 8

6

4

2

E ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

46

BRANDS By the mid-1950s, Serbian and Yugoslav factories, particularly those of local significance, delivered products which could not satisfy even minimum consumer requirements. Cotton fabrics with bold designs and in bad colours, axes weighing three kilogrammes, coal com-prising a large percentage of dust, jams and preserves in tin boxes without names or labels, two-tone shirts with one sleeve shorter than the other, men’s suits made of flowered chintz, toothbrushes with black bristles, half-rotten wooden furniture, roof-tiles that leaked and “women’s socks that could barely be pulled on”, repre-sented only some of the miracles of the Yugoslav planned economy. The abandoning of the strictly centralised production model, gradual economic reform, partial adherence to economic logic and the laws of the market and efforts to balance the country’s balance of payments by increasing exports, led to a vast improvement in the quality of products. A rise in living standards and the emergence of a consumer mentality favoured the creation of Yugoslav brands. Some of the best known and most successful are: Fruktal, Raden-ska, Podravka, Iskra, Gorenje, Jugoeksport, Štark, Kraš.

1

3 4

2

5

6 71 Dušan Bekar, BAGAT SEWING MACHINE, Zagreb, around 1950. Illustrated colour poster, 99 x6 8 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb2 KNEIPP COFFEE MALT, Croatia, 1930 - 1940. Illustrated colour poster, 95 x 62 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb3 JUGOPLASTIKA, Ljubljana, around 1960. Design: Tehnička knjiga Zagreb. Illustrated colour poster, 98 x 68.5 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb4 Zvonimir Faist, Natural Nutritive Pasteurized Milk, around 1955, Zagreb City Museum

5 Zlatko Zrnec, Savo Simončić, poster DODO, Zagreb, 1958. Illustrated colour poster, 99 x 203.5 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb6 Poster KODAK, Zagreb, 1930 - 1940. Design: Atelier Tri. Illustrated colour poster, 95 x 63 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb7 Poster SISCIA FURS, Zagreb, 1930 – 1935. Design: Atelier Tri. Illustrated colour poster, 94.5 x 63 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb

47

1

3

7

11

1098

54 6

2

1 Zvonimir Faist, Rovinj Tobacco Factory, around 1960, Zagreb City Museum2 Advertisement: SLIVOVITZ Croatia, 1929-1940. Design: Atelier Tri. Illustrated colour poster, 49 x 34 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb3 Zvonimir Faist, Perion, 1953, Zagreb City Museum4 Zvonimir Faist, Biser Typewriters, around 1960, Zagreb City Museum5 Advertisement: YOUR BLOOD IS NOT FOOD Croatia, 1936. Design: Atelier Tri. Illustrated colour poster, 34 x 24cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb6 Otto Antonini, DEMAND THE FINEST DALMATIA WINES EVERYWHERE, Zagreb, 1930 -1940. Illustrated colour poster, 95 x 63 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb

7 MOBILOIL / IN THIS SIGN YOU WILL CONQUER..., Zagreb, 1937. Design: Atelier Tri. Illustrated colour poster, 95 x 63 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb8 Zvonimir Faist, Savica All-Purpose Engine, around 1950, Zagreb City Museum9 JUGOPLASTIKA, Ljubljana, around 1960. Design: Tehnička knjiga Zagreb. Illustrated colour poster, 98 x 68 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb10 IT DOES THE LAUNDRY BY ITSELF, Zagreb, 1950 – 1960. Illustrated colour poster, 99 x 68 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb11 Dušan Bekar, GHETALDUS SUNGLASSES, Zagreb, 1955 – 1960. Illustrated colour poster, 68.5 x 100 cm, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb

E ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

48

THE END OF YUGOSLAVIAWhen the international balance of power and fear between the two blocs was tipped with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the international fuse that safeguarded the unity of Yugoslavia blew. Some politicians fuelled nationalism of the masses like Slobodan Milošević, the authorita-rian political leader who manipulated nationalism after the collapse of socialism or Franjo Tuđman, the authoritarian nationalist, whose political party, Croatian Democratic Union, having won the first multi-party elections, denied Serbs the status of a constituent nation in the Croatian Constitution. Thus, both the survival of Yugoslavia and the preservation of peace were looking more and more doubtful by the day. Sporadic armed clashes in Croa-tia began on 31 March, 1991 in Plitvice. Such clashes would, however, become much more frequent after Slovenia and Croatia proclaimed their independence on 25 June 1991. Serbia, the Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Yugoslav People’s Army believed that if the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) was disintegrating, not only the exter-nal, internationally recognized borders of Yugoslavia, but also the internal “administrative” borders of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina had to be redefined.Between 130,000 and 140,000 people were killed in the wars of Yugoslav succession: 62 in Slovenia, around 20,000 in Croatia, between 100 and 110 thousand in Bosnia and Herze-govina and short of 10,000 in Kosovo and Metohija. In addition to those killed, there were around 3.7 million people who were displaced or became refugees against their will (16% of the total population of the SFRY). One in six residents of Croatia and one in two residents of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Kosovo became refugees and faced a grim fate, while many war veterans were wounded and remained disabled. Lastly, the extent of the large-scale destru-ction that occurred is hard to assess with any precision.

1 The poster for the XIV extraordinary congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, Belgrade, 1990, Illustrated colour poster, 67 x 96cm, Museum of Yugoslav History2 Yugoslav People’s Army tanks advancing towards the border between Slovenia and Italy, June 27th, 1991. Photographer: Tone Stojko, National Museum of Contemporary History of Slovenia3 Vehicles destroyed in the air raid of the Yugoslav Air Force , Brnik Airport, June 1991. Photographer: Nace Bizilj, National Museum of Contemporary History of Slovenia4 The last, XIV extraordinary congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia held 20- 22 January in 1990 in Belgrade, Museum of Yugoslav History

The irresponsible behaviour of the Serbian, Slovenian and Croatian political leader-ships and the ethnic group leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the nationalist craze that swept the masses and the unprincipled attitude of the European Union and the U.S. contributed to the outbreak of the bloodiest wars in Europe since World War II. In a series of wars for Yugoslav succession: 1. the war in Slovenia (25 VI-7 VII 1991); 2. the war in Croatia (1991-1995); 3. the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (IV 1992- XI 1995); 4. the NATO attack on Serbia (24 III-9 VI 1999), the Yugoslav People’s Army tarnished the reputation of the World War II anti-fascist forces. Moreover, in addition to the Yugoslav People’s Army, different paramilitary forces, often claiming Ustaša or Chetnik traditions and frequently led by criminals, committed war crimes whose gruesomeness, but fortunately not the number of casualties, brought the horrors of World War II inter-et-hnic massacres to mind. The crimes include: the extensive destruction of Vukovar, and the shelling of Dubrovnik, ethnic persecution and other war crimes against Croats and against Serbs in Croatia, the siege of Sarajevo, the genocide against Bosniaks in Srebre-nica, ethnic persecution and other major war crimes against civilians and the prisoners of war, members of all three ethnic groups: Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina and against Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija.

1

4

32

49

The first multi-party elections were held in 1990, in the republics, but not at the federal level. In April, the right-wing coalition, DEMOS, won in Slovenia, with 54% of votes, while the former communist leader, Milan Kučan was the winner of presidential elections. In May, 1990, the right-wing party, Croatian Democratic Union triumphed in Croatia, winning 42% of votes and 58% of parliamentary seats. Its leader, Franjo Tuđman, the former Yugoslav People’s Army general became the president of Croatia. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, where election results mirrored census data almost perfectly, nationalist parties: Party of Democra-tic Action, Serbian Democratic Party and Croatian Democratic Union won in November/December. In Macedonia too, in November, a nationalist party, VMRO-DPMNE won, getting 38% of votes, but the former high-ranking communist official, Kiro Gligorov won presidential elections. In the December elections in Montenegro, the League of Communists of Montenegro was the winner, with 61% of votes (Momir Bulatović won 76% of votes in the second round of presidential elections), while in Serbia the winners were communists, whose party that changed its name to Socialist Party of Serbia got 46% of votes. Its leader, Slobodan Milošević got 56% of votes in the first round.

