STUDIA CROATICA

Year XIV, Buenos Aires, 1971, No. 42-43

The Vatican and Croatia

The Economic Situation of Croatia

The First Croats in Argentina

The Revolutionary Eugenio Kvaternik

The Conspiracy of Count Pedro Zrinski and Marquis Francisco Cristóbal Frankopan

"Le Monde" in Service of an Unjust Cause

Starcevic, Revitalizer of Croatian Nationalism

Strossmayer and the Bulgarians

Benedetto Croce and the Crossroads of European Civilization

Documents:

Letter from the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture to the Holy See on the Occasion of Tito's Reception at the Vatican

Comments and News

The Yugoslav Crisis as Seen by the World Press

In Memoriam of Ivo Bogdan

Dr. Ricardo Floegel Has Died

Micro-News Brief

Book Review

Branko Miljus: The Habsburgs, the Church, and the Slaves of the South

John Prcela and Stanko Guldescu, Operation Slaughterhouse

Ivan Tomas: Two Leaders of God's Croatia

Stepan Buc: On the Slavic Problem

James Nash: Yugoslavia in Pictures

George J. Prpic: A Century of World Communism - A Selective Chronological Outline

Ivan Degrel: The Fatal Year 1918 - The Disintegration of the Millennial Croatian Kingdom

Dr. Stanislao Meciar - His Death

The Vatican and Croatia

Franjo Nevistic

A Brief Synoptic Overview of Reciprocal Relations Over More Than a Millennium

Before delving into the heart of the matter, some preliminary clarifications are necessary. These will define the task more precisely and facilitate a better understanding.

Indeed, when we say Vatican, we are referring to the natural and central seat of the Catholic Church's diplomatic activity. However, the Vatican only became the seat of the Church in the fourteenth century. Before that, it was the Lateran Palace. Gregory XI was the one who established the new papal residence in the Vatican. Therefore, the relations between the Church and Croatia do not coincide with the timeframe of the relations between the Vatican and Croatia. The former date back almost eight centuries before the establishment of the papal residence in the Vatican.

This is the first preliminary clarification that we consider useful for our current objective.

Why have we chosen the topic of the title? The answer to this question is also our second point of clarification before addressing the topic at hand. Indeed, the tragic upheavals the Croatian people are experiencing are intimately linked to centuries of ecclesiastical diplomacy.

The Croatian generation of the author of these lines has lived through the full drama of the recent reciprocal relations between the Vatican and Croatia. These experiences are perhaps the most dramatic our people have endured for over a millennium in their life as a predominantly Christian nation. The source of this drama lies in the abrupt shift in ecclesiastical policy in response to the communist phenomenon of our time.

Between the two world wars, ecclesiastical anti-communism was firm and resolute. The dividing line between religious and philosophical doctrine and Vatican diplomacy was practically nonexistent. An irreconcilable dogmatism characterized both aspects of the Church's position and attitude. The principles set forth in the encyclicals Quadragesimo anno and Divini Redemptoris were fully in force.

Pope Pius XI, summarizing the opinions of Leo XIII and Pius IX on this matter, states in the latter encyclical: "...The Papacy, in our day, has also continued faithfully to safeguard the sanctuary of the Christian religion, and more frequently and more persuasively than any other earthly public authority has called attention to the communist danger."

The same Pope, in the introduction to this encyclical, states: "...this imminent danger is Bolshevik and atheistic communism, which tends to destroy order and undermine the very foundations of Christian civilization" [1].

Since the Croatian people, according to impartial accounts [2], are among the most Catholic peoples in the world, the Church's influence on the education of Croatian youth was a natural one. Educational institutions—Franciscan, Dominican, and Jesuit schools in Travnik, Visoko, Siroki Brijeg, Sinj, Dubrovnik, Split, Zagreb, and elsewhere—made their mark on Croatia's intellectual youth. The anti-communist dogmatism that characterized Church doctrine was also instilled in Croatian youth, especially intellectuals, educated in Church institutions and by their teachers. Even some extreme acts of harshness displayed by these young people during the last war, particularly as a countermeasure in the fight against the communist revolution led by Tito, bore the imprint of this Church education. Communism was the number one enemy, an enemy with whom no compromise was possible. Or so it was thought.

But, with the war ending and the communist victory in that part of the world as well, the Vatican made many of us understand that there was something inconsistent about the Church's stance. Thus, for example, while vigorously defending the then Archbishop of Zagreb, Monsignor A. Stepinac, the Vatican systematically omitted defending him as a Croat, a citizen and patriot of his people, focusing its attention and arguments on the dignitary's religious, ethical, and priestly integrity. It was logical and natural that we began at that time to ask the questions: Is there an incongruity between the universal ethics of the Catholic Church and the natural right of the Croatian people to live in freedom? Stepinac was never afraid to acknowledge the perfect alignment of the two values. Universal Christian ethics and his people's right to self-determination were complementary values, almost a single value.

But the Vatican refused to acknowledge him directly and openly. In its long and, at times, fervent defense of the prelate during the legal proceedings against him, Vatican diplomacy evasively failed to mention the value of his testimony for the freedom of Croatia. It was as if there were a contradiction between a noble citizen of the earthly city and an exemplary priest, a servant of the heavenly city. Was this ignorance, a misinterpretation of two values, or diplomatic cunning?

Those of us who survived the catastrophe of 1945 felt something within our ideal world begin to shake. Our warnings found no echo in the Vatican. But if our anxieties were met with silence from the Vatican, this same silence resonated in our hearts. After the initial shaking, our worldview also crumbled. The worm of doubt gnawed at us from within. Was the natural right of our people—for which Archbishop Stepinac was accused—defended with sufficient energy and consistency, as was the defense of divine law and ecclesiastical prerogatives?

However, during the remainder of Pope Pius XII's papacy, we were able to dispel these doubts and confusions. They remained marginalized, both individually and collectively. But, beginning with the Protocol [3], which inaugurated a new era in our country's policy toward communism, the confusion began to intensify. The re-establishment of normal diplomatic relations with the communist regime in Belgrade (1970) and the solemn reception of Tito by Pope Paul VI were bitter experiences for everyone. Dozens upon dozens of written protests, both individual and from organizations, reached the Vatican [4]. But it was all like preaching in the desert. History continued inexorably. Titus was honored by Vatican diplomacy as if he were any sovereign with a venerable and respected past.

This is the reason for our choice of the topic we wish to address and the second of our two preliminary clarifications. Can the Croatian people have confidence in Vatican diplomacy? Can we Croatians simply cede the diplomatic initiative to the central diplomacy of the Church in matters that concern us so closely? Did this diplomacy harm the Croatian people in the past, or is it harming them now? Is its tutelage tolerable for a people conscious of their natural rights? A brief overview might provide the answer. The chain of events extends from one century to the next. Let us see, then, if this is the case!

The Croatian people arrived on the land of their present-day homeland in the 7th century (626 AD). The primary source for the ancient history of Croatia is the book *De Administrando Imperio* by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Recording extensively data on arrival, population size, military strength, and so on, the emperor also informs us about Croatia's first contacts with the Catholic Church. His account of the baptism of the Croats is particularly interesting. For three hundred years, historians have debated the value of this account, especially the part of the text that refers to the three occasions of baptism of the Croatian people, which the emperor explicitly mentions in the aforementioned book. According to him, the Croats celebrated (in 689, according to the most recent research, author's note) a special pact against wars of aggression and expansion.[5] Without going into detail, the matter is definitively settled. The Croats, at least among the upper classes, embraced Christianity as early as the 7th century.[6]

Analyzing the aforementioned pact between the Croatian people and Pope Agatho in light of and within the terms of a genuine legal and political agreement between two equal parties seeking to regulate their reciprocal relations, its mystical rather than legal character becomes readily apparent—a diplomatic measure intended to ward off the aggression of a young and vigorous people in order to protect Roman-Christian civilization. The pact, therefore, lacks true legal terms. These are replaced by formulas invoking the intervention of mystical, metaphysical, and religious forces. Indeed, while the Croatian side assumes the specific obligation to renounce (at least according to the emperor, since the original text of the pact is lost) wars of aggression and conquest, its counterpart evades any concrete obligation, transferring it to God and Saint Peter.

However, for a truly religious conscience, divine intervention in historical events is not an impossibility and as an exception, but giving up "howling among the wolves" against a simple promise by the third party that divine intervention would save us from wolves, turns out to be more like a diplomatic cunning than a true pact of mutual and well-defined obligations. The Pope's diplomatic apparatus, feeling superior to its contractor, resorted to a kind of mystical pact, of superstition, since it expected greater effectiveness from the agreement based on the psychology of a barbaric and primitive people with a pseudo-religious mind rather than from a sense of true forms, values and legal obligations.

In our opinion, ecclesiastical diplomacy sought a secular objective, the security of its interests and the world in which it enjoyed prestige and a firm social position, rather than the well-being and eternal salvation of a new Christian people. The aim was to achieve a concrete and obligatory attitude on the Croatian side against a simple and vague promise of a religious and impersonal nature. Ecclesiastical diplomacy thus had its first success and its first triumph over the warlike impulses and warlike purposes, generating facts and, at the same time, within the general picture of history, of Croatian national rights. Instead of behaving like a puer robustus imposing its force-right, the Croatian people submitted as a docile instrument of diplomacy and the spiritual leadership of the Church.

This ecclesiastical attitude towards the "Croatian phenomenon" fits perfectly within the general diplomatic mission of the Church that it assumed since the first centuries of the freedom granted to it by the Emperor Constantine[7].

This opinion, which seems accurate to us, coincides perfectly with the content of the pact between the Croats and Pope Agathon, which means that the method of introducing the barbarian peoples into Greco-Roman culture could vary accidentally, but not substantially. Ecclesiastical rule on the basis of religious-doctrinal and diplomatic unity of action was vigorously defended. This energetic defense of the new power was characterized by restrictions both in the religious-philosophical field and in the political-diplomatic field [8].

In this sense, the attitude of Pope Wales I is extremely characteristic. Barely a century and a half after the Church had achieved its freedom, this pope posed to the Roman Emperor Anastasius the problem of the primacy of ecclesiastical power over imperial power[9].

But the true replacement of the Empire by the Church came at the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, symbolized and inaugurated by Pope Gregory the Great's emphatic question as he looked upon the lost Roman plebs, bereft of governing authority and power, overwhelmed by chaos, penury, and famine. "Where is the people? Where is the senate? The senate no longer exists; the people have disappeared" [10].

From this position of power that had been increasing, imbued with a universal mission, ecclesiastical diplomacy determined its attitude towards the barbarian peoples that were peeking through the window of Greco-Roman civilization. Of course, the Croatian people could not claim a peculiar and different attitude to their affairs and problems. But, unfortunately, this general attitude of ecclesiastical diplomacy assumed in the Croatian case forms and proportions that were extremely pernicious for the historical fate and destiny of Croatia.

Pope Gregory VII is considered one of the greatest popes to ever occupy the throne of Saint Peter. It may seem bold, but we have to express our objection to it. At least in terms of his unhappy intervention in the political-state affairs of Croatia. Together, then, with the purely ecclesiastical reforms, this great Pope made extraordinary efforts in the construction of the Christian feudal system, the main economic basis of the temporal power of the Church.

In this endeavor—which was quite successful—Gregory VII could not overlook Croatia. Its king, Zvonimir (1054-1073), was one of the Pope's subservient feudal lords. Despite the king's popularity, perhaps somewhat exaggerated by "clerical" Croatian historians, the intervention of ecclesiastical diplomacy could not afford such a luxury without producing highly pernicious effects. One of these interventions proved fatal for the Croatian people. Gregory VII wanted to force King Zvonimir to lead a crusade to the Holy Land and liberate Christ's tomb from Saracen hands.

Zvonimir accepted the idea, but not all of his people. From the very beginning of the Croatian people's baptism, there had been a visible current opposed to the Latinizing policies emanating from the Dalmatian cities. This current insisted on greater national independence and was known as the national party. Caught between two fires—Byzantium and Rome—this nationalist movement also incorporated Byzantine arguments of opposition against Rome.

When Zvonimir sought to implement the idea of a crusade, he convened an assembly of the people's representatives. However, the "nationalist" faction opposed to the attempt instigated riots at the assembly, during which, according to some historians, the king was assassinated. Another king, believed to be a sympathizer of the "nationalist" movement, named Slavac, was immediately elected. But Pope Gregory VII found all of this deeply troubling. Therefore, he unexpectedly dispatched armed units from Lower Italy to Croatia, where they captured Slavac and imprisoned him in a monastery, where he died shortly thereafter. Gregory VII even sought another king for Croatia. To this end, he sent a delegate to Holland to request a prince to sit on the throne of the Croatian people, whom the Pope, in a letter, called an "unworthy people."

Thus, ecclesiastical intervention initiated the crisis of the Croatian national dynasty, which would soon culminate in its complete extinction. Anyone who understands the importance of a dynasty in the process of gestation and formation of a nation in the modern sense will realize the fatal nature of Pope Gregory VII's intervention in Croatian dynastic affairs.[11]

To deprive a people of their national dynasty at a crucial moment for their survival and formation as a territorially and spiritually integrated nation is a grave event. We do not claim that the Pope did so deliberately, but rather in the zealous fulfillment of his temporal mission. It is true that Pope Gregory VII did some very favorable things regarding the use of the national language in worship and the freedom of the Croatian bishop, who was imprisoned by the Latin bishops, but his eagerness to assert the secular power of the Church took him too far. His contribution to the weakening of the Croatian national dynasty is not insignificant.

Furthermore, Pope Gregory VII sought to induce the Croatian people to renounce their obligations under the pact with Pope Agatho. Evaluating the attitude of ecclesiastical diplomacy in both cases, its long-standing objective becomes quite clear: to involve the Croatian people in a policy contrary to their interests and will, and to force them to relinquish their obligation not to wage wars of aggression outside their own country. Focusing on these two events, we believe a further, more in-depth analysis is unnecessary.

