Search

Copyright of Nasleđe is the property of University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Philology & Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Nasleđe is the property of University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Philology & Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the question of the politics of memory in the public discourse of serbia in the 1980s with regard to the crimes commited by the ustasha regime against the serbian population in independent state of croatia (ndH), during world war ii. the discussion on this topic was presented on the basis of the press from the second half of the 1980s and the early 1990s. the predominant number of publications emphasised that the serbs suffered huge losses and that the crimes against the Orthodox population in the ndH were never punished. discussions about the genocide, which was often described in serbia as "forgotten", referred to the political climate in the republic at the time. leading serbian politicians spoke sharply on the subject, and numerous scientific and quasi-scientific publications were published. the number of victims was manipulated. Moreover, a message about the "awakening of the ustasha spirits" was developed in relation to croatian national activities. anti-croatian rhetoric intensified with the introduction of the multi-party system in yugoslavia (1989) and strengthening of secessionist aspirations in croatia. the discussions concerning jasenovac were developed in the context of the political crisis of the federation at the time and the aspirations of serbian elites towards national unification of serbs around martyrdom messages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, there has been a significant rise in the production of films on the Jasenovac camp and related Ustasha crimes, taking their share in the mnemonic politics. The paper focuses on the two most recent films, The Diary of Diana B., a docufiction filmed in Croatia, and Dara of Jasenovac, a feature film which was Serbia’s candidate for an Oscar. The memory of traumatic events is remediated in each film differently and used for representing diverse group identities through temporal relation with the difficult past. Comparison between the two films focuses on subject positions and regimes of historicity as categories that make the production of meaning mechanism visible. The main questions that guide the analysis are: how are victims and perpetrators portrayed, who is witnessing traumatic events, and to whom is the trauma attributed? Do they bring something new to the cultural memory of the Holocaust and genocide in the Independent State of Croatia?. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Nasleđe is the property of University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Philology & Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Ćamil Sijarić, a Montenegrin writer and participant in People’s Liberation War, TANJUG reporter and journalist, was one of the first to enter Jasenovac concentration camp in April 1945, immediately after its liberation In his writings Oslobođeni Jasenovac, between fiction and journalistic style, Sijarić testified a few decades later about the horrors and most terrible suffering of camp prisoners and shares with readers the traumatic memory of suffering, pain and misfortune of the persecuted. Most of them were not combatants of the national liberation movement. In his notes on the Jasenovac concentration camp, Sijarić follows the facts about the severe violence that took place there and inserts images of victims into the entire Yugoslav memories of war horrors, which surpass, as much as symbols, the particularity of historical memories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of Serbs who were murdered by the Croatian Ustaša regime is still contentious, even though there is broad agreement on the figures among expert historians. The issue is blurred by authors who ignore the canon of scientific discovery. Ustaša terror was awful enough, the author argues. Distorted numbers trivialize debate and degrade the victims.