1 Zvonimir Pliskovac, propaganda poster: Fascism in Serbia is Not Dead! Help Croatia! Croatian History Museum2 Ivica Rakić, Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) campaign poster before the 1990 elections: Peace and Equality between People, the Citizens of Serbia Decide Independently about Their Present. Slobodan Milošević, candidate for president, Ljubiša Vuković, MP candidate. Illustrated colour poster, 68.3 x 98 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History3 Mirko Beoković, Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO) election campaign poster, Belgrade, 1990. Illustrated colour poster, 66.8 x 97.3 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

4 Serbian National Defence (SNO) election campaign poster: Everything for Serbs, Belgrade, 1990, Museum of Yugoslav History5 Propaganda poster Yugoslav People’s Army Trademarks: Aggression, Crime, Killing, Croatian History Museum 6 Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ): SURE/HDZ, Zagreb, 1990, Croatian History Museum7 Z. Bebek, Party of Democratic Action (SDA) election campaign poster: Alija Izetbegović, Muslim Party, Museum of Yugoslav History8 Poster KRVATSKA (Croatia), design: Studio International; Boris Ljubičić, Zagreb, 1991, Museum of Arts and Crafts Zagreb

9 Poster OSIJEK / WILL / NEVER / BE / OCEK, design: Portfolio, Croatian History Museum10 MLADINA front page, June 24th,1988, National Museum of Contemporary History of Slovenia

1

5

8 9 10

76

32 4

50

CATALOGUEof selected exhibits

C

51

Electronic Telephone Apparatus ETA 80, Iskra, Kranj, Slovenia, 1979Design Davorin Savnik 23x16x7,5 cmMuseum of Yugoslav History

New Belgrade construction master plan, 1948Wood, 108x88x5 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Belbi Coffee Substitute box, “Centroproizvod“, Belgrade, Serbia, around 1980Cardboard, plastic, height 12 cm, private property

Calcorex 403 mechanical calculator, Tvornica računalnih strojeva – TRS (TRS Computing Machines Factory), Zagreb, Croatia, 1969Design: Davor Grunwald29x16x13,5cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Milk bottle, Poljoprivredni kombinat Beograd – PKB (PKB Agro-Industrial Conglomerate Belgrade), Belgrade, Serbia, around 1960Glass, height 27 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Helf candy box, “Pliva“, Zagreb, Croatia, second half of the 20th centuryPainted tin, radius 9,5 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

CATALOGUE OF SELECTED EXHIBITSC

52

Valentin Tine Kos, Harvester, 1945Tarnished bronze, stone postament, 55x24x14 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History.

Nandor Glid, Highway Builders, 1949Tarnished bronze, wooden postamnet, 60x47,5x30 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Model mobile shop/van of the Narodni Magazin trading company, Zagreb, Croatia, 1949 Painted metal, 56x35x29 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Vegeta Condiment jar, “Podravka“ prehrambena industrija Koprivnica (Koprivnica Food Industry), Croatia, around 1970Glass, plastic, height 10 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Antun Augustinčić, Miner, 1936Tarnished bronze, 48x39x19 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Five-pointed star removed from the tower of the Belgrade City Assembly building (Town Hall) on 21 February, 1997 when it was replaced by the double-headed eagleMetal, 86x77x7cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Consumer ration card, Yugoslavia, 1948-1950Paper, 15,3 x 5,7 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History.Adults could get up to 160 coupons a year for clothes and shoes; 40 coupons were needed for a pair of shoes and 48 for a man’s suit.

Lamp shaped like the Zenica Iron Works tower with a gantry crane, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1948Metal, 53x30x19,5 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from the engine of the train that carried the body of King Aleksandar from Slavonski Brod to Belgrade and from Belgrade to Oplenac, Serbia, 1934Railroad Museum, Belgrade, Historical Collection

53

Boundary stone from the border between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Austria in the period between the World WarsStone, height 30 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Orlando’s Column, Dubrovnik, CroatiaBrass, gold plate, 33x14x8,5 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Hand drawn playing cards used by the prisoners in the Sremska Mitrovica penitentiary, dating from the period between the World WarsDrawing/cardboard, 6,6x4,5 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Sinan - Pasha Mosque, Prizren, Kosovo, SerbiaMetal, wood, height 62 cm; wooden plate 40x40x20 cm. Museum of Yugoslav History

Worker team member’s shirt, Belgrade ‘79 Youth Voluntary Labour Campaign, Belgrade, SerbiaLinen, private property

Mascot of the Kompas tourist agency, Slovenia, second half of the 20th centuryWood, straw, felt, height 32 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Visoki Dečani Monastery, Dečani, Kosovo, Serbia, Carved wood, 87x58x70cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Convict’s foot ankle chain shackles from the Sremska Mitrovica penitentiary, dating from the period between the World WarsMetal, radius 12,3 cm; lenght of chain 23,5 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Ball used during the match between Hajduk and Manchester United signed by the players expressing wishes for a speedy recovery of Josip Broz TitoThe dedication reads:“TO PRESIDENT TITO, BEST WISHES FOR A SPEEDY RECOVERY FROM ALL AT MANCHESTER UTD FOOTBALL CLUB. SPLIT 1980.”Leather, radius 21 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

CATALOGUE OF SELECTED EXHIBITSC

54

Cash register and typewriter models Slavko Rodić Company, Bugojno, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1961Metal, 42x29x19 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History.

Fruit bowl with trayEthiopia, second half of the 20th centurySilver, gold, bowl 83x24x23,8 cm; tray 97x47,5x4,5 cmGift from Haile Selassie I, Emperor of Ethiopia, Museum of Yugoslav History

Zagi, official mascot of the XIV Summer Universiade held in Zagreb in 1987Designed by Nedeljko DragićPlush, felt, height 32 cm, private property

DB-801 Calculator, Digitron Factory, Buje, 1973, 14x7,5x4 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Vučko, the official mascot of the XIV Winter Olympic Games held in Sarajevo in 1984. Newspaper readers all over Yugoslavia were asked to choose the mascot of the 1984 Winter Olympic Games. The little wolf, Vučko, designed by the Slovenian draughtsman and designer, Jože Trobec was chosen among the six finalists.Metal, wood, height 10 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Plaque of the VIII Mediterranean Games held in Split in 1979. Visual identity: visual communications team of Centar za industrijsko oblikovanje (Centre for Industrial Design) (Boris Ljubičić, Stipe Brčić and Rajna Buzić) Yugoslavia participated in 26 sports and was at the top of the medal count, winning a total of 127 medals. Mezal, wood, 25x25x4 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Globe with Belgrade and Moscow marked on it, until 1948Metal, height 47 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

XVII Olympic Games medal , Rome, 1960Designed and made by Cesare MerzagoraYugoslav football team won the gold medalMetal, radius 10 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

United Nations medal with the signature of the Secretary-General Kurt WaldheimMetal,fibreglass,14x14x3,5 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