Since we are already discussing the use of the national language in the liturgy, it is necessary to shed some light on this issue as well, the solutions to which were provided by ecclesiastical diplomacy, and which had profound consequences for the Croatian national community. Indeed, when the first ecclesiastical schism occurred in 863, the Roman Church employed its diplomatic skill, driven by opportunism and cunning.

On that occasion, the bishops of the Dalmatian cities sided with Byzantium. The Croats, on the other hand, with their bishop (episcupus croatensis) in the city of Nin (Nona), remained loyal to Rome. Pope John VIII praises the Croatian national language in the liturgy, names Theodosius a Croatian bishop and submits him directly to the Holy See. But when, 16 years later (in 879), the bishops of Dalmatia returned to the Church of Rome, Pope John X (914-928) wrote to the Croatian king Tomíslaus, urging him to prevent the heretical schismatics from hiding behind the national language in worship.

The denunciations from the bishops of the Dalmatian cities, still under Latin control, continued to reach Rome. Therefore, the same pope sent a letter in 925 to the archbishop of Split, reproaching him for "tolerating such doctrine in his regions, which is contrary to Sacred Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition." He added that he should "exterminate the depraved doctrines and that Holy Mass should be sung only in Latin and not in Slavic" because "it would be ugly and sinful if the son were to act otherwise than his mother commands." All the more so since the Croats "are special children of the Holy Roman Church."

When the regional synod was convened in Split, the Latin majority decided to prohibit the national language in worship, proclaimed the church of that city the metropolitan see for all of Croatia, and subjected the "Croatian bishop" to the bishop of Split. The Pope suspended these decisions only at the personal request of the Croatian bishop Gregory of Nin. But the struggle continued. In response to the persistent denigrating attacks against the Croatian language, its bishop, and its books, Pope Nicholas II (1059-1061) sent his delegate Mainard to Split. The regional synod was convened again, prohibiting the national language in worship, imprisoning the Croatian bishop, and subjecting his church to the jurisdiction of Split. Pope Alexander II (1016-1073) promulgated these decisions.

This two-faced ecclesiastical diplomacy did not go unpunished. Initially, this caused confusion because two contradictory messages and decisions arrived from the same religious center, based on its own exclusive criteria. "We, as is right, praise the Slavic script, invented in its time by Constantine (Saint Cyril), the philosopher, so that praises worthy of God may be sung, and we order that the glory and works of Christ, our Lord, be sung and preached in the same language... It is not contrary to doctrine to sing the Holy Mass and read the Holy Gospel in the same language..." (Pope John VIII at the time of the ecclesiastical crisis and in response to the rebellion of the Latin cities in Dalmatia). But shortly afterward, Popes John X and Nicholas II sanctioned the prohibition of the Croatian national language, stating that it "would be ugly and sinful" to use it. Let us try to clarify the seriousness of this contradiction!

When the Croats arrived in their present-day homeland, they had deeply penetrated the Roman Empire. They became, we might say, both tenants and masters of Diocletian's Palace in Split. This triumphant event was also the lasting cause of the tragic historical fate of the Croatian people. The Croats were strong enough at that time to get there, but they lacked the energy to fully assert their dominance. Placed between rival Rome and Byzantium, they expended their national strength trying to preserve their independence.

Considering the purely cultural aspect of this problem, one author states, “The Latin population in the Croatian state, although initially the leaven of culture, became responsible for the slow and less rapid spread of national culture, rooted in the Croatian national language and liturgy, attempting to exterminate it. Thus, it did great harm to Croatian national culture… The Synod of Split in 1059 had decided 'that no one should dare in the future to celebrate the sacred ministries in the Slavic language but only in Latin and Greek, and that no Slav who did not know Latin well should receive holy orders' [12].

The negative impact of this decision can be seen in the words of Dr. F. Bulic, a prominent Croatian priest and archaeologist: "...The archbishops of Spalato, under these circumstances (the schism of 863, author's note), turned their backs on Rome, siding with Byzantium. Logically, Rome, under these conditions, readily assisted the Croatian bishop in every way... The national language in the liturgy, Rome, and the Croatian bishop, as one, united the entire Croatian people in a single front against the Latins" [13].

This front was precisely what the Popes destroyed, thus depriving the Croatian people, at one of the most decisive moments for their national destiny, of the indispensable organ for national survival.

The Glagolitic Croatian priests—who used the national language—persecuted on the coast, retreated to the interior of the Croatian state—to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slavonia. Here, the combination of insufficient religious instruction, the Church's weak hierarchical organization, and the psychological impact of being persecuted and branded as suspects created an atmosphere conducive to any solution that offered relief. Indeed, according to recent historical research, at that precise moment (the first half of the 10th century, author's note), the neo-Manichaeism now known as Bogumilism appeared in Croatian lands. Its center was Bulgaria, and its founder was the Bulgarian priest Bogumil. This new doctrine soon took root in Croatia, Italy, and France (Cathars, Patarenes)[14].

To ward off evil—heresy and schism—the Church's diplomacy and magisterium spared no means they deemed appropriate. We might even say that the use of violence was accepted as legal. In view of this danger, the Church founded the University of Toulouse in 1229. The inscription on its facade read: Pravos extirpat et doctor, et ignis et ensis (The depraved are exterminated by the doctor, fire, and the sword)[15].

This union of doctrine (doctor), fire (ignis), and the sword (ensis) was able to eliminate the Cathar-Patarene-Albigensian movement in France and Italy without major consequences. But this was not the case in Croatia. As we have already seen, Croatian Glagolitic priests retreated to Bosnia due to persecution. There they found understanding and protection. Ban Kulin (1164–1204) and Ninoslav (1226–1249) gave them their protection, effectively establishing religious tolerance. We have records as early as 1167 of the existence of a Neo-Manichean church in Croatia. At the Albigensian Synod in Saint Felix near Toulouse, the bishop and head of the Neo-Manichean Church of Byzantium reported that a Neo-Manichean Church existed at that time "in Dalmatia" [16].

The Papacy could not reconcile itself to this new development in the life of Christendom. Therefore, Pope Innocent III wrote to the Hungarian-Croatian king on October 11, 1200: "The Ban Kulin... considers them Catholics... even super-Catholics, calling them Christians par excellence" [17].

But Rome could not simply issue warnings. The ideal of Unam Sanctam, later formulated by Pope Boniface VIII, loomed large in the eyes of ecclesiastical diplomacy. Thus, Pope Honorius III had already instructed his legate in Croatia, Acontius, to proceed decisively, with the support of the king, clergy, and people, to exterminate the heretics. From that moment on, for three centuries, the Popes relentlessly suppressed heretics, employing drastic measures of physical force.

The Crusades, organized by the Popes during the 13th century, were exceptionally cruel. Among the organizers of the Crusades, the Archbishop of Kaloc (Hungary), Benedict, and the Hungarian-born Archbishop of Split, Ugrin, were particularly prominent. "From the surviving letters of Pope Innocent IV and a brief record of his secret letters from 1245-47, published by Father G. Abate (G. Abate, Lettere "secretae" d'Innocenzo IV) in 1955, this pope decided... to organize the crusade against Bosnia. To expedite the matter, the pope appointed Bishop Benedict of Kaloc as his legate. "Because the Hungarian-Croatian king Bela refused to participate in the crusade... Benedict informed the pope of his decision to carry out the crusade on his own." Accepting this initiative, the pope asks the archbishop in the letter of August 3, 1246, to proceed "viriliter et potenciar" [18]. But this decision was in fact carried out by the Archbishop of Split, Ugrin [19]. The combination, consequently, of the doctor, fire, and sword was very pronounced. The sword and fire sometimes carried the preponderance. The persecuted were burned alive, tens of thousands were taken captive, and their possessions were distributed.

The cruelty of the methods used even forced Bishop Ivan of Bosnia to resign on one occasion, unable to bear witnessing the suffering of the persecuted Bosniaks. Despite this, Pope Gregory IX asked him to remain in his post and continue "viriliter et potentr" the extermination of the heretics and enemies of the holy cross and the faith [20]. It cannot be denied that the atrocities later, especially in the 15th century, did not diminish, with the doctor increasingly replacing the sword and fire, but the impact of the violence could not be erased from the conscience of the persecuted, however much the Franciscan sermons might have done so under different circumstances. For a long time, there was "great bloodshed" (non sine magna efusine sanguinis). Those who felt this way in their own flesh "for the sake of Christ," as Pope Honorius III formulated it, will hardly accept it as their own.

What is most strange is that, at the same time, while ecclesiastical diplomacy proceeded in this way without tact or restraint, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that personal conscience is the supreme criterion of human conduct. If it finds something wrong, even faith in Christ itself, it would be wrong, he says, for someone to disobey their conscience. Ecclesiastical diplomacy held a different view. From this erroneous position, it also proceeded in our Croatian case, causing us incalculable damage.

To appreciate the full magnitude of this damage, we must not forget that precisely at that historical moment, the Turks appeared at the doorstep of the Croatian people. We have already mentioned that, during the first struggle for the national language in the liturgy, many elements of discontent had accumulated. After the Crusades, where there was a great outpouring of blood, an atmosphere conducive to any solution was created. One of these was brought by the Turks with their Islamic religion. The Bogumili, persecuted and traumatized physically and morally for centuries, were easy prey for Islam.

The Turks' military prowess, the promises of preserving material possessions and social standing for those who embraced Islam, and Islamic religious tolerance in general were decisive factors. Bosnia fell to the Turks with little resistance. A spiritually divided people lacks the essential capacity for resistance in times of crisis.

The Bogumilis, therefore, embraced Islam relatively quickly and thus transformed from a persecuted people into a privileged class. From then on, they held the political and social initiative. The failure of the Christian alliance of fire and sword became the source of the Turkish-Islamic success in that part of Croatian lands, with the growing autonomy and even independence within the rest of Croatia, which had been weakened after the extinction of the national dynasty (1097) and its personal union (common kings) with Hungary (1102).

But ecclesiastical diplomacy deemed it necessary to extend its patronage over Croatia even in the future. Popes Pius II, Julius II, Sixtus IV and V, Leo X, and others encouraged, organized, and supported the Christian front that extended precisely through Croatia. And the reality was this: the daily deaths of Croatians and the more symbolic than real aid from the Christian world, conducted through ecclesiastical diplomacy. For four hundred years of continuous war, Croatia became increasingly fragmented and diminished, while its people—Catholics on one side and Muslims on the other (formerly Bogumili)—grew ever further apart. These struggles, according to approximate estimates, cost the Croatian people more than four million lives.[21]

Of course, with the rise of modern national consciousness movements, Croatia found itself extremely weakened, both numerically and spiritually. Its Christian "allies"—Venice, Austria, and Hungary—each tried to seize a portion of the territory that had "borne the decisive weight" of the struggle against the Turks. "Antemurale christianitatis," a well-deserved title, no longer mattered and was worthless. On the contrary—those who had been dying for centuries, their homeland devastated, monasteries burning, centers of culture for the Christian world at that time in general—were proclaimed "barbarians."

The Venetian stones scattered throughout Dalmatia, erected in buildings while the Croats died, were now deemed to have more importance and value than the blood and the right to self-determination of the Croats. With the fall of Venice, the "apostolic" emperors and kings of Vienna, both masters and servants of the Roman Curia, did not incorporate Dalmatia into the rest of Croatia but proclaimed it "land of the Austrian crown." The same would happen shortly afterward with Bosnia. These were the fundamental causes of the error made by certain Croatian politicians who, given the favorable circumstances, led the Croatian people and Croatia into the Yugoslav political community (1918), the worst possible solution in Croatian history. Remaining faithful to Catholic Christianity, ecclesiastical diplomacy, directly and later through its emperors and apostolic kings, forced Croatia into a policy of desperation.

The situation did not change in the last great war either. The Italian ecclesiastical hierarchy accompanied the Italian army units that entered Croatia as allies and proclaimed themselves occupiers and victors. The enemies of Catholicism—Tito's communist partisans and Dmitry Mihailović's Chetniks—received more aid than the "allied" Croatian army. More than 90,000 Croatians were taken to Italian concentration camps. And what about ecclesiastical diplomacy? It did not recognize the new State of Croatia. They say: this is the general principle of that woman's conduct.

Fine, but what does this mean? An opportunism that leans toward the side of accomplished facts, of superior force. Didn't the Vatican know how much the Croatian-Catholic people suffered in monarchical Yugoslavia? Didn't it know that they were a Catholic people oppressed by another, Orthodox people? Didn't Church diplomacy know that the Croatian people fought for self-determination? Monsignor Casaroli recently said that the Church is always there where it comes to defending the rights of the oppressed. Wasn't it, therefore, the duty of Church diplomacy to recognize Croatia and thus help it secure its right to self-determination? Does the Kremlin, perhaps, only help communist movements after their triumph? Is there an international Christian solidarity similar to that of international communism?

Instead, the priest-officers of the Italian army witnessed acts of violence of all kinds, perpetrated by their compatriots against the Croatian population in accordance with C. Bastianini's declaration of genocide, proclaimed in the Croatian city of Zadar on April 12, 1942, without them or their Vatican diplomacy raising a single voice of public protest. On the contrary, Cardinal Tisserant and his associates were vehemently opposed to Croatian "cruelty."

During the wars against the Turks, the Church canonized priests who wielded the sword and the cannon (John Capistrano), while the popes themselves (Pius II and Julius II) led crusades against "infidels." Yet the Croatian Franciscans, forced to surrender their monastery, church, and school (like Casino in Italy) to the German and Croatian armies, were burned alive by Tito's communists without ecclesiastical diplomacy raising a single voice in their defense. Is Islam, a "heresy of Christianity" (A. Toynbee), a greater enemy of Christianity than communism? Has the morality of ecclesiastical diplomacy changed so much that what was good in past centuries has become evil in the present?