Copyright of Journal of Contemporary History / Časopis za Suvremenu Povijest is the property of Croatia Institute for History and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper is an attempt to show the role of the Jasenovac concentration camp in the destruction of peoples from different parts of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) based on partially revised list „Victims of War 1941–1945” from 1964. On the basis of achieved results in the process of revision of the census list, a calculation of the total losses of the civilians of Yugoslavia, of those in the NDH and its regions, with particular focus on losses in the Jasenovac camp was made. The losses in Jasenovac were analyzed through the prism of the general losses of the civilian population of NDH during the war, in all its parts. They were all compared with the demographic structure of the population of the NDH and its regions. Jasenovac camp system, was the largest concentration camp in the NDH, where a quarter of all killed civilians in this territory lost their lives (24.53%). The scope of the crimes committed in the Jasenovac camp clearly identify it as a destruction camp. The victims in Jasenovac were brought to the camp from all parts of the NDH. Most of the dead were originally from the two regions with which the camp was bordering, 30.60% from Slavonia and 25.13% from Bosanska Krajina, with 12.62% of losses originating from Eastern Bosnia. The victims from 4 regions had a greater share in losses in Jasenovac than their representation in the population of NDH, Banija 2.25 times, Bosnian Krajina 2.14 times, Slavonia 2.13 times and Srem 1.19 times, while Kordun had equal share. The victims of the other 7 NDH regions had much less participation in the losses in Jasenovac than their representation in the population, from 19.12 and 11.21 times lower in the part of Dalmatia and Lika, up to 2.27 and 1.23 times lower in Northwestern Croatia and Eastern Bosnia. Jasenovac was the site of the death of half of all killed Slavonia civilians (54.11%), two fifths from Srem (38.30%), one third of killed civilians from Banija (32.73%), a quarter from Northwestern Croatia (26.70% ) and Bosanska Krajina (23.27%), but also minimal parts of the killed civilians from Lika (1.28%), Dalmatia (3.49%) and Herzegovina (5.57%). Jasenovac was the central place of death in the NDH, where 78.08% of all victims of the Roma lost their lives, 61.68% of the victims of the Jews, 23.24% of Serbian civilian victims, 11.81% of Croats, 3.50% of Muslims and 4.39% of members of other and unknown nationalities. In nine of the twelve NDH regions, Serbs accounted for the bulk of the loss of prisoners in the camp, everywhere with a predominant majority of 92.43% in the Bosnian Krajina and 91.85% in Banija, up to 54.87% in Srem, the Jews were majority in two regions (Eastern Bosnia 55,35% i Northwest Croatia 36,21%), and the Romas in one. Three-quarters of Serbs killed the Jasenovac (74.61%) come from three regions (36.88% from Bosanska Krajina, 27.20% from Slavonia, 10.53% from Banija). Of all Serb civilians victims from Slavonia, 55.54% lost their lives in Jasenovac, as well as 33.99% of Serb civilian victims from Northwestern Croatia, 33.70% from Banija, 28.34% from Srem, 23.50% from Bosanska Krajina, while the share of victims of Jasenovac in the other seven regions was far smaller or minimal (Lika 0.89%). Half of all Jews victims in Jasenovac were from Eastern Bosnia (47.65%), with 21.27% from Northwestern Croatia and 18.63% of Slavonia, while 12.45% were from the other nine regions. While in Eastern Bosnia almost all Jews lost their lives in Jasenovac (90.74%), from Jews from Slavonia and Northwestern Croatia, 54.69% and 35.89% of them were killed in that camp. Of the dead Roma in Jasenovac, 59.95% originated from Slavonia, where life was lost by four fifths of all the Romas victims from Slavonia, Srem and Northwestern Croatia. Of the Croats killed in Jasenovac, 45.92% were from northwestern Croatia, while 43.22% of the Muslims killed in the camp were from the Bosnian Krajina.

The paper focuses on the research of virtual aspects of the narrative in the Velimir Ilišević's painting Povratak II. The transmedial narratological reading of Ilišević's artwork requires the application of analytical tools of cognitive narratology. Framing borders and framing, polychronic narration, and contradictory narratives represent some of the fundamental research tools for interpreting the virtual world. The aim of this research is the interpretation of the virtual narrative in the painting Povratak II, whose morphological concept is presented by the title being the framing border that frames the historiographic and psychological cognitive frame, through discourses on fascism, revisionism and painters - the tamers of their time.

This article contributes to the growing scholarship on the relationship between political memory and foreign policy by analyzing how physical sites of traumatic memory serve as locations of foreign policy construction. Specifically, I explore how physical sites (such as concentration camps, killing sites, or memorials) serve to construct foreign policy through the enduring meaning they have as material reminders of collective trauma. I illustrate the argument with a case study of Jasenovac, the commemorative site of the largest concentration camp administered by the Independent State of Croatia during World War II. The Jasenovac site is a particularly useful case for my argument because it is a site of contested memory and conflicting national narratives. Most significantly, it is the site of production of three distinct foreign policies—of Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia's Republika Srpska—which all use the Jasenovac site to pursue very different and mutually exclusive foreign policy claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I discuss how memorial museums in Hungary, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina reference trends set by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and Yad Vashem. Museums, which have tried to prove their Europe-fitness in the course of EU accession talks by highlighting the Holocaust, and those, which have sidelined the Holocaust to prevent its memorialization from competing with that of communist crimes, both incorporate elements from "western" Holocaust memorial museums, indicating how universalized Holocaust remembrance has become. I argue that these museological trends have also "travelled" to museums dedicated to the post-Yugoslav wars. In the last part I analyze how the Museum of Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide in Sarajevo and the Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial Center reference trends stemming from Holocaust memorial museums.