55

Coffee box, “Franck“ prehrambena industrija Zagreb (Zagreb Food Industry)Painted tin, height 27,5 cm; radius 15,5 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Koestlin biscuit box, Tvornica keksa i dvopeka Dragutina Wolfa sinovi (Dragutin Wolf’s Sons’ Biscuit and Melba Toast Factory), Bjelovar, Croatia, around 1935Painted tin, 13x23x22 cm, Museum of childhood in Belgrade

Biscuit box, Tvornica keksa “V. Bizjak i drug”, (V. Bizjak and Friend Biscuit Factory), Zagreb, Croatia, around 1935Painted cardbord, 6x16x11,5 cm, Museum of childhood in Belgrade

Confectionery box, “Josip Kraš“ tvornica čokolade, bonbona i keksa – Zagreb (Chocolate, Candy and Biscuit Factory - Zagreb), Zagreb, Croatia, 1960. Made by Saturnus, winner of the Yugoslav Packaging Oscar award, 1960Painted tin, 11x24,5x24,5 cm, private property

Honey candy box, Tvornica bombona “Zora“ (Zora Candy Factory), Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina around 1930.Painted tin, height 26,5 cm; radius 13, 5 cm, Museum of childhood in Belgrade

United States Department of Commerce medal with an inscription by the Secretary of Commerce, Maurice H. Stans, awarded to Tito during his 1971 visit to the U.S.Metal, radius 8 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Dragée box, Kaiser i Štark prva osiječka tvornica kandita i čokolade (Kaiser and Štark First Osijek Confectionery and Chocolate Factory), Osijek, Croatia, around 1935Cardboard, 5,5x14x18 cm, Museum of childhood in Belgrade

Confectionery box, “Nada Štark“ fabrika čokolade, bonbona i deserta (Chocolate, Candy and Dessert Factory) - Zemun, Belgrade, Serbia, around 1955.Painted tin, 22x12x12 cm,private property

Fragments of the Moon’s surface and the Yugoslav flag which was taken to the Moon and returned to Earth by the crew of Apollo 17Lunar basalt, sample no. 70017. Age: 3.8 billion yearsWeight: 1.142 gramsPresented by US President Richard Nixon, 1973, Museum of Yugoslav History

CATALOGUE OF SELECTED EXHIBITSC

56

Class & type: training ship / residential yacht Galeb (Seagull). Commissioned by Regina Azienda Monopoli Banane. Builder: Ansaldo, Genoa, Italy. Maiden voyage: 1938. Country: SFRY. Nickname: Peace ShipWood, 43x117x11cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Olympic torch used at the opening of the XIV Winter Olympic Games held in Sarajevo in 1984Made by Mizuno Corporation, Japan, second half of the 20th centuryMetal, height 66 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Medallion for the First Belgrade Conference of Non-Aligned Countries, Yugoslavia, 1961 by Vladeta Petrić. Forged gold 24 carat, weight 131 grams, radius 6,5cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Commemorative plaque with portraits of the leaders who took part in the First Conference in BelgradeYugoslavia, 1961, 59,5x75x3 cm. Gift from the Travnik (Bosnia-Hercegovina) retirement home, October 1961, Museum of Yugoslav History

Gold medal won by the Yugoslav basketball national team at the VI FIBA World Championship held in Ljubljana, Yugoslavia in 1970Silver .925, gold plate, radius 10 cm, Museum of Yugoslav History

Gold commander’s sabreUSSR, Length of blade 69 cm, length of hilt 12 cm, length of scabbard 70.5 cmPresented by Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin, Moscow, September 1944, Museum of Yugoslav History

57

58

59

View of the exhibition Yugoslavia: from the Beginning to the End, photo: Ivan Benussi

The exhibition concept resulted from the position of the team of authors that the exhibition should be presented in the context of the phenomenon known as Yugoslavia, viewed as an experiment designed in a given space and time. Departing from the classical approach to displaying exhibition material, a structure was set up that brought in display boards, as the defining elements of a new deconstructive space. The newly created space eliminates the ort-hogonal matrix of the museum and forms a new angle from which to view the topic presented. The choice of material for the exhibition supports the basic idea of the display strategy. Thin wood laths, car-dboard and brown paper are used to show the history of an epheme-ral and controversial experiment that now exists on paper only, but has still not become sufficiently known or sufficiently clear, either to those who created it or those who lived it. The minimalist identity and the triangle-shaped elements that fit together are reminiscent of the pieces of a puzzle, a mosaic, namely, the different facets of this complex, reluctantly approached topic.

60

CCONCLUSION OR WHO STILL REmEmBERS YUGOSLAvIA, ANd HOW?

61

Being a curator at a museum whose name features the name of a country that no longer exists and that was torn apart in the bloodiest war to take place in Europe during the second half of the twentieth century means always having to bear the blame for one thing and always having to justify another. At best, one is greeted by hearty laughter at the other end of the line when one makes a phone call to acquire something for the museum or just to order a pizza. This is transformed into amazement at the fact that our institution still exists.The warped reality in which we live was once summarised by my colleague Ana Sladojević. She said that she sees Tito at least twice a day, because his memorial by Antun Augu-stinčić, erected in 1948, is to be seen in the park belonging to the complex of buildings that is the Museum of Yugoslav History, which she had to walk through on her way to the office. It is our job to engage with the country of Yugoslavia, in which we live, and that includes Tito, countless portraits of whom are in the museum’s collection. This is our reality. But how do those generations whose memories reach back to a socialist Yugosla-via feel about the current reality – those who consider that era to have been “the good old days” in which everything was better than it is now? And what is the opinion of those for whom real socialism was not part of their personal experience, but instead represents the myth of a Golden Era of Emancipation? One cannot avoid making reference to the multifaceted emancipatory practice of the former Yugoslavia, to its anti-fascism and its indisputable successes in the modernisation and industrialisation of the country. This is all the more pertinent since we have had to address a reversion of our societies to old traditions, with their increasingly clerical na-ture and return to a deeply patriarchal model in our young federate states since the wars of the 1990s. Are we not searching for a path to a more egalitarian society under the aegis of European values and standards that are of a universal nature? One must not forget to draw attention to the bad times that were part of “the good old days”, too: to destroy the typical projections and stereotypes in order to prevent the creation of the myth of an ideal society, from which the former Yugoslavia was as far removed as any other country is. In order to be able to deal with the problems that follow conflicts, the shared past of the parties to the conflict must be critically examined. It is equally important that one develops an awareness of the positive as well as the negative inheritance and its influence on the current identities of the new states

and communities in southeastern Europe because history grows out of interpretation and constant re-interpretation.Both in personal and in the collective me-mory we make a conscious (or unconscious) selection as to what we want to remember and what we want to forget. We often make these decisions purely to defend our right to our own past. Our memories are contingent upon context and surroundings. Memories change to be consistent with our respective current identities. Although all memories are the same, to quote Bogdan Bogdanović, “memory” and “history” are not synonymous. Memories are subjective, they are constructs of the past from the current perspective, un-less they were recorded immediately after the event; and even then different generations remember differently. In historiography it is fatal to use one’s own experience as a star-ting point because this makes both multiple perspectives and polyphony impossible.The exhibition elicited different reactions and emotions and the visitors contacted us day in, day out, wishing to tell us their memories and views on the history of Yugoslavia, the country that lives on in them. We understood that the number of histories of Yugoslavia equaled the number of people who lived in the country and that the personal memories of these millions of witnesses would never and could never be identical, either to one another, or to what would be shown in the museum (whatever is displayed, there will always be something missing, there will be too much of something else, or that which is exhibited will not correspond to someone’s personal memories, because history and memories are not synonymous). Should the audience be given what it wants to see and what if a discrepancy occurs between the “official” line on the past, presented by the museum, (every exhibition is an expression of an attitude that the author or a group of authors communica-te to the visitors) and the experience of what was lived? Even worse, what if there is no official discourse, if the exhibition on Yugosla-via is just the tip of the iceberg which floats because it has no foundations, no basis and there is no state or social consensus either? The dissonance of memories is evident, which is why polyvocality is the only right direction, along with establishing a dialogue and presenting different interpretations of the past. It is clear that personal memories, only when incorporated into a defined historical framework, based on relevant scientific rese-arch, can jointly paint a picture of Yugoslavia.