After this experience, can the Croatian people trust Vatican diplomacy? Can they impartially witness its actions, even in matters that affect them so directly? Where is the justification for this diplomatic action? Did the Vatican celebrate the infamous Protocol (1966)? Wasn't even the head of the Church in Croatia, Cardinal F. Seper, opposed to it? Didn't Vatican diplomacy know that the Croatian army's officer corps between 1941 and 1945 was largely composed of young Croatian intellectuals educated in Catholic Action? Who exterminated that youth? The communists and the Serbian Orthodox, sworn and eternal enemies of Catholicism and Croatia. Consequently, can Croatians remain indifferent when Vatican diplomacy, even the Holy Father personally, extends such a solemn reception to Tito, ultimately responsible for the cruel deaths of hundreds of thousands of Catholic and Muslim Croatians, along with Cardinal Stepinac?

We already know what the answer would be, if anyone deigns to reply: "That youth wasn't good!" Then we beg to know: where was, or where is, the good Catholic youth? Not even there. We have seen it in the ranks of the Italian army. What, then, does all this mean? The general failure of ecclesiastical education, or, if the sole blame is to be placed on Croatian youth, a diplomatic ploy to save their own skin at the expense of the weak?

Fine, but what does this mean? An opportunism that leans toward the side of accomplished facts, of superior force. Didn't the Vatican know how much the Croatian-Catholic people suffered in monarchical Yugoslavia? Didn't it know that they were a Catholic people oppressed by another, Orthodox people? Didn't Church diplomacy know that the Croatian people fought for self-determination? Monsignor Casaroli recently said that the Church is always there where it comes to defend the rights of the oppressed. Wasn't it, therefore, the duty of Church diplomacy to recognize Croatia and thus help it secure its right to self-determination? Does the Kremlin, perhaps, only help communist movements after their triumph? Is there an international Christian solidarity similar to that of international communism?

, the priest-officers of the Italian army witnessed acts of violence of all kinds, perpetrated by their compatriots against the Croatian population in accordance with C. Bastianini's declaration of genocide, proclaimed in the Croatian city of Zadar on April 12, 1942, without them or their Vatican diplomacy raising a single voice of public protest. On the contrary, Cardinal Tisserant and his associates were vehemently opposed to Croatian "cruelty."

After this experience, can the Croatian people trust Vatican diplomacy? Can they impartially witness their actions, even in matters that affect them so directly? Where is the justification for this diplomatic action? Did the Vatican celebrate the infamous Protocol (1966)? Wasn't even the head of the Church in Croatia, Cardinal F. Seper, opposed to it? Didn't Vatican diplomacy know that the Croatian army's officer corps between 1941 and 1945 was largely composed of young Croatian intellectuals educated in Catholic Action? Who exterminated that youth? The communists and the Serbian Orthodox, sworn and eternal enemies of Catholicism and Croatia. Consequently, can Croatians remain indifferent when Vatican diplomacy, even the Holy Father personally, extends such a solemn reception to Titus, ultimately responsible for the cruel deaths of hundreds of thousands of Catholic and Muslim Croatians, along with Cardinal Stepinac?

The economic situation of Croatia

Sime Djodan

I sincerely regret this, but I must point out that, in presenting these highly interesting data, I am referring only to the consequences (of a general economic malaise in the country)[22]. According to my deep conviction, and following the economic development of Croatia over the last hundred years, as far as I could see and have access to the necessary information, the main cause of this kind of economic situation (bad - Translator's Note) in socialist Croatia lies in the impoverishing drain on the national product.

This drain on Croatian wealth has persisted for a century now, or, more precisely: since the Hungarian-Croatian Compromise of 1868, considerable sums have been taken out of Croatia and spent abroad. Naturally, always with some excuse in view of a "higher" objective. This economic drain was accompanied by the emigration of the most capable segment of the population, as economic emigration. Thus, we were doubly depleted—economically and biologically. We must put an end to such a policy, or we will expose our very existence to grave danger. If we were previously exploited by the Austro-Hungarian monarchy or in hegemonic, capitalist Yugoslavia under semi-colonial conditions, this is not surprising, because that was the natural order of those states and systems. However, today it is incompatible with the essential principles of our self-management socialism that the national product created by our working people be separated from them and managed by a supernational bureaucracy according to its own whims and, often, against our interests.

Notwithstanding the published data concerning the current situation regarding income distribution and the various anomalies in the capital market and other aspects of reproduction, I will present here recent data compiled by the Planning Institute of our Republic as well as by the Planning Institute of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia.

First, here are the data relating to the participation of each of the republics in the creation of the gross product of the SFSR of Yugoslavia for the year 1970:

Total de la R.F.S.Y.:	100,0
Bosnia y Herzegovina:	12,2
Montenegro:	1,6
Croacia:	28,3
Macedonia:	5,1
Eslovenia	15,5
Servia junto con Kosovo y Metohija	37,3
Servia propiamente dicha:	25,6
Kosovo:	2,0
Voivodina:	9,7

(Source: Rikard Snajner, "Some Problems of Yugoslavia's Development Policy" in "Ekonomist", Nos. 2-3 of 1970, p. 265).

Below is a table showing participation in investments:

Planned investments for the years 1966-1970:

Total de la R.S.F.Y.:	100
Bosnia y Herzegovina:	14,9
Montenegro:	5,2
Croacia:	22,4
Macedonia:	8,6
Eslovenia:	12,2
Servia:	36,1

Investments made in the same period:

Bosnia y Herzegovina:	12,1
Montenegro:	3,5
Croacia:	22,4
Macedonia:	8,8
Eslovenia:	13,1
Servia:	40,1

(Some Fundamental Elements of the Development of Republics and Regions, Belgrade 1970, p. 17).

It is evident from these elements that not all underdeveloped regions are equally favored with investment. Among them, Bosnia and Herzegovina are last, Montenegro is somewhat better, then Macedonia, and Serbia receives the best treatment, being relatively the most developed among the underdeveloped republics.

As for Croatia, the drain of wealth during this period is very large. If we consider the difference between its share of investment and its share of the national product, the difference reaches 5.9% of our national product. That is, Croatia participates more in the realization of the product than in investment. This 5.9% represents a net outflow of wealth from Croatia (to other regions). To this evasion must be added that obtained through the unreal exchange rate, and this is indeed far too large, because Croatia contributes, in all these areas, close to 1.8 billion dollars.

Today, it is generally agreed that the real exchange rate for exporters is 18 dinars, not 12.5, because the parallel market rate averages 1 dollar = 18 dinars (Ante Cicin-Sajin, "The Foundations of the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade System of Yugoslavia for the Medium Loan Period," in "Ekonomist" No. 2-3 of 1970, p. 538). The draining of Croatian wealth through this mechanism is truly staggering. There are, however, concerns that a portion is repaid—which is accurate, because otherwise, the drained sum would be astronomical, reaching around 715 billion old dinars.

But let's suppose this drain were only a quarter; we still have a sum of 175 billion old dinars, or 6% of Croatia's national product. If we calculate the other forms of drain, we arrive at an enormous amount, exceeding a third of the accumulation during the reform period and approaching half. And if we consider the high contributions to the federation, we arrive at a total drain of almost 30% of the national product. All this money is spent almost exclusively outside of Croatia, causing the standard of living in Croatia to decline to the average Yugoslav level.

The drain of wealth from Croatia is not unique to the reform period, even though it is somewhat higher during this time due to the anti-reformist redistribution policies. Rather, it is a permanent feature of the post-war period in the SSF of Yugoslavia. Our colleagues at the Planning Institute of the Socialist Republic of Croatia have rightly pointed out that investments in Croatia throughout this post-war period were 20% below the Yugoslav average. According to data compiled by Milos Sindjic, Croatia's share of investments was the lowest in Yugoslavia during the period 1947-1965.

Investment share of GDP as a percentage:

RSF Yugoslavia:	32,9
B.H.:	37,7
Montenegro:	74,7
Croacia:	28,8
Macedonia:	49,4
Eslovenia:	29,0
Servia:	31,4

(Milos Sindjic, Economic Development and Economic Relations Between Nations, in the book Relations Between Nations and the League of Communists of Serbia, Belgrade 1969, pp. 58-59).

Thanks to this investment policy, Croatia's share of Yugoslavia's industrial production fell from 33% in 1925 to 29% in 1946 and then to about 19% in 1965. (See: A Comparative Review of Medium-Term Plans Implemented in the Socialist Republics during the Period 1966-1967, published by the Planning Institute of the Republic of Croatia).

It is clear that Croatia, with regard to industrial development, suffered unequal treatment. Since Yugoslavia was still an underdeveloped country, industrialization was the primary method of development. Croatia accepted the so-called "raw materials theory," ceding industrialization to other "raw material riches" who, using our accumulated wealth, built their autarky. Croatia was pressured to promote tourism in order to generate dollars for Yugoslavia's chronically negative balance of payments.

This deficit, in turn, resulted from the importation of industrial machinery installed in other republics. Our entire coastline is subservient to foreign interests, and an economy has developed there that prioritizes quick dollar gains. However, if tourism declines, Croatians will be forced to emigrate even further. Tourism under these conditions is not an acceptable path for us, because all the positive effects go to others, leaving us with uncertainty about the future and the currently low wages of our tourism workers.

I believe we must urgently undertake the industrialization of Croatia, because if there are raw materials available in Yugoslavia, there are also raw materials in Croatia: naphtha, aluminum, timber, agricultural inputs, etc. We also have port facilities and a skilled workforce, placing us in a favorable position for industrialization, as happened with other maritime countries, such as Japan and Italy, developing coastal industries for which there is an abundance of cheap raw materials on the international market. Our orientation towards the international market is correct, because the Yugoslav market is chaotic and fragmented, and we, in a market lacking homogeneity, pay disguised customs duties as if they were one-way, a situation that does not occur anywhere else in the world.

The drain on our revenue, which amounts to almost half of our total accumulated income, is nothing other than a system of imposed and disguised customs tariffs. This system would be unacceptable even in a homogeneous Yugoslav market, because it is excessively high. Our economy, by its very structure, is more integrated with the global economy than any other national economy in the FSR of Yugoslavia, and therefore not as invested in the Yugoslav market as those responsible for this high level of revenue drain seem to believe. The future development of our economy will depend on the distribution mechanism adopted in the upcoming five-year plan.

If the distribution criteria remain as they are now (and this is what our planners think, because they believe that by 1975 only 65% of the national product will remain for the economy), then we will not achieve the progress and reorganization of our economy to the extent objectively possible and necessary for Croatia. This is the subject of the material we are discussing. My remarks are specifically aimed at these distribution projections, because one might get the impression that we do not accept any changes to the distribution of the national product beforehand.

However, according to the information and data from the Federal Planning Institute, it would seem that this is indeed the case and that Croatia is content with the current state of the distribution of the national product. This is something we must categorically refute, demanding strict distribution agreements according to which 71% should remain at the disposal of the economy and 29% for the commune, the republic, and the federation. I emphasize that, in my opinion, 12% of the national product is sufficient for the federation and the functions that objectively fall under its responsibility.

In other words, the federation should not accumulate the income of some for the benefit of others in the future. It is important to highlight the principle that each nation should develop through its own efforts, and additional external aid should only come according to the goodwill and interests of those providing it.

Distribution refers not only to the product currently created but also to accumulated capital and the effects derived from investments of that capital. Our capital is also held in the former federal banks and re-export companies, and in my opinion, it amounts to about 30% of the total, because that is our share of the total federal funds, if not an even higher percentage. Therefore, we must clearly state that these funds must be returned to the Croatian working class (economy). I do not wish to discuss the technical details of the restitution of the aforementioned capital concentrated in the former federal banks and re-export companies now, because this is the easier part—the essential point is that it be known and publicly stated that we will not relinquish our financial funds.

The current shortage of bank funds in Croatia is the result of the systematic destruction of the Croatian banking system and the concentration of Yugoslav capital in Belgrade. Currently, Croatia has a 16% share in banking operations, but at one time (in 1925), Zagreb alone held 55% of the total Yugoslav financial capital, concentrated in its banks. The bank funds currently available to us are insufficient to adequately support our economy, while the former federal banks have become independent entities, such as the banks in Belgrade—an exemplary form of "denationalization," or rather, the expropriation of the entire Yugoslav economy for the benefit of the bankers—which exploit the surplus value of our working class's labor with usurious methods. This policy must be changed, and that is only possible if the capital held by these banks and their re-exporters is returned to those from whom it was taken.

Our contribution to the creation of Yugoslavia's national product and social production is indeed high, at 28.3%. However, due to the significant drain on national product, this policy lowers our consumption index relative to the average Yugoslavian average. Furthermore, our investment spending is below this average. In addition, our production equipment is very outdated, and it is only through its above-average utilization, improved workforce organization, and greater investment efficiency that we are able to maintain our usual share of total Yugoslavian production.

The same is also achieved through the transfer of investments from non-economic to economic sectors, and so on. For example, Zagreb is short 85,000 housing units, not to mention the necessary facilities for public offices, schools, and healthcare. Given all this, the assertion that we contribute significantly to total Yugoslavian national product does not mean that we contribute equally to its consumption, which we must inevitably align with. The somewhat more complex picture of Croatia is visible in our relative financial position:

The credit potential of the banks of the republics in 1969:

R.F.S.Y.:	100,0%
Bosnia-Herzegovina:	7,8%
Montenegro:	2,4%
Croacia:	17,7%
Eslovenia:	9,0%
Servia:	50,3%

(Analysis by the Chamber of the SFR Croatia, XI/70).

Consequently, Croatia's contribution to the creation of social product in 1970 was 28.3% of the total Yugoslav output, while its contribution to credit potential was only 17.7%. In other words, the productive output of the Croatian economy was above the Yugoslav average, while its expenditure was significantly below it. Taking into account financial potential and consumption, within the Yugoslav relations, Croatia was an underdeveloped republic.

It should not be forgotten that the most dynamic and strongest regions are those with the most capital, not those that produce the most, because industrial regions today are linked to financial regions just as agricultural regions were to industrial regions in their time. This must be kept in mind in light of the future obligations of the Croatian economy to the Federation and to the so-called underdeveloped regions, which, on the contrary, are wealthier in capital than Croatia. For every 100 dinars of social product, the Croatian economy had only 65 dinars of capital, Bosnia and Herzegovina 67, Montenegro 138, Macedonia 294, Slovenia 121, and Serbia 137.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, and Croatia produced 56.4% of the Yugoslav national product in 1969, while Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia produced 43.6%. At the same time, the capacity for consumption was the inverse. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia possessed 38.3% of the financial and credit capital, while Serbia, Macedonia, and Montenegro possessed 61.7% of the same and of the Yugoslav capacity for consumption. This distortion of financial, productive, and consumption capacity was created by the bureaucratic-centralist decisions of the Federation and not by the natural forces of the republics' economies. If this disproportion is not changed or brought to an end in accordance with the productive capacity of each republic, the western regions (of Yugoslavia, Translator's note) will increasingly find themselves in a position of inferiority.