Not much is said about this topic, almost nothing, and neither in the school books nor in the whole history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Even bigger reservation is made in regards to the responsibility for the committed crimes. It is commonly accepted that the Holocaust was committed by someone else in some other state. When Holocaust is mentioned in Bosnia and Herzegovina or spoken about, it is commonly referred to the Auschwitz, Germany or Jasenovac. Based on the original files and publications of the relevant authors, this article examines some of the key aspects of the committed Holocaust on Jews from Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially children, from the process of dehumanization, adoption of the legal framework which provided the opportunity for the crimes, to camps they went through and finally, found the places of their execution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Relation between architecture and text usually applies to architectural elements signifying the use and urban function of the building, although textual messages can also relate to all programme aspects of the building. Considering architecture as text, however, special place belongs to impact which should be achieved through the use of space, various artistic means and documents, but also to the dramaturgy of the impact, i.e. dramaturgical function and character of the architectural space. The process of achieving dramatic impact through architecture relies on principles both in structure and means of expression, while the impact can be realised by using both design of space and time. Therefore, three types of text - dramatic, architectural and scenic - and their shared and mutual impact, create basis for semiological analysis of architectural works, with the special place being given to the memorial architecture. This paper investigates potential dialogue and balance between architectural and dramatic texts, analysing the Seven Hundred Polls, conceptual design created for the memorial complex of Donja Gradina.

The paper based on archival, published and press sources, and relevant literature presents the ideological basis and enforcement of the Croatian policy of the extermination of the Serbs and Jews in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) which had its place within the New Order of Europe. Soon after the establishment of the NDH in April 1941, the destruction process was partially centralised in a network of camps centred at Gospić. After the outbreak of a mass Serb uprising and the dissolution of the Gospić camp, a new and much larger system of camps centred at Jasenovac operated as an extermination and concentration camp from the end of August 1941 until the end of the war. In November 1941, the mass internment of undesirable population groups was provided for by law, whereby the destruction process was given a “legal” form. [Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. 47030: Conflicts and crises: cooperation and development in Serbia and the region in the 19th and 20th centuries]