Ana Panić

C CONCLUSION OR WHO STILL REMEMBERS YUGOSLAVIA, AND HOW?

For a complete evaluation of the exhibition, reviews of public discussions, accompanying events and a timeline of the history of Yugoslavia, please scan the QR code with your mobile phone or tablet or visit the website of the Museum of Yugoslav History http://www.mij.rs/en/meet-myh/history-of-yugoslavia.html

62

BAUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES

63

Jovo Bakić (1970) is a sociologist born in Belgrade, where he has lived, with short intermissions, since 1985. He lived in Niš, Prizren, Sarajevo and Podgorica too. He received additional professional training at the universities of Oxford and Helsinki and at the Univer-sity of Massachusetts in Amherst. He authored two comprehensive monographs: Yugoslavia – Destruction and Its Interpretations, 2011 and Ideologies of Yugoslavism – between Serbian and Croatian Nati-onalism 1918-1941, 2004. Moreover, a number of his shorter studies were published in scientific journals and collections of papers. He is interested in the historical sociology of politics and sociology of knowledge and especially the theories of nation and nationalism, different ideologies, the former Yugoslavia and its successor states. He has worked at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Department of Sociology since 1998.

Srđan Cvetković (1972) is a research fellow at the Institute for Contemporary History in Belgrade, where he has worked since 2006. He graduated, obtained his M.A. degree and Ph.D. from the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. His fields of interest include communism, state repression, dissidents, human rights and the Cold War. He is the author of detailed and very well-received mono-graphs: Between the Hammer and the Sickle – Repression in Serbia 1944−1953. 2006, Between the Hammer and the Sickle 2 – Repressi-on in Serbia 1953-1985. 2011, Portraits of Dissidents, 2007 and Birth of Heretics, 2011. He edited White Book – 1984 and was one of the editors of The History of the Democratic Party 1989-2009 – Docu-ments. Srdjan Cvetković is an expert contributing to the Serbian Biographical Dictionary, published by Matica srpska. As a contribu-ting expert, he has also collaborated on the editing of the collected works of Dr Dragoljub Jovanović. Since 2009, he has exercised the duties of Secretary of the State Commission for Secret Graves of the People Killed after September 12th, 1944, set up by government of the Republic of Serbia.

Ivana Dobrivojević (1975) is a research fellow at the Institute for Contemporary History in Belgrade. She graduated from the Yugoslav History Department, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade where she obtained her M.A. degree. Her thesis topic was State Repression during the Dictatorship of King Aleksandar 1929 – 1935. She then received her Ph.D. from the same department. The dis-sertation was entitled Villages and Towns. The Transformation of the Agrarian Society in Serbia 1945 – 1955. She is a research fellow at the Institute for Contemporary History. Her research focuses on state repression, the process of urbanization and modernization, migrations from villages to towns, as well as the everyday life of common people in the socialist Yugoslavia. She was a visiting fellow at the Institute for East and Southeast European Studies in Regens-burg and the then Institute for the History of Eastern and Southeast Europe (now Centre for Southeast European Studies) in Graz. She is the author of two monographs and 37 articles published in local and international journals.

Hrvoje Klasić (1972) graduated from the Department of History, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Za-greb. At the same University he obtained his M.A. degree with thesis entitled Socio - Political changes in Sisak, 1970-1972. and Ph.D. with dissertation entitled 1968 in Yugoslavia. Socio-economic changes in international context. Since 1995 he has been employed as a profe-

ssor of history at Sisak High School and since 2003 he is assistant professor at Department of History, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities in Zagreb. He holds number of the optional courses related to the history of the 20th century, and holds seminars in the subject European and world history since 1945. He won the Annual Award of the Association of University Teachers and other Scho-lars in Zagreb in 2006. That same year he won the Annual Award of Sisak for the book Croatian Spring in Sisak. He is He is the author of monography Yugoslavia and World in 1968, 2012 and co-author of the documentary series Croatian Spring produced by Croatian Television.

Vladimir Petrović (1979) graduated and obtained his M.A. degree from the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. He also obtai-ned his M.A. degree and Ph.D. in Contemporary History from Central European University in Budapest. He is a research fellow at the Institute for Contemporary History in Belgrade, lectures at the Legal Department of Central European University and at postdoctoral studies of NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies. He is the author of monographs Yugoslavia Steps on the Middle East, 2007 and Tito’s Perosnal Diplomacy, 2010. He edited multivolu-me edition of documents Yugoslav crisis and was one of the editors of the volume Slobodan Milosevic: Road to Power. He is the author of around fifty articles and book chapters in the fields of history of foreign politics of socialist Yugoslavia and history of human rights breaches in Serbia and Yugoslavia.

Ana Panić (1978) is a curator and an art historian. She has worked as the curator of the fine art collection at the Museum of Yugoslav History in Belgrade since 2005. In May 2008, she became a member of the board of the Museum of Yugoslav History. She is the author or a co-author of numerous exhibitions focusing on the history and popular culture of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Yugoslavia from the Beginning to the End (2012), The Non-Aligned Movement From Belgrade to Belgrade (2011), Women’s Corner (2010), Deadly Treasures (2009), Tito’s New Years (2008), permanent exhibition of relay batons at the House of Flowers (2007), Congra-tulaTi(T)Ons (2006) the exhibitions showcasing the collections of the Museum of Yugoslav History: The World of Silver (2008), Youth, the Queen of Life (2005), May 9th 1945 – 2005 (2005), as well as the exhibitions custom designed with special needs people in mind. Ana Panić is the winner of the Mihailo Valtrović prize, awarded by the Museum Association of Serbia for the category INDIVIDUAL for an exceptional contribution to the improvement and development of museum work and the development of culture in Serbia in 2008. She won this prize for the project The World of Silver (the exhibition and the accompanying publication). In 2012, she was awarded this prize for the exhibition Yugoslavia from the Beginning to the End, which was chosen best of the year. In 2010, she completed on-the-job trai-ning at a the Malmö Museum (Sweden), aimed at the development of educational programmes and improving the experience of working with museum audiences.

B AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES

IMPRESSIONS, THOUGHTS, REACTIONS – AN EVALUATION OF THE EXHIBITION YUGOSLAVIA: FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE ENDTatomir Toroman, ethnologist and anthropologist, curator at MYH

E

64

In view of the way in which the exhibition was announced, namely: “This exhibition provides the basis for a future permanent exhibition at the Museum of Yugoslav History that will be put together after receiving feedback from experts, academia and the wider public. We would love to hear your opinion!”, we were faced with the question of how these impressions, thoughts and reactions could be collected and analysed. We had the usual means at our disposal, primarily discussions of the authors of the exhibition with their colleagues and exhibition-goers and the guest book, but this seemed to us insuffi-cient for such a project. That is why we decided to take some steps that are not exactly customary in a museum - conduct questionnaire surveys, focus group debates and public discussions.