And, as is evident, Croatia is already severely disadvantaged in terms of its financial and consumption capacity, while Bosnia and Herzegovina, in addition to this, also suffers from a lower productive capacity. If things remain as they are, these economic anomalies will also generate political anomalies, misunderstandings, and conflicts that are not products of magical forces, but of economic interests. Logically, all of this can be resolved by restoring the balance between production capacity and financial and consumption capacity. Furthermore, if we accept the principle of social self-management, then it becomes possible to spend only what we produce; that is, everyone should live from their work and not from financial speculation.

(Author's note: All data on the financial capacity of each republic were taken from the aforementioned study by the Economic Chamber of the Federal Republic of Croatia, dated November 1970.)

Translated by F.N.

The first Croatians in Argentina

Narciso Binayan Carmona

Slavic immigration to Argentina, as to the rest of the Americas, was quite late and only became significant at the end of the 19th century. However, it is precisely our country—and to a certain extent, and with some reservations, Chile—that first saw the arrival of people from Slavic countries. And what is even more interesting, specifically from Croatia and, in general, from the province of Dalmatia.

From every point of view, the most intriguing case is that of Miguel de Aragoces, whom two authors of the stature of Lafuente Machain[23] and Boyd-Bowman[24] agree was originally from Ragusa. Lafuente Machain is responsible for a detailed catalog of all the conquerors of the Río de la Plata and Paraguay between 1535 and 1580. This eminent Argentine researcher, now deceased, provides a brief sketch of the figure, to which Boyd-Bowman, in his monumental dictionary of conquerors of all the Americas, currently being published in the United States, fully endorses.

One might assume that the intended spelling was "Aragonese," but in that case, the "de" would not have been used, and indeed, several people with that surname appear in the spelling (i.e., without the "de"). While it is generally accepted, according to both scholars, that Ragusa was his city of origin, the question remains whether it was Ragusa in Dalmatia or Ragusa in Syracuse. Supporting the former is the fact that it was a seaport, much more active and important then than it is now, while the latter is located inland in Sicily. This contradicts the logic of immigration on the one hand, and on the other, the overwhelming majority of peninsular immigration to America in those centuries came from the north, especially from the Ligurian coast. Therefore, Miguel de Aragoces, or rather Miguel de Ragusa, or, if you prefer, Miguel de Dubrovnik, is the first Croatian to settle in Argentina and, moreover, in all of America, including the United States. Moreover, he is the first Slavic person on the continent.

His biography is brief. He was born around 1502 and was master of the ship "La Magdalena"—that is, he was a sailor, further evidence of his Dalmatian origin—the flagship of the expedition, a 200-ton vessel.[25] The fleet, consisting of 16 ships, departed, as is well known, from Sanlúcar de Barrameda on August 24, 1535, and arrived in the Canary Islands in early September, departing from them in early October.

November 30 would be the date of entry into the bay of Rio de Janeiro—the starting point of Slavic and Croatian history in the Americas—and the arrival on what are now the Argentine coast in the last days of January or the first days of February 1536. Miguel is among the settlers of the first Buenos Aires and thus experienced the harrowing days of famine and the siege by indigenous peoples during the winter of that year, 1536.

Finally, after a little over a year in this then inhospitable region, he departed with his ship, on which Don Pedro de Mendoza was traveling, on April 23, 1537. The frustrated Adelantado died on the return voyage, and by the end of August, "La Magdalena" was back in Spain. The first and brief episode of Croatian immigration had come to a close. Aragoces was even called as a witness in the trial initiated by Juan Vázquez Orejón, father of the field marshal Juan Osorio, who had been stabbed in Rio de Janeiro, to prove his son's innocence of the charge of treason. This marks the end of what is known about Miguel.

In that same 16th century, the second chapter of this initial story begins. During the conquest of Chile, Andrea, a heroic soldier known as "the valiant," emerges as a brilliant figure with almost legendary proportions. All that is known of him is that he was of humble origins "but of extraordinary strength and courage" (Thayer Ojeda). He was in Santiago in October 1555 and perished in the defeat at Lincoya in 1563. Ercilla mentions him in no fewer than three different cantos of "La Araucana," though he describes him sometimes as Genoese, sometimes as Lombard,[26] and the contemporary chronicler Mariño de Loberá[27] agrees with him. However, other accounts claim he was a "slave," that is, a Dalmatian, and modern scholars Fuenzalida Grandón[28] at the beginning of the century and Thayer Ojeda[29] later on, consider both alternatives possible. Since it is unknown in which expedition this fascinating figure arrived in Chile, it is possible that he traveled with one of those that crossed Argentine territory.

With Miguel and Andrea, then, under Charles V and Philip II, a somewhat dubious but reasonably plausible chapter of Croatian immigration begins. Almost two centuries would pass before other compatriots of his arrived in these lands again.

The one who arrived next was a much more lucid figure, certainly an honor to his homeland, though forgotten. He belonged to the Society of Jesus, with which three religious men, natives of Prague, had already arrived between 1690 and 1697, and later several more from other parts of Bohemia and Moravia. In Prague, they were joined by men from Teschen, Schömbrunn, Yglau, Olmutz, Brünn, and other localities, but it cannot be determined whether they were Czechs or Sudeten. There were no Poles, although some were born in Polish territory, and no Slovenes or Slovaks.

Finally, in Father Orosz's expedition, which departed from Lisbon on September 20, 1748, and arrived in mid-January 1749 [30], Nicholas Plantich arrived from Croatia. He came from Vienna in two months and, since December 24 of last year, has been supported by the province. These are the words of Father Orosz himself [31]. The unpublished catalog of the Paraguayan province of 1753 [32] provides the following information: Nicolás Plantich was born in Zagrabia, Croatia, on December 5, 1720. He was in good physical health and had entered the Society of Jesus on October 28, 1736. He had completed three years of philosophy studies and four years of theology, and had professed his vows on December 27, 1749. At that time, he was Prefect of the Convictorio, that is, director of the College of Monserrat in Córdoba, and was a professor of philosophy. Furlong describes him as "an eminent professor of philosophy and theology at the University of Córdoba," and Paucke, with whom he came to America, described him as "a distinguished, learned, and highly esteemed man." In 1765, he was appointed vice-rector of the College of El Salvador in Buenos Aires, and the following year he was promoted to rector. [33] In the Mercedarian convent of Mendoza there is an unpublished work, in Latin, by Plantich[34]. "The rectorship of the Croatian Jesuit in El Salvador was short-lived," since the expulsion of 1767 found him in charge of the residence in Montevideo and thus he appears among those expelled: "Nicolas Plantich, native of Agram, Croatia, 47 years of age"[35].

The Croatians who followed him to our country were far from achieving his renown. The earliest, José Radik, "Radichi," is registered in 1804 as a master of chaps and combs, a native of Slavonia. According to the map drawn up by the ward mayor of district 6, Juan Bautista Patrón, he lived on San Ferraín Street (Carlos Calvo), between San José (Perú) and San Pedro (Chacabuco) Streets, at the current 600 block, on the left-hand side going up from the river. In 1809, he appears as "Venetian." In 1807, his likely neighbor (also living in district 6), Marcos Milcobini, claimed to be from Ragusa, and in 1809, "Venetian." It is probable that they were from the same region and that the annexation of the republic to the Italian kingdom on January 31, 1808, may have contributed to his change of nationality. In the 1809 register of foreigners, they appear one after the other, both married to daughters of the country, both owning their own house and a sheet metal factory.[36]

Such are the scant details that can be gathered as a summary of the history of the Croatian community. Nevertheless, a constant, albeit sporadic, presence of that nation in Argentine life from its earliest origins is evident. And it is likely that more thorough research will expand upon this brief overview.[37]

The revolutionary Eugenio Kvaternik

Branko Kadic

On the Centenary of His Uprising 1871-1971

October 1971 marked one hundred years since the memorable and symbolic date when Eugen Kvaternik attempted, through armed revolutionary action, to achieve the liberation and independence of Croatia. As an interesting historical figure, a true revolutionary with romantic and mystical undertones, it is necessary to place him within his historical and psychological context to better understand the motives, causes, and scope of his undertaking—one might even call it quixotic—which, nevertheless, over the years, would become a source of inspiration and a charismatic symbol for new generations of Croatians, even those of today, in their ongoing struggle to achieve national emancipation founded on genuinely democratic principles.

The European year of 1848 was marked by upheavals and revolutions, riots and rebellions. In some cases, social issues prevailed, as in the rebellions in Paris and Vienna; in others, emancipatory and expansionist aspirations prevailed, as in the power struggle of the Hungarian leader Louis Kossuth; and in still others, the desire for liberation and national unification, as occurred in Poland, Italy, and Croatia.

Since 1597, Croatia had been part of the Habsburg Empire as an associated kingdom with sovereign attributes, attributes it never entirely relinquished. The creation of the Danubian Monarchy at the beginning of the 16th century was a historical necessity for the Christian nations of Central Europe in light of the powerful advance of the Ottomans. However, some centuries later, with this danger gone and the Ottoman Empire struggling in retreat, a profound restructuring of the Danubian Monarchy was imperative. The House of Austria and the responsible rulers failed to carry it out, blind and deaf to the changing times and their urgent demands.

On October 23, 1847, the Parliament of Zagreb unanimously decided that Croatian would be the official language in the administration, schools, and judiciary, countering attempts at both Magyarization and Germanization.

But as the Hungarians persisted in their policies, war broke out between Croatia and Hungary in 1848. The Hungarians, at odds with the Crown, fought for complete separation from Vienna, but sought to incorporate the Croatian provinces, which they considered annexed parts of the Holy Crown of Saint Stephen, thus violating the very principles of sovereignty and national rights they invoked in their struggle against the Habsburgs. In contrast, the Croats, like the other Slavs who comprised the Danubian Monarchy and constituted the majority of the population of this multinational community, demanded federalization, in which each people would enjoy broad autonomy within their territory. With the Hungarian rebellion crushed, the young Emperor Franz Joseph imposed absolutism in both Hungary and Croatia, the country that had saved his throne. The punishment was as severe as the reward. Furthermore, he imposed Germanization, a measure that infuriated the population. The situation changed when France and Sardinia defeated the Austrian army at Solferino (July 15, 1859). Under the impact of the defeat and the awakening of national consciousness, Bach's absolutism gradually yielded: the Croatian language was recognized as the official language of the public administration, and the emperor declared himself willing to call elections and unify Dalmatia with Croatia.

Shortly afterward, the illustrious Bishop of Djakovo, Joseph George Strossmayer, advocated in the Vienna Council of State for the equality of all the peoples comprising the Danubian Monarchy, and proposed its federal reorganization, emphasizing the "historical-political individuality" of Croatia, its inalienable right confirmed in the Diet of Cetinje (1527) and later by virtue of the "Pragmatic Sanction," an act by which the Croats recognized in 1712 the right of the female descendants of the House of Austria to the throne of Croatia on the condition of maintaining their former rights and privileges as an independent kingdom.

During the parliamentary debates of 1861 in Zagreb—with constitutional life restored—Croatian deputies Ante Starcevic, founder of the Party of Law (constitutionalist), later known as the "Father of the Nation," and his closest collaborator, Eugenio Kvaternik, argued for the necessity of an independent Croatia, separate from both Austria and Hungary. Kvaternik summarized his argument as follows: "Let us be free and independent, for otherwise both the Hungarians and the Germans will suffocate us in their embrace, being stronger than we are." Starcevic, for his part, distrusted both Austria and Hungary and launched the slogan that the only salvation lay in "God and the Croats," thus instilling self-confidence.

The parliamentary speeches of these two Croatian Dioscuri ushered in a new era in national history, contributing dynamic and unequivocal elements to the incessant upheavals and shifting politics that, given the circumstances, oscillated alternately between Vienna and Budapest, the two centers of power of the Habsburg Empire.

Napoleon III's France aided Italy and Poland in their struggles and aspirations for liberation and national unification, without, of course, neglecting its own interests, including dynastic ones. The Italian defeat at Custozza (1866) followed, along with a major setback for the Italian fleet at Vis. Meanwhile, Prussian troops defeated the Austrians at Königsgrätz. Austria was forced to cede Venice to Victor Emmanuel II. The Hungarians, with Bismarck's support, through a special and highly advantageous agreement, managed to impose the dual system in place of federalism, so that from 1867 onward the Habsburg Empire would be known as the "Austro-Hungarian Monarchy." Croatia itself, without the long-desired and demanded union of the other Croatian provinces taking place, remained within Hungary's sphere of influence due to the compromise signed in 1868. Dalmatia and the Military Frontier were directly dependent on Vienna, while Bosnia-Herzegovina still recognized Turkish sovereignty.

Since the opening of parliamentary sessions in Zagreb was postponed three times in 1871, widespread discontent arose, and the victorious National Party issued a manifesto denying the validity of the Croatian-Hungarian agreement because it had been negotiated without the participation or approval of the majority of voters. Croatia's autonomy was limited, and its attributes as an associated and sovereign kingdom were ignored.

Such was the internal and external context in which Eugen Kvaternik carried out his political, diplomatic, conspiratorial, and revolutionary activities, falling one hundred years ago in a failed civil-military uprising. We have deemed it appropriate to outline this context beforehand to better understand the factors at play, the ideology, and the arena of the struggle, which were also the cause of this man of action's three exiles.