This article analyses the revisionist currents in Croatian contemporary historiography - and implicitly also in politics - which in its focus has interpretation of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH, 1941-1945). Three main elements of the revisionist narative are: a) NDH was just a normal state concerned with rebellion in its own territory, rather than the state which used state terror to exterminate religious and ethnic communities marked as its “natural and organic enemies”. In other words, it only applied limited and legitimate instruments to protect itself from its political opponents. b) There were no massive crimes, and especially no genocide, neither against the Serbs, nor Jewish or Roma population. On the contrary, the main victims in 1941-1945 had been Croats, and thus the crimes of NDH should be de-Serbianized and de-Jewisized. c) Jasenovac was only a labour camp and prison, not a concentration death camp. The NDH used it for gathering and arresting its political opponents in order to prevent them from pursuing their destructive actions against the state. The real death camp in Jasenovac was formed only in 1945 by postNDH communist authorities. By deconstructing what they call the “Jasenovac myth”, the revisionists are in fact trying to deconstruct “the myth of genocide by NDH”, and thus to rehabilitate the NDH either completely or partially [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Contemporary History / Časopis za Suvremenu Povijest is the property of Croatia Institute for History and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Acta Hispanica is the property of University of Szeged, Department of Hispanic Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Annals of the Croatian Political Science Association / Anali Hrvatskog Politoloskog Drustva is the property of Croatian Political Science Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Politički proces približavanja Hrvata i Srba započeo je, preko jugoslavenske ideje, u drugoj polovici 19. stoljeća. U tom procesu predstavili smo dva lika, đakovačkoga biskupa Strossmayera i srpskoga ministra Garašanina, s posve različitim političkim koncepcijama. Kod Strossmayera možemo govoriti o ideji jugoslavenstva dok kod Garašanina nije postojala ideja o zajednici jugoslavenskih naroda, nego obnavljanje i proširenje srednjovjekovne Srbije. Političko približavanje osobito je bilo pojačano za vrijeme Prvoga svjetskog rata djelovanjem Jugoslavenskoga odbora. U zajedničku državu ušlo je nekoliko naroda s različitom kulturnom i političkom prošlošću te s različitim vjeroispovijestima. Ustaški ekstremizam i nepomirljivost Srba u Hrvatskoj, rušenjem Kraljevine Jugoslavije i stvaranjem NDH, donijeli su velike zločine. U tim sukobima mnogi su nevini Srbi izgubili živote. Kao što je preuveličan ukupan broj stradalih osoba na prostoru Jugoslavije, tako je i preuveličan broj stradalih Srba u Jasenovcu. Srbin Kočović došao je broja od 487.000 poginulih Srba i to na tlu cijele Jugoslavije, a Hrvat Žerjavić do broja od 530.000. U svjetlu ovih podataka čini se apsurdnim broj V. Dedijera od 600.000 stradalih Srba samo u Jasenovcu. Prema popisu broja žrtava koncentracijskih logora iz 1964. godine, a koji je ostao u tajnosti do 1998. godine, u jasenovačkom logoru stradalo je 33.994 Srba. Ovaj broj otkriva stravičan zločin. Zar nije zločin povećati taj broj za 18 puta? Posljedice ovakvih manipulacija zacijelo su pridonijele srpskim zločinima u posljednjim ratovima na tlu bivše Jugoslavije.

The article discusses the reasons for the construction, in the 1960s, of memorial to the victims of the former camp in Jasenovac in Yugoslavia, although no such memorial was built at the Sajmište site. How should we explain and understand this difference and what do these two sites stand for in Yugoslav discourses about the past? I will argue that the memorial project for Jasenovac was, due to certain developments, seen as a substitute for similar plans at nearly all the former camp locations in Yugoslavia. Because of this substitution, after the mid 1960s none of the other concentration camp sites in the country benefited from federal financing and thus all of them were excluded from having a real chance at being made into a proper memorial site.

Even though the self-critical dealing with the past has not been an official criteria for joining the European union, the founding of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research and the Holocaust-conference in Stockholm at the beginning of 2000 seem to have generatedinformal standards of confronting and exhibiting the Holocaust during the process called “Europeanization of the Holocaust”. This is indicated by the fact that the Holocaust Memorial Center in Budapest opened almost empty only weeks before Hungary joined the European Union although the permanent exhibition had not been ready yet. The Croatian case, especially the new exhibition that opened at the KZ-memorial Jasenovac in 2006, will serve in order to examine how the “Europeanization of the Holocaust” impacts on a candidate state. The memorial museum resembles Holocaust Memorial Museums in Washington, Budapest etc., but, although it is in situ, at the site of the former KZ, the focus clearly lies on individual victim stories and their belongings, while the perpetrators and the daily “routine” at the KZ are hardly mentioned. Another problem influenced by the international trend to focus on (Jewish) individuals and moral lessons rather than on the historical circumstances is that the focus on the Shoa blanks the fact that Serbs had been the foremost largest victim group. The third field, where the influence of “European standards” on the Croatian politics of the past will be examined, is the equalization of “red and black totalitarianism” at the annual commemorations in Jasenovac. While this was already done during the revisions era of President Franjo Tudman during the 1990, today it perfectly matches EU-politics, as the introduction of the 23rd of August, the anniversary of the Hitler-Stalin-pact, as a Memorial day for both victims of Nazism and Stalinism shows.