Questionnaire surveys We designed a combined questionnaire with a Likert scale and open-ended questions, with the entire concept and thematic entities of the exhibition in mind. The visitors filled in the questionnaire on a voluntary basis; throughout the exhibition, we collected 366 questio-nnaires, 261 of which were analysed on this occasion. Partially filled in questionnaires, those that did contain the basic demographic data requested, the ones where the respondents declared themselves as

undecided, the questionnaires filled in by foreigners and finally those where too few people (less than 3-5) of certain nationality, ethnic or religious affiliation responded were not analysed. The majority of respondents were women (63%) aged 18-29 (65%), as to their educa-tional level, 87% of them were university students or graduates. First we analysed the answers according to the nationality, ethnic or religious affiliation of the respondents, taking care that at least two of these categories overlap. This does not imply by any means that we maintain that these identities are essential or more important than others, just that they played an important role in Yugoslavia. That is why the work on the exhibition was organized in such a way so as to attempt to reconcile national viewpoints. Thus, we included the answers provided by Serbs (151), Croats (65), Yugoslavs (25), Slovenians (14) and Bosniaks and Muslims (6) in our analysis. The smaller the number of respondents, the less reliable the answers, but these answers can, in any case, serve as an indicator. The general impression of the exhibition is positive and the average rating, on a scale from 1 to 5, when everyone’s opinions are taken into account is 4 - very good (4,06). The variations in the general rating are very small. Slovenians gave the best rating (4,18) followed by Croats (4,14) Serbs (4,07) Yugoslavs (4,02) and Bosniaks and Muslims (3,87).

Table (1) showing the obtained results:

Analysing each question, it is interesting to note that the majority of the respondents think that the exhibition is objective, most of all, Slovenians, who rated this aspect of the exhibition highest in the entire questionnaire (4.86). The presentation of peoples and ethnic minorities, sports and entertainment and even culture and art was rated lowest and it could be said that these are the weak points of the exhibition according to the respondents. The presentation of peoples and ethnic minorities received the lowest rating in the questionnaire by far from Yugoslavs (3.28), followed by Bosniaks and Muslims (3.33) and Slovenians (3.5), while Serbs and Croats have a

somewhat better opinion on this issue. Croats and Slovenians rated the presentation of culture and art better than Serbs, Yugoslavs and Bosniaks and Muslims did. The opinions on sports and entertain-ment are almost the same.On the whole, the objectivity of the exhibition was the feature that left the best impression, with the order of theme-oriented sections, the range of historical events, the presentation of the social life and the economy, new information acquired, the presentation of culture and arts and ultimately the presentation of peoples and ethnic mino-rities ranked further down the scale.

3

4

5

Have you learned something new?

Are theme-orient-ed sections well-con-ceived?

Are all important historical events covered?

Are all the peoples and ethnic minorities presented equally?

Are social life and the economy presented in an appropri-ate way?

Are culture and art presented in an appropri-ate way?

Are sports and entertainment presented in an appropri-ate way?

Do you think that the exhibition is objective?

SERBS CROATS YUGOSLAVS SLOVENIANS BOSNIAKS AND MUSLIMS

65

We then compared the answers by age groups, with the respondents aged 18-29 (a total of 169 people) falling into one group and all those over 29, i.e. those that remember Yugoslavia better, into the other (a total of 92 people). Unlike the members of the latter group, the pe-ople belonging to the former, either do not remember Yugoslavia or have some vague early childhood memories (the oldest among them could be born in 1984 and were 6 in 1991, when the disintegration of Yugoslavia began). There is a slight difference in general impressions. On a scale from 1 to 5, the respondents aged 18-29 gave the rating of 4.16 out of 5, while all members of older generations gave a somewhat lower rating of 3.95 out of 5. The questions where the answers of older people differ most are first and foremost the presentation of culture and art, followed by the question of whether they learned something new and the presentation of sports and entertainment, while they agree com-pletely or almost completely with the respondents aged 18-29 on the

questions of the order of theme-oriented sections, the presentation of the society and the economy and the rating of objectivity of the exhibi-tion. The decreasing order of differences is as follows: 1. Are culture and art presented in an appropriate way? 2. Have you learned somet-hing new at the exhibition? 3. Are sports and entertainment presented in an appropriate way? 4. Are all the peoples and ethnic minorities presented equally? 5. Are all important historical events covered? 6. Are social life and the economy presented in an appropriate way? 7. Do you think that the exhibition is objective, naturally, to the extent that it is possible? 8. Do you think that the theme-oriented sections are well-conceived? In other words, the worst rating of all (3.56 out of 5) was given by the respondents aged 29 or over to the presentation of culture and art, followed by the way sports and entertainment and peoples and ethnic minorities are presented. These are undoubtedly the “weak points” from this point of view. The people in the age group 18-29 gave the best rating to the objectivity of the exhibition.

Table (2) showing the obtained results:

The respondents were given an opportunity to answer the questions in their own words and write comments. Like the general impre-ssion, statistically speaking, the comments too reflect the mostly positive opinion of the exhibition-goers who answered the questi-onnaire. The criticism was mostly targeted at the presence of an excessive amount of text and the dominant Serbian and Croatian perspective.

Focus groupsThroughout the exhibition, in February and March, we organized five debates with members of focus groups: postgraduate students attending the Seminar for Museum and Heritage Studies at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, tourist guides, journa-lists, teachers and staff of the Museum Collections and Programme Activities Department of the Museum of Yugoslav History. During the first debate with postgraduate students, it was quickly pointed out that there was too much textual information, with the form of text and the ratio between the quantity of text and exhibits as maybe the biggest problem. Some were of opinion that the exhibits

were pushed into the background by textual information. The fact that the exhibition was very extensive and hard to take in was also highlighted. Some participants in the debate came to see it several times, before they could absorb it all. Moreover, it was emphasi-zed that there was not sufficient information regarding some basic facts, as well as that the existing information of that kind was not presented clearly, especially in the opening sections, which is why the exhibition required some prior knowledge. Because of all this, guided tours of the exhibition led by experts were rated very highly and regarded as not only almost indispensable, but also interesting. Besides, some participants in the debate pointed out that culture and art were present to a lesser degree than they had expected and that, in their view, the exhibition was marked by a certain, noticeable tendency towards escaping from memories and emotions. Everyone agreed that the venture itself was difficult and some asked them-selves whether a comprehensive exhibition on Yugoslavia could be made in the first place. At the end, when asked which colour they would choose to describe the exhibition, everyone agreed on ochre, being the colour of the paper and cardboard used. Also, when asked which three words they would use to describe it, everyone shouted

3

4

5

Have you learned something new?

Theme-oriented Sections

Historical events

Peoples and Ethnic Groups

Society and Economy

Culture and Art

Sports and Entertainment

Is the exhibition objective?