Eugene Kvaternik was born on October 31, 1825, in Zagreb. His father, Romuald, was a professor of philosophy, ethics, and history, and left behind a handwritten overview of world history. He came from a prestigious and patriotic Zagreb family, so young Eugene, from an early age and in his family home, began to familiarize himself with the valuable lessons of history and philosophy, subjects in which he would excel during his secondary studies. After attending theology courses at the major seminary in Senj, he graduated as a lawyer in 1848. He married Rosalia Homotaric, who selflessly shared with her husband the persecution, exile, and numerous hardships and sufferings.

Drawn to the history of his people, Kvaternik had gathered and compiled a vast amount of material and notebooks filled with data and quotations for his planned masterpiece, which was to be the "History of the Croats," but which he was unable to complete. Benedetto Croce believed that a historian is a creative artist who, as a son of his people, observes history as both heir and co-participant in the secular sentiments of that people. Kvaternik sought to unite the historian and the politician in one person, which, moreover, was the essential content of the Party of Right: to combine and merge history with politics, a practice not foreign to European Romanticism. Before Starcevic, the party's founder, he partially achieved this in his writings, speeches, and parliamentary interpretations.

Although different in temperament, character, education, and social origin, the formulas and conceptions of Starcevic and Kvaternik differed only in style, not in spirit, for they shared an identical program and an identical goal. Starcevic, a self-absorbed man, ideologue and political philosopher, moralist and liberal, admirer of the ideals of the French Revolution, of true liberty, equality, and fraternity, modest and stoic in his private life, and skeptical in religious matters, was the one who set the ideological course and political guidelines. Meanwhile, Kvaternik, with a more expansive and extroverted temperament, a romantic, a fervent believer with mystical undertones, full of confidence in his providential mission, was a dynamic man of action to which he dedicated himself with apostolic zeal in the defense and promotion of his people's cause. These differences are reflected in their writings; Starcevic's style is rigorous, concise, and precise, while Kvaternik's is infectious, exuberant, and persuasive.

Persecuted by Bach's absolutist regime and relying on the support of his Russian and Polish friends, Kvaternik arrived in Tsarist Russia in January 1858, remaining in Moscow and St. Petersburg for nine months. His encounter with Russia was disappointing. He believed that Russia, being the great Slavic power and, moreover, having strained relations with Austria at that time, would support the aspirations of the Westernized Slavic peoples. His disillusionment was profound when he learned of the secret program of Russian foreign policy, expansionist and imperialist, further fueled by Orthodox religious fanaticism.

The Croats, being Catholic and partly Muslim, could not count on the understanding, benevolence, or support of "holy Tsarist and Orthodox Russia." Upon learning that his mission as a Russian emissary would consist of promoting such a political-religious program in the Danube basin, he disengaged from his obligations without hesitation and moved to Italy, then to France and Switzerland, where he would carry out tireless revolutionary activity and enlighten the emancipatory aspirations of Croatia. He carried with him the "Secret Book," that is, the program of the Russian penetration policy toward southeastern Europe and the Near East, which he would later try in vain to sell to Napoleon III, the Roman Curia, and Rechsberg, the Foreign Minister in Vienna, during his successive exiles, as it lacked the slightest practical sense.[38]

Under the influence of the French Revolution and the Italian Risorgimento, national movements were forming and strengthening in southeastern Europe. For the Croats, union with the Serbs in a Sureslavia or Yugoslavia was one of numerous political alternatives. What was more urgent, then, was to consummate national unity, to complete the political and administrative integration of all the ethno-historical Croatian provinces, namely: the incorporation of Dalmatia, Istria, Bosnia and Herzegovina into Croatia-Slavonia, governed by the Diet and the Croatian ban (viceroy). The new generation of intellectuals called for more realistic and revolutionary political action against Austria on the eve of Solferino and Magenta. During the accelerated process of Italian unification, the Croatian political elite sought to align national interests and the struggle for independence with the nascent Italian Confederation, of course without being a part of it or a satellite state.[39]

Bogdan Radica, a Croatian publicist and professor of modern history at Farleigh Dickinson University in the USA, in his insightful study, supported by previously unknown and unpublished documents he discovered in the Tommaseo Archives (Tommaseo Collection) at the National Library of Florence, sheds new light and provides new information and data on Kvaternik's activities in Italy and France. Kvaternik, like other Croatian politicians and writers, sought to connect with the Italian Risorgimento through Niccolò Tommaseo, a prominent Italian writer and leading figure in the public life of the Italian Peninsula.

Tommaseo, of Croatian origin and born in Dalmatia, even wrote a beautiful book in Croatian, full of reflections, entitled Iskrice (Sparks), which compiled Croatian folk poetry. He felt Italian and collaborated closely with the political leaders of the Risorgimento, acting as "the spiritual link between Slavism and Romanism" (Kvaternik), as evidenced by his extensive correspondence with, among others, Viceroy Josip Jelacic, Andrija Brlic, Matija Ban, Vuk Karadzic, Kvaternik, and especially with the academics Ivan Kukuljevic and Konstantin Vojnovic. Tommaseo maintained epistolary contact with all these men until his death in 1874.

This abundant correspondence, still unclassified and unorganized, which is kept in the Tommaseo Collection, reflects great discontent with the political, economic, and social situation prevailing in the Habsburg Empire and also indicates the significant influence of Çavour's astute diplomacy and the dynamic actions of Garibaldi and Mazzini in various circles in Croatia and Hungary on the desire for separation from Austria. Kvaternik, as we have seen, advocated for an independent Croatian state, separate from Austria and Hungary. We find him in Turin, Paris, Florence, and Zurich conspiring with revolutionaries and exiles, representatives of all the nationalities and regions that made up the Danubian Monarchy, in pursuit of greater autonomy or complete separation.

Kvaternik arrived in Paris in April 1859, carrying a letter of recommendation from Çavour that would open many doors for him. He had three meetings with Prince Jerome Napoleon, cousin of Emperor Napoleon III. He gave him a memorandum on the aspirations of the Croatians. Two months later, he published in Paris, without signing it, the treatise "Croatia et la Confédérait Italiane" [40]. The prologue to this pamphlet was written by the well-known French publicist L. Léouzon le Duc, editor of the newspaper L'Observateur. Léouzon, who dealt with Scandinavian, Baltic, and Russian issues, was also familiar with the Croatian question and its importance.

The tenor of his introduction is as follows: The independence and freedom of Italy are proclaimed; why not also proclaim the freedom and independence of the peoples subjugated by Austria-Hungary? Le Duc then refers to the Croats and asks: "What is a Croat to us French, to us Europeans: a savage, a barbarian, a slave of despotism, a terror to civilization and humanity?" Therefore, the Croatian people must speak out and defend their sacred national cause, and he recommends this book, written by "an authoritative interpreter of the people to whom he belongs," so that the reader may learn what the Croatian people have done in their past for the benefit of Europe.

According to the "plan of the work," the book is divided into three parts, subdivided into several chapters. The first part discusses "the services the Croatian people rendered to Christendom, civilization, and humanity"; the second, "Croatian historical rights"; and the third, "how the Croats fulfilled all their obligations to the House of Habsburg, while the latter failed to fulfill its own obligations."

The author then describes the prevailing situation in Croatia during Bach's absolutism, the policy of forced Germanization using the "finis sanctificat media" method. Austria attempts to denationalize the Croats. The national economy is exploited and underdeveloped, especially viticulture, which is subject to onerous taxes to prevent it from competing with the vineyards of the Austrian archdukes. "If this regime continues for another 10 years, the entire population will rise up in arms as guerrillas to shake off this civilized barbarism that creates constant hunger in their homes."

Then Kvaternik leads a "An appeal to Europe" with the motto: quod mihi justum, altera aequum (what is just for me, equal for others). It underscores the need for a radical change in the European political system in order to establish a balance of power among peoples, recognizing different nationalities... The Italian, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Croatian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, etc., nationalities, now politically dead, would be revived, and each, with its achievements and ideas, would contribute to the general progress of humanity.

"You will be free citizens of a great state," Napoleon III told the delegates of five million Lombards, alluding to their liberation from Austrian rule and the imminent unification of all of Italy. All of Europe admired this cry. To the Croats, whose human and divine rights were trampled by Austria, these words instilled the hope that "like the Italians, they will recover the unity, independence, and legal status of their homeland."

Kvaternik then accuses Austria of trying to to break national unity in Croatia by resorting to religious division. He alludes to the numerous missions he sent among the Orthodox population to separate them from their Croatian nationality and instill in them a Serbian character. Before Smith Pavelić, he comments that Kvaternik belongs to the constellation of champions of romantic nationalism, headed in France by Michelet, in Italy by Mazzini, and in Poland by Mickiewicz.

He opposes the domination of the Germans, unified either under the aegis of the Catholic Habsburgs or the Protestant Hohenzollerns, whose union was brought about by the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna. For this reason, he addresses France and Napoleon III, urging them to be champions of this new Europe as they were the creators of the Italian union, since only in this way can the German claim to status possedendi be neutralized, a claim expressed in the Frankfurt Parliament (October 20, 1848) in the statement that "Germany's mission in the East consists of incorporating as satellites to the Danubian peoples lacking the vocation and the right to claim their independence."

Kvaternik returned to Croatia at the end of 1860, actively participated in political activities, acquired great notoriety and was elected national deputy in the 1961 elections. His parliamentary presentations and speeches, and his journalistic writings, in which he maintained the need for radical changes in the structure of the monarchy, aroused great interest among the youth and the most dynamic elements, making him both suspicious and subject to progressive sanctions by the authorities. He could not practice the profession of drowning, so his economic situation was more than precarious. Following the confiscation of a pamphlet dealing with the landings of French and Italian troops on the Croatian coast, Kvaternik was exiled.

During this, his second exile, which lasted from July 1863 to December 1865, we find him very active in Italy, France and Switzerland, establishing "diplomatic" ties and conspiring with Polish, Italian and Hungarian revolutionaries. Then, after a short stay in Zagreb in December 1865, he was exiled for the third time and returned permanently to Croatia in July 1867.

On 8-17-1863 he was received in audience by Prince Jérome Napoleon, on which occasion he gave him a memorandum about the "Danubian Confederation". Prince Jérome was a cousin of Emperor Napoleon III and son-in-law of Victor Emmanuel. The emperor and the prince sometimes differed on political matters, the latter being more liberal and accessible, more sincere in his sympathies. The union of Italy is largely the work of the emperor, but Çavour's strongest collaborator was the prince. Meeting the prince therefore meant getting closer to the emperor. Kvaternik did not manage to establish direct contact with Napoleon III as did Louis Kossuth, a prominent exiled Hungarian politician. However, the three audiences held with Prince Jérome in 1859 and the fourth in 1863 testify to the interest shown by the Court of France in the Croatian question and its political implications in the European context.

Perhaps the most positive result of Kvaternik's activity in exile was to present the true picture of the history and aspirations of the Croatian nation, unmasking the black legend that had been woven for a long time around Croatia, since all the misdeeds and abuses of the Austrian soldiery composed of different nationalities (Austrians, Hungarians, Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Italians, Croatians, services, Romanians, etc.) were attributed solely and exclusively to the Croatian contingents.

Çavour, knowing the real situation, once told Kvaternik: "Unfortunately here they do not know how to distinguish Croats from Austrians. Everything that the Austrian barbarians did is attributed to the Croats." Çavour here reiterated his opinion expressed during the debate in the Subalpine Parliament in 1849 on the occasion of the insurrections in Tuscany, Lombardy and Emilia: "What I object to is this continuous incitement against the Croats. They are poor victims of the blindness of the Habsburgs who use them against the Italians. But we Italians have no right to test ourselves against a people who live to the east of our peninsula." Kvaternik aroused great interest in Italy by assuring political circles of the possibility of turning, through propaganda and other means, the Croatian troops stationed there against Austria.

In that sense he had support from official circles and from Tommaseo and in 1859 he printed in Florence four issues of his Glas, a four-page newspaper, intended to be distributed among Croatian soldiers, stationed in Italy and among intellectuals in Croatia. Only the first issue is preserved in the Tommaseo Archive. Kvaternik notes in his diary that he read his newspaper to Tommaseo, issue by issue, and how Tommaseo found a Florentine printer, named Alessandri, who cast the letters with the Croatian diacritics, without charging him anything. Such was the enthusiasm in those days in the fight for freedom.

Thanks precisely to Kvaternik's tenacity and persuasive power, anti-Croatian sentiment gradually waned in Paris and Italy, and Napoleon's exclamation "Mes braves Croates" (My brave Croats) had its effect. Also in Turin, under Kvaternik's inspiration, a pamphlet entitled Lettere sulla Croazia (Letters on Croatia), written by "B.P.", was published in 1864.

In June 1861, Count Camillo Benso di Cavour died, and Kvaternik established a connection with Garibaldi. "Il Diritto," the mouthpiece of the Garibaldian party, published an article by Kvaternik in 1864 on Croatian political and territorial demands, refuting Italian claims to Istria and Dalmatia. According to "the conspiracy of nations," Garibaldi should have led the revolutionary military expedition against Austria. Many doubts and fears had to be dispelled beforehand, especially concerning the unjustified and exaggerated Italian irredentism. In this regard, Garibaldi wrote to Kvaternik on June 8, 1864, from Caprera:

"Dear sir and brother: I would betray the faith of my entire life if I did not consider that all peoples are equal before liberty and worthy of possessing it as soon as they desire it. In accordance with this principle and this desire, I say that Italy and Croatia are sisters."

The planned joint revolutionary action with the Italians, Hungarians, Croats, Czechs, and Poles did not prosper due to internal dissension, the adverse external situation, and because France was already withdrawing its support for this undertaking. Kvaternik, however, did not lose hope or revolutionary fervor, as can be seen from his diary and his correspondence with Tommaseo.

He is going through difficult economic times, lacking resources, without any security or stability, abandoned by everyone, attacked by Austrian and Russian newspapers, and without any possibility of rebuttal. In this situation, he addresses the Italian Prime Minister, Baron Bettini Ricasoli. Giuseppe Garibaldi also wrote to Ricasoli from Brescia on August 23, 1966, in the following terms:

"Eugenio Kvaternik of Croatia is a very deserving person for our cause, for having dedicated himself to the preparatory work when we had to land on the eastern coast of the Adriatic. He has a wife, and they are both in a very precarious situation. I recommend him to Your Excellency so that you may provide him with some means of subsistence so that he can repatriate or find another way to earn a living."