In this article the authors discuss the role of Jasenovac Concentration Camp in Croatian and Serbian political and social spheres. Connecting the historical data with the analysis of the recent mutual accusations of genocide between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Serbia before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the authors demonstrate the pervasive presence of Jasenovac in Serbian and Croatian political discourse. Presenting different modes of social construction around Jasenovac, from the end of the Second World War to the present, the article proposes a specific reading of Jasenovac as a form of the “past that does not pass.” In this respect, Jasenovac is seen as a continuous reference point for understanding collective losses and group suffering, both past and present, in Serbian and Croatian society. Although historically distanced by seventy years, the events surrounding Jasenovac are still constantly recurring in both political and private, official and unofficial, spheres of life, functioning as a specific symbol around which narratives of ethnic, national, and religious understanding as well as inter-group conflicts are thought and constructed. The role of political and social factors in the construction of frequently incompatible narratives is further underlined by the analysis of selected oral testimonies related to the war in Yugoslavia in 1990s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even though self-critical dealing with the past has not been an official criterion for joining the EU, the founding of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research and the Holocaust conference in Stockholm at the beginning of 2000 seem to have generated informal standards of confronting and exhibiting the Holocaust in the context of “Europeanization of Memory.” Comparative analysis shows that post-Communist museums dealing with the World War II period perform in the context of those informal standards. Both the Jasenovac Memorial Museum in Croatia and the Museum of the Slovak National Uprising in Banská Bystrica were founded in the Communist era and played an important role in supporting the founding myths of the two countries. Both were subjected to historical revisionism during the 1990s. In the current exhibitions from 2004/2006, both memorial museums stress being part of Europe and refer, to “international standards” of musealization, while the Jasenovac memorial claims to focus on “the individual victim.” But stressing the European dimension of resistance and the Holocaust obscures such key aspects as the civil war and the responsibility of the respective collaborating regime. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Radovi Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zaru is the property of Zavod za Povijesne Znanosti HAZU and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Contemporary History / Časopis za Suvremenu Povijest is the property of Croatia Institute for History and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of ÖZP - Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft is the property of Oesterreichische Zeitschrift fur Politikwissenschaft and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Contemporary History / Časopis za Suvremenu Povijest is the property of Croatia Institute for History and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Even though the self-critical dealing with the past has not been an official criteria for joining the European union, the founding of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research and the Holocaust-conference in Stockholm at the beginning of 2000 seem to have generated informal standards of confronting and exhibiting the Holocaust during the process called "Europeanization of the Holocaust". This is indicated by the fact that the Holocaust Memorial Center in Budapest opened almost empty only weeks before Hungary joined the European Union although the permanent exhibition had not been ready yet. The Croatian case, especially the new exhibition that opened at the KZ-memorial Jasenovac in 2006, will serve in order to examine how the "Europeanization of the Holocaust" impacts on a candidate state. The memorial museum resembles Holocaust Memorial Museums in Washington, Budapest etc., but, although it is in situ, at the site of the former KZ, the focus clearly lies on individual victim stories and their belongings, while the perpetrators and the daily "routine" at the KZ are hardly mentioned. Another problem influenced by the international trend to focus on (Jewish) individuals and moral lessons rather than on the historical circumstances is that the focus on the Shoa blanks the fact that Serbs had been the foremost largest victim group. The third field, where the influence of "European standards" on the Croatian politics of the past will be examined, is the equalization of "red and black totalitarianism" at the annual commemorations in Jasenovac. While this was already done during the revisions era of President Franjo Tuđman during the 1990, today it perfectly matches EU-politics, as the introduction of the 23rd of August, the anniversary of the Hitler-Stalin-pact, as a Memorial day for both victims of Nazism and Stalinism shows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores practices of collective war remembrance in the socialist Yugoslavia. Memory of the Second World War in Yugoslavia has often been described as 'frozen', and this is seen as having led to the eruption of formerly suppressed memories at the end of the 1980s. To challenge this assumption, the author studies the negotiation of practices of collective war remembrance in Yugoslavia, and highlights the dynamic character of war remembrance even under the circumstances of state-controlled public remembering. Two examples are explored: practices of erecting local war monuments during the 1950s, and the emergence and activities of 'fictive kinship groups' struggling for public acknowledgement of a site of memory for the victims of the Jasenovac former Concentration Camp in Croatia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]