18-26 (169) 29 AND OVER (92)

66

“text, text, text”. As to the emotions elicited by the exhibition, the majority agreed that the exhibition was neutral in that respect. The second focus group featured tourist guides who come to the Museum of Yugoslav History often or regularly with foreign touri-sts. The guides found that the exhibition was interesting but overly detailed. They pointed out that they often brought people who had no prior knowledge about this part of the world and that some basic information was missing, information that is not unlike the things learned at the beginning of primary school. A further point they made was that the majority of people they were showing around did not come there to read the accompanying text and that they should be offered something short, clear and associative. According to them, the exhibition lacked a couple of things that leave a strong impression, which tourists could carry with them. They explained that groups of tourists spent a relatively short time in the entire museum complex and that we should keep in mind, when working on exhibitions, that our museum is one of the sights that are a must for all foreign tourists. The third focus group, with which a meeting was organized, con-sisted of journalists that we knew saw the exhibition and reported about it. At the very beginning of the debate, it was also pointed out that there was a problem of the lack of clear factual data and maps, as well as a clearer presentation of when, where and how Yugoslavia was created. Subsequently, it was noted that it appeared that the authors of the exhibition had made a consensual attempt to avoid all controversial issues, which was judged as bad. A number of political developments that either were not shown at all or were presented in an inadequate manner were mentioned in the course of the debate. The participants stressed that since it may well be that no consensus can be achieved on such things, different views should have been offered, signed personally by different authors. It was also stated that a global and regional context was missing, as well as that all other peoples and ethnic groups, apart from Serbs and Croats and partly Slovenians were only marginally represented. An argument developed over the presentation of culture and art too and that segment was evaluated as problematic. In this debate too, guided tours of the exhibition led by experts were rated excellent and the participants remarked that it was a pity that the exhibition was not accompanied from day one by a catalogue containing essays by its authors.The debate with teachers yielded somewhat more modest results than we had expected, because the number of participants was very small, namely, three people cannot be considered to be a proper focus group. Generally speaking, teachers liked the fact that the exhibition was divided into theme-oriented sections and gave it an overall positive rating. They pointed to the overly detailed nature of the exhibition, the amount of time needed to see it and maintained that it was hard to see everything during a single visit. During this debate too, it was emphasized that guided tours were necessary and helpful, good and interesting. The teachers found that the amount material featured in the exhibition was not distributed equally within its sections and that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was under-repre-sented. They had their doubts about whether primary school pupils could understand the exhibition, except maybe eight graders and of course secondary school students. However, they added that even these students would need to be additionally motivated by proposing them to see and analyse a particular segment, since it would be hard for them to take in the exhibition as a whole.At the end, a debate featuring museum staff and the members of its Department of Museum Collections and Programme Activities was organized. The fact that the audience showed great interest for the

event was first highlighted. Namely, twice as many visitors came to see the exhibition first and then went on to discover other parts of the Museum of Yugoslav History complex (the House of Flowers and the Old Museum) than is otherwise the case. The very fact that the exhibition had been staged in the first place, that such a complex topic was dealt with and many issues opened to debate was judged a success. When communicating with the visitors, staff members heard that the exhibition was big and complex, requiring a lot of time and that the guided tours led by experts “hit the target”, with the accompanying programmes also getting a positive rating. Later on in the debate, it was stressed that the creation of Yugoslavia should have been presented more clearly at the beginning of the exhibition by using maps. The question of whether the people with no prior knowledge and foreign visitors could understand everything was asked and the issue of excessive text and some specific wording highlighted. After that, the process of exhibition development was defined as problematic and a number of questions about the metho-dology raised, especially an insufficiently multidisciplinary approach in the work of the teams of authors and the issue of mediation and presentation of data and facts. The lack of different voices or emo-tions was emphasized, along with the belief that the work should be continued, taking into account constructive criticism expressed throughout the exhibition.

public discussionsPublic discussions were organized with the aim of opening a space for experts to discuss, not only the exhibition itself, but also a wider range of topics that more or less directly or indirectly touch on the history of Yugoslavia and its representation.

The first public discussion at the Museum of Yugoslav History: Yugoslav Studies - How to Do Research and Learn about Yugoslavia (Friday, February 8th, 2013, 2 pm)

Tatomir ToromanEthnologist and anthropologist, curator at MYH, moderator of the public discussion Yugoslav Studies - How to Do Research and Le-arn about Yugoslavia

The public discussion: Yugoslav Studies - How to Do Research and Learn about Yugoslavia was the first in a series of several public discussions organized as part of the programme accompanying the exhibition Yugoslavia: from the Beginning to the End. The idea was that this first discussion should focus mostly on the different approaches to current topics and problems and interests of the re-searches specializing in Yugoslav heritage. Discussion participants: Dr Ivan Kovačević (ethnologist and anthropologist, full professor at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade), Dr Aleksandar Životić (historian, senior lecturer at the Faculty of Philosophy, Uni-versity of Belgrade) and Dr Hrvoje Klasić (historian, professor at the Department of History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, one of the co-authors of the exhibition).Ivan Kovačević was the first to speak; his starting point was that although Yugoslavia was a country that had its spatial and temporal boundaries, not everything that happened in that space and time should be treated as Yugoslav cultural heritage. Moreover, elements of Yugoslav cultural heritage can be found both before and after the existence of Yugoslavia as a state. Take for example, the idea of Yugoslavism that was producing ideas and artefacts before the

67

establishment of the state itself and the contemporary phenomenon of Yugonostalgia. Kovačević emphasized that, when speaking about Yugoslavia as a state, its differentia specifica must be found, i.e. that which constituted the Yugoslav identity in the kingdom and later in the socialist Yugoslavia. He then went on to state that Yugoslav cul-tural heritage in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was built mostly around the monarchy and the dynasty. After the Second World War, that he-ritage grew with the communist ideology and the partisan guerrilla war, including personality cult of Josip Broz. Kovačević added that the other unique feature were the differences from other socialist countries, primarily, self-management, the non-alignment move-ment and all-out national defence. Everything that was built within that framework can be considered to be the elements of Yugoslav cultural heritage. Later, Kovačević mentioned another two impor-tant things, the Yugoslav passport, which made a huge difference, compared to other socialist countries and, in turn, produced other differences and the existence of the market economy in the country. As Kovačević was wrapping up, he said that although it might seem that this thesis led to the shrinking of the Yugoslav cultural heritage, the fact was that that resulted from drawing a clear dividing line between what out of everything that was created throughout the existence of (both) Yugoslavias is and what is not such heritage..Aleksandar Životić first spoke about the problems and difficulties encountered at the time of the establishment of the Department of Yugoslav History, because of the ideological agendas and political pressures that prevented scientific research. He stressed that these issues and the long-time lack of availability of certain sources were the reason why the things that we do not know about Yugoslavia still outnumbered the things that are known about the country. He then emphasized that new generations of historians had to open a wide range of topics related to the idea of Yugoslavism, the development of the Yugoslav state and its nature, the nature of the unitary state of Yugoslavia and the subsequent Yugoslav federalism and sociali-sm, the issue of the internal relation between the country’s peoples, as well as the issues regarding economic and social history and the history of different social groups. Životić continued by pointing out that the 20th century imposed the questions related to the Second World War, which in the Yugoslav territory took the form of ethnic, religious and ideological conflict and that any attempt to evade tac-kling these issues was detrimental to the science of history. He stre-ssed that no matter how problematic the events may be, a historian must serve science by adhering to the age-old principle that history should reveal the past “how it really was”. The views and interpreta-tions may be different, but the approach to the science of history and its methods must be the same. The phenomena must be observed in their totality and the sources must be taken into account. Životić concluded that any kind of selectivity, any thesis defined in advance that must be proved may have detrimental effects.Hrvoje Klasić emphasized ay the very beginning that the study of Yugoslavia should be divided and viewed at three different levels – research, teaching and presentation and that new paradigms were needed in each of these three segments. Klasić then pointed out that a comparative approach to the positioning of Yugoslavia was ne-cessary, not only when positioning it in the world, but also in relation to the Eastern Bloc, although formally Yugoslavia was not its mem-ber. According to him, this was the only way to answer the question of how Yugoslavia differed from other countries, because that idea is often based on a subjective, emotional experience. Klasić added that a comparative approach was necessary in Yugoslavia itself, stating that life in Ljubljana, Priština or Titograd (Podgorica) in 1945 or in 1985 had not been the same. He continued that things had to

be viewed comparatively, because we were too often contemplating Yugoslavia having only the relations between Belgrade and Zagreb and vice versa in mind. Then Klasić highlighted one more thing as essential, namely, the issue of the economy, the research into the history of the economy. When talking about self-management, that system is mostly considered from a political and social point of view. Yugoslavia was based on the differences in the level of development and the standard of living, among other things. Klasić also stressed the existence of big differences in experiences and memories of the life in Yugoslavia and pointed to the need to confront that issue. At the end, he stated that the interest young people showed in Yugo-slavia was decreasing and that there was a huge difference between those who were born and lived in Yugoslavia and the post-Yugoslav generations.