In his last letter to Tommaseo, dated Milan 14-12-1866 and written in French like all the others, Kvaternik promises him that he will soon inform him about what is happening in Sureslava under the "egis of Russia" and what future lies ahead for Italy's political and commercial interests in Eastern Europe.

With prophetic vision, he outlines the future of Italy and Croatia in the face of the emerging Slavic world: "Know this, dear sir, for Italy there is only this alternative: either to have as a neighbor across the Isonzo River a free, independent, and unified Croatia in all its historical-national parts under the auspices of Italy and for its benefit, or to have a dominant Russia between the Adriatic and the Black Sea under the mantle of Orthodox Serbo-Bulgarianism (destroying the Croatian element for being Western and Catholic) to the terrible detriment of Italy. Oh my God, I greatly fear that Italy will one day horribly atone for all the evil it has inflicted on the Croatian name and nationality because of Austrian villainy and intrigue; that name and that nationality which for four consecutive centuries were 'Italy's bulwark and rampart' against oriental barbarism: Russo-Servianism."

With all possibility of joint revolutionary action from abroad gone, lacking the necessary support and financial resources, Kvaternik returned to Zagreb in July 1867, taking advantage of the amnesty granted to political exiles following the coronation of Emperor Franz Joseph as King of Hungary and Croatia that same year. He returned to prepare the uprising on the Military Frontier, an action he had discussed at length with his friend in exile, in the presence of Rakijas. Meanwhile, he regularly contributed to the newspapers Hervat and Hervauka, writing commentaries on international politics. In addition to his extensive knowledge of the main trends and intricacies of European politics and its key players, he also captivated readers with his vigorous and engaging style. The final issues of Hervatska seem to us today like a prologue to the Rakovica rebellion. The Right Party press was at its peak at that time. After Kvaternik's death, the newspaper Hervatska ceased publication, and several years passed before the party had its own newspaper again. In the first stage of party activity, the press was primarily Kvaternik's work, making this period the most rebellious and dynamic.

Before opening the brief final chapter of Kvaternik's life, it is necessary to explain why he chose the Military Frontier as the setting for his ill-fated uprising. As a consequence of constant Ottoman attacks and invasions since the beginning of the 16th century, a large area with distinctive political and military characteristics was formed within Croatian national territory, bordering Bosnia, extending from the Adriatic to the Drava River. This area, known as the Military Frontier, the Military March, "Vojna Krajina" in Croatian, or "Die Militärgrenze" in German ("Confinia loca et castra finitima"), was called the Military Frontier, the Military March, "Vojna Krajina" in Croatian, or "Die Militärgrenze" in German.

Its extent and jurisdiction varied according to the period, although it was mostly outside the purview of the Dicta and the Viceroy of Croatia. As the relentless Ottoman advance provoked significant migrations of the indigenous population, over time, the devastated and depopulated border region became home to a wide variety of ethnic groups, many of them schismatic. This element would serve both Vienna and Budapest as a pliable instrument to thwart Croatian claims.

Life on the Frontier was entirely militarized. Similar to the "limes" of the Roman Empire, the Frontier is the only example in history of a region where everyone lived as a soldier. Every male between the ages of eighteen and sixty was on active duty. The numerical strength of the regiments varied, but generally reached around 60,000 men. The Croatian establishment, and later the Diet of Zagreb, constantly demanded its political and administrative incorporation and unification with Croatia, especially after the Turkish threat subsided and its existence became anachronistic and irritating. Its dissolution only occurred in 1881 when it was completely demilitarized and incorporated into the civil administration of the Viceroy of Croatia. Vienna took so long to dissolve it because the Military March supplied it with the most disciplined and cheapest military force, as one can imagine.

In the 1860s and 1870s, the Military Frontier was seething with discontent. To the political and administrative oppression must be added the growing impoverishment of the population, despite the great wealth of forests, exploited by others. The "frontier" inhabitants could not emigrate, nor buy or sell land except within the limits of their region and under very strict conditions. Such deprivations and limitations were unbearable in the second half of the last century. The Habsburg Empire failed to adapt and transform itself in time into a political-state structure flexible enough to satisfy the human and national rights of the peoples that comprised it, establishing itself as a true multinational community for the protection and economic well-being of all its members.

Such an atmosphere, in Kvaternik's opinion, was conducive to an attempted uprising. Romantic and idealistic, without any military training, defeated in the elections as a candidate for deputy, yet psychologically mature enough for a revolutionary feat, Kvaternik did not hesitate to decide. He moved to Rakovica in early October 1871, the main epicenter where the rebellion erupted on October 8th, ending four days later with the death of the protagonist and his closest collaborators. Rakovica, therefore, as his most authoritative biographer, Milutin Nehajev, rightly concludes in the aforementioned book, was his third and inescapable calling.

What he had prepared for the first and second revolutions would serve him now. In this third, revolutionary attempt, he would use identical proclamations, identical manifestos, and principles on civil rights that he had drafted many years before in Italy. He expressed the same hope for European aid and the same blind faith in the maturity of the people. Therefore, Nchajev asserts, Rakovica was not the product of a momentary and hasty decision, but the culmination of a lifetime. It was not merely an idea and a concept, but an action and a work, dreamed of and planned in every detail. It did not depend on political tactics, for it was a vocation, a lifelong mission.

Without mythologizing the historical episode itself, today, a century later, it is necessary to recognize that this heroic and quixotic act by Kvaternik yielded positive results. For the ongoing struggle for individual and national freedom requires inspiration and examples of those who were willing to sacrifice their lives for such noble ideals.

The conspiracy of Count Peter Zrinski and Marquis Francis Christopher Frankopan

Milan Blazekovic

The Decline of the Zrinski and Frankopan Families (On the occasion of the third centenary of their tragic deaths in Wiener Neustadt, April 30, 1671)

Since Eugenio Kvaternik, a renowned Croatian politician and revolutionary, was elected in 1871 as president of the Committee for the Commemoration of the Bicentenary of the Death of Count Peter Zrinski and Marquis Francis Christoph Frankopan, which occurred on April 30, 1671, in Wiener Neustadt, as a tragic epilogue to the failed attempt to defend the Croatian constitution against the Habsburgs' policies of absolutism, centralization, and Germanization, the Croatian nation—with few exceptions, it should be noted—has not ceased to commemorate this historical event. The memory of these two champions of Croatian liberty has, over time, become a widespread national devotion.

The first interruption to the established practice of commemorating Zrinski and Frankopan occurred precisely in 1871, when the Viennese court suspended constitutional liberties and the Croatian Diet for ten years, following the failed revolutionary attempt by Eugenio Kvaternik.

After the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the solemn transfer of Zrinski and Frankopan's remains from Vienna to Zagreb in 1919, the commemorations on April 30th did not significantly alter their original meaning. While Serbian government circles in Belgrade saw, or wanted to see, these demonstrations as anti-Habsburg and therefore a kind of defense against the resurgence of pro-Habsburg tendencies in certain Austrian, Hungarian, and Croatian circles, the Croatian nation used these occasions to reaffirm its right to freedom and national independence, which had been severely curtailed in the new state community: the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.

During the royal dictatorship (1929-1934), established on January 6, 1929, as a consequence of the assassination of Croatian members of parliament in Belgrade on June 20, 1928, all Croatian national demonstrations were banned, and consequently, so were the commemorations of April 30.

Finally, after a quarter-century hiatus, representing the third ban for ideological and socio-political reasons—that is, from 1945 to 1970—the desire to honor not only Zrinski and Frankopan, but also Esteban Radic on the centenary of his birth and Eugenio Kvaternik on the centenary of his death, resurfaced in 1971, despite the ineffective communist regime and as a consequence of a resurgence of national sentiment in Croatia. Solemn commemorative events, symposia, and conferences were organized.

Some newspapers and publications praised the heroes of Wiener Neustadt and explained the significance of their struggle. "Political sovereignty is, therefore, the first condition for economic and cultural sovereignty, and not the other way around, as all our utopians have believed to this day," concluded one of the commentators in a Zagreb newspaper in his significant article. Thus, the book of Croatian history, almost hermetically sealed for 25 years, is reopened in Croatia, with the aim of showing younger generations who the Zrinski and Frankopan families were, what enduring values they defended, and how and why they failed in their noble endeavor.

I. The Zrinski and Frankopan Families

Count Peter Zrinski and Marquis Francis Christopher Frankopan were great descendants of the most ancient Croatian nobility, which for six centuries actively participated in the political and cultural life of the Croatian nation, shaping the course of its history.

First to appear on the political scene were the princes of Bribir, from the Subic tribe, one of the twelve tribes of the early medieval Croatian tribal organization. Later, this organization was replaced by the feudal system known in Croatian and Hungarian territory as the "donate system," which possessed peculiarities that distinguished it from the Western feudal system.

During the Croatian national dynasty, the Subic resided in the Bribir fortress near the city of Split, electing from among their ranks the "comes" (zupani) of the Bribir "comitatus" (zupanija). In the 13th century, they controlled all the territories between the Krka and Zrmanja rivers and the sea, as well as the Roman cities of Split and Trogir.

With the coronation of King Koloman as Croatian king, supreme power of the state was transferred to the North, to Hungary, where the king resided. Representing him in Croatia and Dalmatia (i.e., the Roman cities of Dalmatia) was his younger brother or son as "dux" (herceg), or, when there were none, the banus totius Sclavoniae, as Croatia and Dalmatia together were designated. During the reign of the Árpád dynasty, these "banus" were always Hungarian, with only one or two "maritime banus" being Croatian, subordinate to the "banus totius Sclavoniae."

This continued until a man like Paul, Prince of Bribir, rose up, forcing the king in 1283 to grant him the title of "hanus" (han) of Croatia. He became more powerful than even the Banus Totius of Slavonia. His power extended over the tribes of the Kacic of Omis, already amalgamated with the Naretani, who were constantly at war with Venice. On May 12, 1290, Venice signed a peace treaty with Ban Paul, establishing him as a strong and independent authority. During the dynastic struggles of the later Arpad dynasty, Ban Paul and his brothers secured recognition of their right of succession to the title of Banus Maritimus (Primorski Ban) and ruled Croatia and Dalmatia almost as a sovereign, as all the other grandees became his vassals.

His son, Mladin II, ended up in exile in Hungary, while his nephew, George III, was forced to cede the old family estate, the city of Ostrvica in southern Croatia, to King Louis I in 1347, receiving in return the city of Zrin in Slavonia. Hence the surname Zrinski, from now on. Thus, the main branch of the Bribir princes, those of the Ostrovica lineage from Maritime Croatia (present-day Dalmatia), the center of the Croatian state and the main stage of Croatian history, was displaced to Slavonia, where it remained condemned to political passivity until the Turkish invasion, some one hundred years later, brought it back into public life in Croatia.

While the Zrinski princes were removed from the center, the Krk princes' family, so named for the island of Krk (Veglia) in the Adriatic, their main seat, rose to prominence in politics. Later, they would adopt the surname Frankopan.

One of the first mentioned was Prince Dujam (who died in 1163), after whom the family acquired the comitatus of Modruse, Vinodol, and Gacka, located on the Croatian coast, opposite the island of Krk. During the reign of Prince Frederick II, his nephew Leonard compiled the "old good customs" according to which justice was administered in Croatia. This resulted in the "Vinodol Code," from 1288, the oldest legal code in the Croatian language, written in Glagolitic script. Prince John (Anz) V was the first of the family to assume the office of ban (viceroy) of Croatia and Dalmatia. His son, Prince Nicholas IV, ban of Croatia and Dalmatia, traveled to Rome in 1430 with a retinue of 700-800 people. There he was solemnly received by Pope Martin V, who confirmed his claim to be a descendant of the Roman Fragepani. From then on, the princes of Krk were known as Frankopan.

Of the nine lines of direct descendants of Nicholas IV, between 1543 and 1579, all but the Trzac-Slunj line became extinct. Its last descendant was Francis Christopher Frankopan, beheaded on April 30, 1671.

However, from the mid-15th century and for a period of one hundred years, the most renowned line was that of Ozalj, as Stephen II, the son of Nicholas IV, was twice Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia (1416-1481). His son Bernardino (1453-1530) warned the German estates assembled at the Diet of Nuremberg on September 10, 1522, about the danger to Germany should Croatia fall to the Turkish invasion.

However, faced with their indifference, he did not attend the Croatian Diet of Cetin on January 1, 1527, to elect Archduke Ferdinand of Habsburg, brother of Charles V, as Croatian king. Nor did his son, Christopher I Frankopan, who instead convened the Croatian and Hungarian ignates at the Diet in Dubraya near Cazma, which elected John Zapolya, a Turkish protégé, as king. King Zapolya appointed Christopher Ban of Croatia. In the ensuing struggles between the two kings, Christopher I Frankopan perished near Varaždin on September 27, 1527.

With Christopher's death and the subsequent victory of Ferdinand of Habsburg, the glory of the Frankopan dynasty faded, as there was no one else to replace Christopher. At this point, however, fate once again led the Zrinski princes to prominence. Nicholas III Zrinski (1493-1534), in the dynastic struggle, a supporter of King Ferdinand I to protect his possessions, agreed to a succession pact with the Croatian ban John Karlovic, the last member of the Krbaya princes of the Kurjakovic lineage, greatly increasing his holdings after the former's death.

His son, Count Nicholas IV Zrinski, ban of Croatia from 1542 to 1556, made a succession pact with his brother-in-law Stephen III Frankopan, of the Özalj branch of the Frankopan, concerning some 25 fortresses distributed from the Croatian coast to near Zagreb. King Ferdinand I granted him the Mesopotamian territory of Medjimurje, including the city of Çakovác, in northern Croatia. The name Zrinski achieved worldwide fame for his heroic death on September 7, 1566, defending the fortress of Szigeth, besieged by Sultan Suleiman II. The son of the "Defender of Szigeth," George III Zrinski, after losing all the fortresses and possessions between the Una and Kupa rivers, settled permanently in Cakovac. Having embraced the Reformation, he founded the Croatian printing press in Nedelisce (Medjimurje) in 1574, where, in 1605, the Croatian translation of István Verböezy's codification of Hungarian-Croatian customary law, Decretum opus juris consuetudinarii inclyti regni Hungariae, was printed.