The second public discussion at the Museum of Yugoslav History: Memories of Yugoslavia: Collecting Oral Testimonies about Yugosla-via (Tuesday February 12th, 2013, 6 pm)

Sanja Petrović TodosijevićResearch associate at the Institute for Recent History of Serbia, mo-derator of the public discussion Memories of Yugoslavia: Collecting Oral Testimonies about Yugoslavia

The public discussion Memories of Yugoslavia: Collecting Oral Testimonies about Yugoslavia was held at the Museum of Yugoslav History on Tuesday February 12th, 2013. It was one of a number of discussions (Yugoslav Studies - How to Do Research and Learn about Yugoslavia; Yugoslav Heritage - Interpretations and Reinter-pretations; Andreja Rihter’s lecture on permanent museum exhibiti-ons) that the museum organized as part of the programme accom-panying the exhibition Yugoslavia: from the Beginning to the End.The participants in the public discussion held at the Museum of Yugoslav History, focusing on oral testimonies as sources of the history of Yugoslavia were Olga Manojlović Pintar (research fellow at the Institute for Recent History of Serbia), Ivana Pantelić (research associate at the Institute for Recent History of Serbia), Maja Dublje-vić (Documenta - Centre for Dealing with the Past, Zagreb), Marko Popović (Centre for Visual History at the Faculty of Media and Com-munications, Belgrade) and Marija Glišić (Heinrich Böll Foundation). The experts on the culture of remembrance, professionals fami-liar with the use of narrative history, researchers working on the most important projects in the region specializing in collecting oral testimonies and a representative of a non-governmental organizati-on that provides financial and strategic support for the projects that focus on the issues related to oral expression, as an important sour-ce of information in historical scientific research, tried to answer a number of questions regarding the significance, uses and prospects of oral testimonies, as sources of knowledge about the history of Yugoslavia. The historian Olga Manojlović Pintar, author of numerous papers on the culture of remembrance, editor of the collection of papers Stu-dies in Historical Awareness (published by the Institute for Recent History of Serbia in 2006) examined the relation between historical research and remembrance i.e. historical research that relies on remembrance because of the system of values and the remem-brance that can be verified and corrected only through historical research. By positioning the problem at three levels: archives and remembrance, truth and remembrance and Yugoslavia and remem-brance, Olga Manojlović Pintar wanted to emphasize the importance

68

of history as one of the humanities disciplines. Offering an interpre-tation of a combination of the subjective experience and the objective notion that was unequivocally recognized in the 1980s, Olga Manoj-lović Pintar pointed to the importance of history and remembrance growing closer and a radical shift in the methods of historical research. In addition to the methods, the nature of the historiograp-hic account changed too, after which the science of history showed more readiness than ever before to emphasize the emotional and individual dimension. In other words, it became a science marked by a very pronounced ethical orientation.Taking the talk of Olga Manojlović Pintar as a starting point, the historian Ivana Pantelić, mentioned numerous problems that she faced while working on the topic that later provided the material for the book Women Partisans as Citizens. Social Emancipation of Women Partisans in Serbia 1945-1953 (published by the Institute for Recent History of Serbia – Evoluta in 2011). The study that examines social emancipation of women partisans in the period following the Second World War was written based on narrative history. i.e. inter-views, which, according to the author, proved to be the best appro-ach, as far as the method is concerned. That was because private lives of forty interviewees had been one of the fundamental fields of her research. Ivana Pantelić referred to the significance of eye wit-nesses as “witnesses of the times”, within the framework of the oral history research. She spoke about the importance of “grass-roots history”, stressing the extent to which “grass-roots history” enriched her historiographic expression. When presenting her research, she tried to explain the ways in which she managed to overcome the problems whose solution could not be found the domain of narrative history or of interview as a method. The project launched by Zagreb-based Documenta - Centre for Dealing with the Past named Personal Memories of People about World War II and Other Forms of Political Violence from 1941 to the Present was presented by Maja Dubljević who works at the centre. Speaking about the project, she pointed out that it began in 2010 and that it now included more than four hundred interviewees from all over Croatia. As she described one of the most detailed and most important projects in the region, based on oral accounts, Maja Dubljević talked about the methods that were being developed even while working on the project. Emphasizing the importance of the previous project, Recording Personal Memories of the War in Pakrac, Lipik and the Nearby Places and the valuable experience gained during its implementation, when many of those interviewed implicitly or explicitly referred to the events that took place in the Second World War, Maja Dubljević pointed out the enormo-us potential of an interview for understanding the attitude of the communities, which emerged in the former Yugoslavia, towards the “common” past. i.e. the Yugoslav state, as reflected in the traumatic legacy of World War II. Marko Popović, one of the founders of the Centre for Visual History presented the project Video Archive of Socialism that started in 2010. The aim of this project is to collect the testimonies of people coming from different backgrounds about their everyday life during the socialist era. Referring to the everyday life as an important field of research, Marko Popović tried to draw attention to the growing relevance of primarily methodologically clearly defined interviews, as well as to the need to conduct preliminary interviews with each subject. While describing the project, he highlighted the importance of collaboration with the Visual History Archive at Freie Universität Berlin, i.e. the significance of its ties with the Shoah Foundation established by the U.S. film-maker Steven Spielberg. Based on recording more than fifty thousand oral testimonies of Holocaust

survivors, this foundation developed one of the most significant methods of taking oral statements.Marija Glišić of the Heinrich Böll Foundation presented the project, Oral History – Testimonies of the Participants in the Fight against Fascism that the foundation has been carrying out in collaborati-on with the Anti-Fascist Alliance and the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia. Speaking as a representative of a foundation interested in providing financial and strategic support for the pro-jects attempting to provide answers to some of the most important questions in the local society, such as: “Why is it important in Serbia in 2013 to talk about anti-fascism and the fight against fascism in World War II?” “Does the need to enter into this kind of dialogue mean that the anti-fascist legacy in Serbia is being questioned and what are the consequences of that to the contemporary society and the future?” Marija Glišić emphasized the importance of the imple-mentation of projects based on recording oral testimonies in the process of sensitisation of the public, opening dialogue and creating a more relaxed atmosphere in which to discuss the past that is still a burden to the society today. As an event accompanying the exhibition Yugoslavia: from the Beginning to the End, the public discussion Memories of Yugosla-via: Collecting Oral Testimonies about Yugoslavia managed to bring together the representatives of the most important regional projects that are based on recording oral testimonies. Thus, the Museum of Yugoslav History, the institution that organized the discussion, considerably contributed to the debate in the contemporary scientific research of history about the relevance of oral accounts, as accep-table sources of historical knowledge. Consequently, a wide range of questions regarding the use of oral testimonies as part of museum exhibitions was opened.