From 1616 to 1622, the Croatian ban was Nicholas IX Frankopan of the Trzac-Brinje line. His brother, George III, moved to Italy around 1610, founding the Friulian branch of the Frankopan family, while his younger brother, Vuk II Christopher, who had taken possession of the remainder of the inheritance in Croatia, was the father of Count Francis Christopher Frankopan and Anna Catherine, wife of Count Peter Zrinski.

The last Frankopan to hold the title of ban, Nicholas IX, was succeeded by another Zrinski, Count George IV, from 1622 to 1626. He participated in the Thirty Years' War at the head of the ban's army and died suddenly in Pressburg (now Bratislava) in 1620, apparently poisoned. He is the father of the last descendants of the Zrinski lineage: Count Nicholas VI Zrinski (1647-1664) and Count Peter II (IV) Zrinski (1665-1670), the protagonist of the conspiracy we are discussing.

II. Causes and Motivations of the Conspiracy

When George IV Zrinski died in Pozun (present-day Bratislava) in 1626, his sons Nicholas and Peter were six and five years old, respectively. King Ferdinand II himself appointed them as guardians to oversee their education, as their mother had remarried. In 1630, they were moved from Cakovac, Croatia, to Graz, Austria, where they completed their humanities studies. In 1634, they were taken to Trnava (Nagy-Szombat) to attend a special school for the youth of the high aristocracy, where, in addition to Croatian and Hungarian, they learned Latin, German, and Italian.

They traveled to Rome, visited the Pope, and in February 1637 returned to their family home, where King Ferdinand III declared them of age. At the ages of 18 and 17, they entered public life and divided the family estate. Nicholas's close ties with the Hungarians and Peter's with the Croatian lords would inevitably influence their later relationships. Peter established a personal relationship with General Vuk Christoph Frankopan of Trzac, marrying his daughter Anna Katharina, sister of Francis Christoph Frankopan, with whom he would die on April 30, 1671, in Wiener Neustadt.

The Zrinski brothers began fighting early on, battling the Turks and the German officers of the Military March, who caused them considerable trouble. Their clashes with the Austrian military authorities were largely ignored by King Ferdinand III, who needed the Zrinskis for the Thirty Years' War. Nicholas entered this war in 1646, distinguishing himself in the battle against the Swedes, for which he was appointed general of the Croatian troops. Peter participated in the war from 1647, fighting on the Czech front under the direct command of the king and saving him from Swedish captivity at the battle near Budjejovice (Budweiss).

In 1647, Nicholas was appointed Han of Croatia. Although constantly at war with the Turks, he dedicated himself to poetry and military science. His goal had been to create a standing, well-disciplined army—dependent on the Croatian ban and Sabor (district) and not on the War Council (Kriegshofrat) in Graz and therefore on German officers—with which, in alliance with the Hungarians and without Austrian aid, he would wage the war of liberation of Croatian and Hungarian territories from the Turkish yoke.

The creation of this army stemmed from the same motives that fueled the discontent of the Croatian and Hungarian classes, ultimately leading to the conspiracy that Croatian historiography calls "The Conspiracy of Zrinski and Frankopan," while world historiography, influenced by Hungarian scholarship, typically refers to this historical event as "The Conspiracy of the Magnates of Hungary" (e.g., Ploetz: "Auszug aus der Geschichte," Würzburg 1960 - 26th edition, p. 735: "1669-1671 Magnatenversehwörung in Ungarn"). This is because European historiography accepted the practice of treating the Hungarian-Croatian kingdom exclusively as Hungary, thus completely ignoring Croatia.

From the end of the 16th century, Croatia was reduced to the smallest area of its national territory in its entire history, hence the Croatian Sabor (diet) itself calling it "reliquiae reliquiarum olim inclyti regni Croatiae" ("remnants of the remnants..."). The liberation of the homeland was all the more natural and logical aspiration given that the Croatian estates elected the Habsburgs as Croatian kings in 1527 precisely to defend the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Croatia, as they were simultaneously defending the Austrian provinces of Styria, Carniola, and Carinthia.

However, since the signing of the peace treaty with the Sultan in 1606 at Zitva-Dorog (the mouth of the Zitva River on the Danube), the first peace treaty with the Turks negotiated on equal terms, the prospects for the liberation of the lost territories seemed very remote. The Turks maintained that they had signed the peace treaty with the Germans, not with the Croats and Hungarians. Therefore, they raided their territories. Vienna, on the other hand, eager to maintain peace with the Turks, not only extended the Peace of Zitva-Dorog but also forbade the Zrinski clan from attacking the Turks so as not to provoke a war, which the Croats so desperately wanted.

Another source of discontent was the transformation of the Military March (Confin) into a separate territory, exempt from the authority of the Croatian ban and Sabor. In the Military March, German generals held sway, protecting all fugitives from justice and colonizing it with ethnically foreign elements—Vlachs and Serbs—granting them special privileges. Therefore, the Croatian estates concluded that not only the Turks but also the Germans were undermining the territorial and legal integrity of the Kingdom of Croatia, insistently demanding the reincorporation of the Military March into Croatia and the restoration of its constitutional authorities, the Ban and the Sabor.

The defense of the constitution, however, has been the constant source of discontent among the Croatian and Hungarian estates and magnates, for despite the oath of the first Habsburg to respect the independence of the Kingdoms of Croatia and Hungary, Ferdinand I attempted to transform the new personal union into a real union with his Austrian provinces by summoning representatives of the Croatian and Hungarian Diets to Vienna to discuss common affairs. Having failed in this attempt, he established central bodies in Vienna such as the War Council, the Chancellery, and the Court Treasury, thus indicating the policy of centralization that almost all his successors would follow.

As mentioned earlier, the border war with the Turks continued despite the formal Peace of Zitva-Dorog in 1606, since the Zrinski brothers also desired it. For example, in 1652, Ban Nicholas Zrinski made peace with the Turks at Kaniza (in occupied Hungary), only to defeat them later that year at Kostajnica (Croatia). Peter Zrinski already bore the nickname "Scourge of Bosnia" at that time, and he assembled an army to aid Venice in the wars against the Turks in Crete (the Candian War). When this undertaking was forbidden, he fought by sea and land in Dalmatia against the Turks as an ally of Venice. He was appointed Grand Captain of Ogulin, Slunj, and the entire Littoral, but at the request of the German officers, the Council of War dismissed him, restoring all his honors on the eve of the Turkish threat.

The eyes of all Europe were fixed on the military exploits of the Zrinski brothers, which filled the hearts of the Viennese courtiers with envy. They hated the Zrinskis as much as the Turks themselves, who also feared them. But a domestic incident sparked the hatred between the Zrinski and Erdödy families, an hatred that would have repercussions on the outcome of the conspiracy years later. Indeed, when the rebellion of the settlers broke out in 1652 on the estates of Mirko Erdödy and the Zagreb capitol, Nicholas Zrinski, in his capacity as Ban of Croatia, convened the Sabor to find a solution to the problem and recommended restraint. This interference by the ban in Erdödy's private affairs was the cause of the hatred and enmity between the two most illustrious families of the time.

Ferdinand III sanctioned the Diet law of February 14, 1638, by which the territories seized from the Turks by the captains of the Military March had to be incorporated into Croatia, and furthermore, they were forbidden from colonizing the Wallachians any longer. Leopold himself, whom the Hungarian-Croatian Joint Diet elected and crowned king in Pozzun on June 27, 1655, at only 15 years old, had in turn committed himself, on December 4, 1659, to convene a commission in Vienna within a year to incorporate the Military March into Croatia.

However, the advisors of the weak Leopold considered the weakness of the Croats and Hungarians to be the guarantee of their submission to the imperial court. The king's secret council, formed without any Hungarian or Croatian participation, thus opened an unbridgeable chasm of incomprehension and hatred between them and the court. Thus, in 1669, Nicholas Zrinski attacked the Turks at Kaniza; but by order of Vienna, he was forced to retreat. Deeply embittered, he financed his own construction of the fortress of Novi Zrin at the confluence of the Mura and Drava rivers, facing the Turkish-held Kaniza. He undertook the construction of this fortress in anticipation of the war that actually broke out in 1663.

The Turkish intervention in Transylvania in support of their candidate, Michael Apaffy, against the Austrian candidate, John Kemény, drew Leopold, much against his will, into the war so eagerly desired by the Zrinskis. When the supreme commander of the Austrian forces, Raymond Montecuccoli, lost several fortresses at the beginning of the war, including Nové Zámky in Slovakia, the resident ambassador to the Sublime Porte in Constantinople was compelled to request an armistice.

But the situation changed when Nicholas Zrinski invaded Turkish Hungary, reaching Buda and returning to Novi Zrin to annihilate the Pasha of Kaniza beneath its walls. From there, he marched to Nové Zámky, but Montecuccoli refused his aid, citing a lack of supplies for his army. When Montecuccoli later tried to justify his defeat by publishing a pamphlet in which he blamed the Hungarian and Croatian magnates for cowardice, Nicholas Zrinski responded by calling Montecuccoli a "cowardly scoundrel."

At the same time, Peter Zrinski invaded Turkish territory and killed Krupa's captain, Deli-pasha, in a duel. Also heading towards Nové Zámky, he received news that the Begler-bey of Bosnia, Smail-pasha, had invaded Croatia with 10,000 men to capture Otocac and Brlog and from there attack Carniola. The defender of the Croatian Military March, General Herbert Auersperg, brother of Minister Jan Auersperg, fled from Karlovac to Ljubljana, leaving the way open to the Turks. Near Jurjeva Stijena, Peter Zrinski, with 2,000 men, caught up with the Turks and routed them, taking 2,000 prisoners, including Smail Pasha himself. Zrinski's brother-in-law, Francis Christoph Frankopan, fought alongside him in this battle. Accused of insubordination, Zrinski was forced to hand Smail Pasha over to General Auersperg so that he could collect the substantial ransom.

Shortly afterward, the Croatian Sabor decreed, in Varaždin on December 12, 1663, a general "insurrection" of the Croatian people against the Turks, and Ban Nicholas Zrinski began his winter campaign, capturing several cities and burning, on January 31, 1664, the famous 6-km-long bridge near Osijek, which had been built by Suleiman the Magnificent.

These victories earned the Zrinski brothers recognition throughout Christian Europe. Among other honors, King Louis XIV of France presented Nicholas with 14,000 thalers and bestowed upon him the title of Peer of France.

In May 1664, Grand Vizier Ahmed Küprüli launched his major campaign, attacking the Zrinski dynasty first. The fortress of Novi Zrin was defended by German troops under the command of Montecuccoli. Abandoning it without a fight, as if it were "a point of no importance," the Turks destroyed it. Nicholas Zrinski complained to the king, but the king sided with Montecuccoli. Bitterly, Nicholas resigned his command, but his gesture was met with indifference, as they had just received the sensational news that on August 19, 1664, the Christian armies under Montecuccoli had achieved a decisive victory, defeating the Grand Vizier as he crossed the Raab River near Saint Gotthard.

This was the most glorious victory over the Ottoman Empire, achieved with the support of all Christendom, especially Germany and France, because it marked the beginning of the gradual decline of Turkish power in Europe. But Montecuccoli failed to capitalize on this victory and, instead of pursuing the enemy, allowed Küprüli to regroup his forces and withdraw to Valvar (Eisenburg), where Ambassador Peininger secretly concluded the peace on August 10, 1664. The peace terms were disastrous for Christendom: the parties agreed to a 20-year term; both armies evacuated Transylvania, and both empires recognized Michael Apaffy as prince; the Turks retained all their conquests, achieved between 1660 and 1663, including Nové Zámky; the Székelyhid fortress in Hungary had to be destroyed, and Novi Zrin could not be rebuilt.

This peace surprised the entire world. Everyone declared their disapproval: Germany, for not having participated in its negotiation; Louis XIV, for considering it directed against him; Venice, because the Turks would have free rein against it in the Candian War. The Croats and Hungarians considered the Peace of Vasvar directed against their vital interests and concluded without the involvement of their respective diets. Therefore, all those who tried to persuade Leopold not to recognize the Peace of Vasvar, as harmful and shameful, joined forces.

III. The Development and Outcome of the Conspiracy

All attempts to persuade Leopold to revoke the Peace of Vasvar were unsuccessful. Nor was Nicholas Zrinski, who traveled to Vienna for this purpose, as did the other Croatian and Hungarian magnates. Leopold could hardly reject a peace treaty he so desperately needed, and for which, therefore, he and his advisors stipulated and offered the terms. Leopold needed this peace to have a free hand in Western Europe, especially against the ambitions of Louis XIV.

In Spain, the House of Habsburg had been reduced to its only male heir, the weak and seemingly dying Charles II. Therefore, the question of the division of the inheritance between Louis XIV and Leopold I remained unresolved, along with many other dynastic and familial problems. In the period preceding the events of 1671, the extinction of the dynasty and the division of its vast possessions seemed imminent and certain, and this represented one of the main driving forces behind Louis XIV's European policy. Aware of the discontent among the Hungarians and Croatians, Louis XIV sent military aid to Leopold in 1662, ostensibly to establish contact with them. Ban Nicholas Zrinski, in turn, entertained Marshal Coligny, commander of the French troops, at his castle of Cakovac.

Feeling betrayed after Vasvar, the Croats and Hungarians began to seek foreign help. The support of Sweden and Poland quickly proved illusory. Venice and France were then considered. Venice had been engaged in constant war with Turkey in Crete since 1645, so France represented their only hope. After initial contacts between Katharina Frankopan, wife of Peter Zrinski, and the French ambassador in Venice, contacts continued with Jacques Brethel de Gremonville, Louis XIV's ambassador in Vienna, who sought relations with Nicholas Zrinski, considering him the leader of all the discontented, both Catholic and Protestant.