The third public discussion at the Museum of Yugoslav History: Yugoslav Heritage - Interpretations and Reinterpretations (Tuesday February 19th, 2013, 6 pm)

Tatomir ToromanEthnologist and anthropologist, curator at MYH, moderator of the public discussion Yugoslav Heritage - Interpretations and Reinter-pretations

The public discussion Yugoslav Heritage: Interpretations and Re-interpretations was the third such event in a row organized by the museum, as part of the programme accompanying the exhibition Yu-goslavia: from the Beginning to the End. The aim of the discussion was to voice different opinions on the possibilities of taking various approaches to the complex history of Yugoslavia, taking the example of the exhibition as a starting point and viewing the exhibition itself and the focus on the Yugoslav heritage from an interdisciplinary perspective. Discussion participants: Dr Radina Vučetić (historian, senior lecturer at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade), Dr Ildiko Erdei (ethnologist and anthropologist, associate professor at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade), Dr Ana Sladoje-vić, (curator, and art and media theorist) and Dr Branislav Dimitrije-vić, (curator, art historian and theorist).Before the beginning of the public discussion, Ana Panić, co-author and curator of the exhibition, briefly explained how the process of working on the exhibition unfolded, so that the audience could follow the discussion more easily. She recalled that first a public invitation aimed at all interested parties had been issued in all the languages of peoples and ethnic minorities in the former Yugoslavia, after whi-

69

ch public consultations had been held. She added that these con-sultations had provided a basis for the formation of the first team of experts which developed the exhibition concept and that the second team of experts, tasked with the implementation of the project had subsequently been formed. She also pointed out that an internatio-nal team of reviewers had also been involved in that process. Finally, Ana Panić emphasized that the aim had been to create an exhibition which offered an open invitation to enter into a dialogue, which was, among other things, the purpose of these public discussions too. After that short introduction, Radina Vučetić spoke first. She said that she believed that it was important that the exhibition had happened, in the first place, with the participation of experts from the region and resulting in the opening of the topic of the history of Yugoslavia. However, she stressed that she did not like the exhibi-tion and that it seemed to her that that was an exhibition against Yugoslavia. She pointed out that her general impression was that the emphasis was placed on the bad things in Yugoslavia, that repres-sion was the dominant theme and that, generally speaking, priority was given to political history, while social and cultural history were neglected. She stated that that culture and art were missing and highlighted the fact that Yugoslavia had a highly developed culture, which was practically reduced to stereotypes in this exhibition. In her view, sport was absent too. Therefore, she concluded that many things that had been part of a cohesive force were neglected, while the elements that had led to disintegration were present. Radina then pointed out that in the exhibition, Yugoslavia was treated as an isolated island, without a visible wider historical context, espe-cially the position of Yugoslavia in the Cold War and the policy of non-alignment. Furthermore, she remarked that an interdiscipli-nary approach to the work on the exhibition was clearly lacking, stressing that when dealing with such a topic, the contribution of sociologists, anthropologists, art historians and others in addition to historians was necessary. At the end, she added that the last history of Yugoslavia in this country had been published in 1998 and that the authors of the exhibition could not be expected to solve the problems that historians had not solved yet.After Radina, it was Ildiko Erdei’s turn to speak. At the beginning, she too stated that the exhibition was an exceptionally important event and said that criticism should be regarded as being utter-ly constructive, as a contribution to achieving the common goal of extending the knowledge about Yugoslavia and continuing and improving the work on the exhibition. Ildiko pointed out that the biggest problem was that the discontinuity between the two Yugo-slavias, the kingdom and the socialist state was not shown in a clear enough manner and that the continuity of Yugoslavia as an idea and an experience was overly emphasized at the expense of the differen-ces. She also remarked that very little attention had been paid to the Second World War, although it had been an exceptionally important, transformative event that sadly had neither been interpreted or evaluated in an exhibition that highlighted big processes and macro-structures, such as politics and the economy, but did not show how these macrostructures influenced everyday life. She stressed that the general experience should be individualized, offering not only events, but also experiences, memories, interpretations and added that a focus on culture in a wider sense of that term, which anthro-pologists use to define everyday life was missing. Finally, she turned to the structure of the exhibition, saying that presenting the events in a chronological sequence and a clearer narrative would have contributed to better understanding. She noted that as a result, the viewer faced a multitude of the so-called “objective facts”, without valorisation, which makes it hard to make head or tail of the display.

Ana Sladojević spoke after Ildiko. She pointed out that Yugoslav cul-tural heritage was being somewhat artificially separated from other forms of heritage, although it had not been and could not have been a monolith, adding that heritage in general could be discordant. Ana concluded that just as Yugoslav cultural heritage should not be con-sidered to be a monolith, it should not be ghettoised either, presen-ted in certain circumstances and in certain places only. She also said that a museum not only could, but also had to deal with memories and emotions, because the role of museum was far broader than to show accurate historical facts. According to her, a museum should not write history, offer only one interpretation of the past: different interpretations were also something that a museum should focus on. Another point she made was that recognition of Yugoslav cultu-ral heritage or any kind of heritage, for that matter, did not consist of searching for a concrete object that reflected it, but rather involved recognizing the patterns of relations, whose dynamic influenced the creation of some specific characteristics in a certain cultural area. Ana added that these characteristics were part of the experience of being a Yugoslav that were important at the particular moment of reconsidering our own identities. She remarked that Yugoslav cultural heritage had to be allowed some space to be redefined through interaction and that both the interpretations coming from the top and those originating at a grass-roots level should be taken into account. Summing up, Ana recommended avoiding the tendency to present Yugoslav cultural heritage as a monolith, separate from other cultural identities, forms of heritage or indeed separate from local and global developments, showing heritage through a prism of the authority of a museum, rendering it unquestionable and without making a recognizable connection with the present moment. The following speaker was Branko Dimitrijević. He too highli-ghted the exceptional importance of the fact that the exhibition was opened in the first place, but added that its biggest problem was absence of an author and consequently reliance on a consensus that refers to a form of historical revisionism. Branko emphasized the fact that although a much larger part of the exhibition was dedicated to the socialist Yugoslavia, the three main pillars of the ideology of the socialist Yugoslavia, three pillars of its identity were completely marginalized or presented in a problematic way. These were the War of National Liberation, self-management and modernity. He pointed out that the ideology of the War of National Liberation had been a fundamental thing in the socialist Yugoslavia, adding that self-ma-nagement had been a unique model worldwide and that Yugoslavia had been a place where modern things were created, since the official culture of the country had been modern culture. He then expressed considerable criticism of the visual aspect of the exhibiti-on and its design in general, saying that it was illegible and unviewa-ble. He emphasized that an exhibition provided a form of generating a certain experience, that it established a link between feelings and thoughts and that it did not depend on facts only, adding that visualization was of crucial importance too. At the end, he concluded that an exhibition had to have an author and a thesis on which it was based, stressing that according to him, that was the key problem of the exhibition Yugoslavia: from the Beginning to the End.

70

71

72

Yugoslavia: from the Beginning to the EndMuseum of Yugoslav HistoryBotićeva 6, 11000 Beogradwww.mij.rs

Publisher: Museum of Yugoslav History

For the publisher: Neda Knežević

Editor: Ana Panić

Authors of the texts: Jovo Bakić, Srđan Cvetković, Ivana Dobrivojević, Hrvoje Klasić, Ana Panić, Vladimir Petrović, Sanja Petrović Todosijević, Tatomir Toroman

Catalogue of exhibits: Marija Vasiljević

Proofreading: Jelena Bajić, Lidija Kusovac, Jelena Mitić

Translation: Jelena Bajić, Zoran Ž. Paunović, Vanja Savić, Milan Petrović, Aleksandra Popović

Design: Ivan Benussi

Photographer: Ivan Benussi

Printer: DMD Štamparija

Print run: 200

Belgrade 2013.

Museum of Yugoslav History is the winner of the Mihailo Valtrović prize, awarded by the Museum Association of Serbia for the exhibition Yugoslavia from the Beginning to the End, which was chosen best of the year in 2012