He, in turn, had already established relations with the Archbishop of Ostergom, George Lippay, who, with the loss of Nové Zámky, lost an income of 50,000 thalers, with the Hungarian Palatin, Francis Wesselényi, and later with Francis Nadásdy, a judge of the state (judex curiae). All of them considered the Peace of Vasvar a violation of the constitution and demanded that the king convene the common parliament in Pozzun and withdraw the German troops. The court, however, decided to convene only a conference of the leading magnates in Vienna on November 25, 1664, having already received news of the Zrinski family's contacts with the French in Venice.

But on November 18, 1664, Nicholas Zrinski died accidentally, wounded while hunting near Cakovac. When the conference of November 25, 1664, in Vienna failed to produce a satisfactory solution, Archbishop Loppay and Palatin Wesselényi successively contacted Gremonville, having previously protested to the Capitol in Pozzun about the violation of the Hungarian constitution.

In January 1666, upon the arrival in Vienna of Peter Zrinski, the conspirators even offered Gremonville the Crown of Saint Stephen for Louis XIV, which Gremonville declined as a premature project. Zrinski requested financial assistance to equip an army and wage war against the Turks. To this end, he needed to be appointed Ban of Croatia and General of the Captaincy General of Karlovac, that is, of the Croatian Military March. King Leopold appointed him Ban of Croatia, but did not install him in his post. Without installation, the Ban possessed neither judicial nor military powers. Meanwhile, he attempted to establish ties with the princes of the Rhineland and with Venice. He sent his wife to Vienna to expedite French aid.

At the beginning of 1666, Archbishop Lippay died suddenly, and the court appointed the dubious George Szelepesényi as his successor. In April of the same year, after the marriage of Peter Zrinski's daughter, Helena, to Prince Francis Rákóczy, Zrinski and Szelepesényi exchanged written oaths to defend Croatia and Hungary "by all means permitted by law and the constitution," alluding to Article 31 of the Golden Bull of 1222, which allowed Hungarian and Croatian magnates to rebel if the king acted against their kingdoms (ius resistendi et contradicendi).

Before resorting to arms, they planned to draw Leopold's attention to the importance of upholding the constitution. But on March 27, 1667, Palatin Wesselényi died after convening a conference of the discontented, who called themselves the "interested parties" and declared themselves in favor of an alliance with the Turks. Zrinski, who did not personally participate in the deliberations, opposed this alliance. His policy remained one of alliance with Louis XIV.

After the death of Nicholas Zrinski, Wesselényi's death was the second major blow to the conspirators and the reason they split: the Croats, led by Zrinski, believed in French aid, while the Hungarians believed in Turkish aid, where all the Hungarian adversaries of the Habsburgs found refuge. The Prince of Transylvania, Apafy, on behalf of the Hungarian conspirators, appealed to the Turks for help and offered to subject Hungary to Turkish sovereignty. But the Grand Vizier's interpreter, the Greek Nikasia Panajotti, informed the Viennese ambassador to the Sublime Porte, Casanova, about the conspiracy. By 1668, the imperial court was already aware of the plot, though without knowing the names of the conspirators. Like Austria, Turkey also needed peace with the Habsburgs, as it was still at war with Venice.

The pro-French policy also ended in failure after four years of negotiations with Ambassador Gremonville. His task was to make Leopold believe that France desired peace while Louis XIV prepared for war against the Netherlands, which belonged to the Spanish Habsburgs. France only considered the conspirators a possibility should Leopold wish to aid Spain. Therefore, the occupation of Belgium (May 26, 1667) took Leopold by surprise. Gremonville adopted the same attitude toward the conspirators until he finally reached a secret agreement with Leopold on January 19, 1668, regarding the division of the Spanish inheritance with Louis XIV. After the Hungarians' second attempt to secure Turkish support failed, the Hungarian "interested parties" opted for French assistance. But it was already too late. A few months later, Gremonville informed Zrinski that Louis XIV wished to live in peace with Leopold and, therefore, was leaving him for good ("pour toujours").

Despite certain indiscretions and outright betrayals of the conspirators' plans, committed by the conspirators themselves in their eagerness to gain personal advantages, which helped the court piece together the conspiracy, the court proceeded with the solemn installation of Peter Zrinski as ban on November 5, 1668. However, he was not appointed captain-general of the Karlovac captaincy-general after the death of Count Auersperg, brother of the Viennese minister. Instead, Count Herberstein, administrator of the military march of Varazdin, was appointed, provoking an unpleasant reaction from Zrinski in the king's antechamber. His eagerness to provoke war with the Turks was so great that in early 1669 he attacked a major military unit of the Pasha of Bosnia, killing some 400 men.

With the same eagerness, he interfered in the affairs of Poland, where France and Austria were trying to install their candidates on the Polish throne. Although Zrinski had just reaffirmed his oath of loyalty to Leopold, in the election for the Polish throne he favored the French candidate, Jan Sobieski, to whom he was related. The Poles unanimously elected Michael Wisniowiecki, who was not a candidate of either France or Austria, but was a friend of Zrinski. The Viennese court hastened to ensure, at the very least, that the new king would marry Leopold's sister, Archduchess Eleonora.

Zrinski tried to prevent this, smothering the Danish princess. He did so to exclude Austrian influence at the Polish court, for his great hope was an alliance with Poland to wage the long-awaited war against the Turks and, consequently, the liberation of Croatia and Hungary. His restless spirit and his fixed idea of settling accounts with the Turks while simultaneously securing his homeland's constitutional rights against absolutist Vienna led him to commit political errors, one after another. His intervention in Polish affairs provided the court with the evidence and arguments it needed to rid itself of this troublesome opponent of its policies.

Their failure to arrange the marriage of the Polish king to the Danish princess and the Hungarian-Croatian-Polish alliance on the one hand, and the magnates' impression of having been betrayed by the widow of Palatin Wesselényi, Maria Széchy, and her advisor, Francisco Nagy, on the other, led Katharina Frankopan von Zrinski to adopt the idea of an alliance with the Turks, an idea that the Hungarians never completely abandoned and, knowing Zrinski's opposition to such an alliance, influenced her to write to Peter from Saros Patak, the seat of her son-in-law Francisco Rakócy.

In Croatia, Zrinski, the ban's captain Francisco Bukovacki, exerted similar influence. Zrinski finally yielded and allowed Bukovacki to travel to Turkey to seek an understanding with the Porte. On December 19, 1969, Sultan Mehmed IV received him in Thessaloniki, where Bukovacki presented the following proposals:

1) Hungary and Croatia would come under the Sultan's protection, paying an annual tribute of 12,000 thalers, an amount that could not be increased. Zrinski and his heirs would govern Hungary and Croatia in the Sultan's name. Upon the extinction of his line, Hungary and Croatia would elect a new dynasty, which the Sultan must approve.

2) The Sultan must recognize the old liberties and privileges of Hungary and Croatia, as well as their constitutions.

3) Zrinski must receive assistance from the Pasha of Budim with 30,000 men and, if necessary, the entire Turkish army.

4) The cities that the Turkish army captures from the Germans must be handed over to the Hungarians and Croats.

5) Instead of Apafy, it will be Prince Francis Rákóczy of Transylvania, Zrinski's son-in-law.

Having readily accepted Bukovacki's offer on the imperial couch in Thessaloniki, the Sultan delegated the final decision to the Grand Vizier, Ahmed Küprüli, who was still in Crete to conclude the war on the conquered island. Interpreting the Sultan's friendly reception in Thessaloniki favorably, Bukovacki informed Zrinski with an optimistic outlook. However, the Grand Vizier did not approve of the pact with Zrinski, not only because he did not fully trust him, but also because he did not consider it prudent, at a time when the situation in Crete seemed favorable, to risk a war with Leopold because of Zrinski.

Unfortunately, the Grand Vizier did not tell Bukovacki this. He only told him that Zrinski would receive the final answer through the Pasha of Bosnia. This fact is the origin and cause of the complete catastrophe for Zrinski and his friends, because based on Bukovacki's report, he began preparations for the uprising, which were taken over by Francis Christoph Frankopan, who only joined the conspiracy in this final phase. However, before fully committing to the uprising,

Zrinski tried once again to force Austria into a war against Turkey and attempted to obtain an audience with Leopold through the Bishop of Wiener Neustadt, Kolonic. But when on March 7, 1670, Bukovacki finally appeared on the Croatian border and informed Zrinski that he would soon receive confirmation of what had been agreed upon in Salonica, and sent him a very courteous letter from the Pasha of Bosnia entitled "To Peter Zrinski, Prince of Croatia, Hungary, Transylvania and Moldavia and Supreme Commander of the entire Ottoman army," Zrinski decided, with Frankopan and some captains of the Military March, to occupy Ptuj (Pettau) in Styria, counting on the collaboration of Count Erasnius Tattenbach.

At the same time, he appealed to the French ambassador in Venice, the Archbishop of Mainz, and his son-in-law, Pákózcy, for help. However, Zrinski soon became convinced that the Turks were deceiving him, and, having never been enthusiastic about the policy of alliance with the Turks, he began to waver, finally deciding on reconciliation with Leopold. To this end, he sent Martin Borkovic, Bishop of Zagreb, to Vienna as an intermediary. By March 17, 1670, the elderly bishop was in Vienna explaining to Prince Borkovic the well-known reasons for the discontent and anger of the Ban of Croatia and promised to appease him if he obtained a letter from the king or his ministers addressed to Zrinski.

Until that moment, the court did not believe that Zrinski had made a deal with the Turks. Lobkovic, Hocher, Montecuccoli, Lambert, and Schwarzenberg of the Royal Council agreed that Zrinski's actions had all the hallmarks of rebellion and, assuming he was not alone in the conspiracy, decided to seek military aid from neighboring countries to direct towards the Croatian borders. Until reinforcements arrived, they decided to lure him to Vienna. To this end, they enlisted the help of the bishop, who rushed to Cakovac with letters from the king and Lobkovic requesting the ban.

Impatient and impulsive as Zrinski was, he sent another mediator to Vienna, the Irish friar Marcos Forstall, who—before Bishop Borkovic's arrival—presented the king with the following terms of reconciliation: the king would appoint Zrinski general of Varazdin; he would grant him the cities of Pazin, Rijeka, Trsat, and Kocevje with right of succession; and he would pay his debts of approximately 40,000 florins. He will be given command of two regiments and will be allowed to request aid from the Pope and other European rulers against the Turks. This agreement should be formalized as soon as possible, as a pasha with the sultan's official diplomas will soon arrive in Cakovac. Without having seen Leopold, Forstall returns with the promise that Zrinski will not be considered a rebel if he submits to the king, trusts his word, and sends his son as a hostage. Simultaneously, on April 3, 1670, Zrinski is deposed as ban and declared a rebel, with Count Nicholas Erdödy and Bishop Borkovic appointed as his lieutenants.

While Zrinski waited in Cakovac, sensing nothing amiss, General Faris Spankau receives orders to attack Cakovac and capture him. Frankopan, unaware of Zrinski's recent efforts toward reconciliation, continued preparing the uprising in Medjimurje, Varaždin, Zagreb, and the surrounding areas. Upon learning of the uprising, General Herberstein of Karlovac marched against Frankopan, who, unable to resist alone, moved to Čakovac on April 10, 1670. Without support from any quarter and aware of Herberstein's attack and the concentration of armed forces on the Styrian border, they decided not to resist and—advised by Borković and Forstall—agreed to send letters to Leopold expressing their subordination. On April 7, Forstall departed for Vienna with the letters and Zrinski's son, Johann Anton, as a hostage. On April 12, General Spankau launched an attack, and the following day Zrinski and Frankopan left for Vienna, arriving there on the 18th of the same month.

IV. Trial and Sentence

In the first days of their stay in Vienna, Zrinski and Frankopan are treated well, as the resurgence of the rebellion in Upper Hungary was feared when news of their imprisonment in Vienna spread. Francisco Rakoczy takes Imperial General Rüdiger Starhemberg and ten other officers prisoner in Tokai, letting Leopold know that the general will receive the same treatment as Zrinski. Under pressure from the court, Zrinski asks Rakoczy to release the general and recommends submission to the king. With the rebellion in Hungary thus appeased, Zrinski and Frankopan were transferred to Wiener Neustadt on August 27, 1670, and treated as real prisoners. A few days later Wrenden also counts Francisco Nadasdy and takes him to Vienna.

After long months of instruction, led by the Austrian Chancellor Baron Juan Pablo Hocher, a special Judicium delegatum court was established under the presidency of Hocher himself, which would serve as a model for all subsequent high treason trials.

The accusation brought against Zrinski that in 1666 he entered into an alliance with Wesselényi; that in 1169 he sent Friar Bargiglia to Poland with insulting instructions to His Majesty, that by his order the Polish Giska was sent to France insulting the king and asking for money; who offered the Turks tribute to make him ruler of Croatia; who wanted to take the royal fortress Koprivnica; who instigated rebellion in Northern Hungary; that his supporters made use of weapons, shedding the blood of imperial soldiers; that he ordered Frankopan to carry out the rebellion and that he wanted to attack the hereditary Austrian provinces, in short, that he had been the initiator and leader of the entire rebellion.

Frankopan was accused of not having informed the emperor about Zrinski's alliance with the Turks and that he had assumed leadership of the uprising; that in a letter dated March 9, 1670, he expressed contempt for the emperor and the German nation; that he wanted to occupy the city of Zagreb with 200 men and submit it to Zrinski and that he sent envoys to Türkiye.

Zrinski discussed and rejected the jurisdiction of the court, since he, as a magnate, according to the laws of his homeland, could only be judged by the king and judges of equal status to his, that is, the Croatian Sabor. Hocher, on the other hand, justified the jurisdiction of the court with the fact that Zrinski and Frankopan were also nobles from Styria and Carniola, that they were arrested in Austria and that the incriminated acts were also committed in Austria.

Zrinski defended himself and stated that he would not enumerate the trampled rights and freedoms of his homeland, nor would he invoke the provisions of the Bulla Aurea that grants every Hungarian and Croatian magnate the right to resist the king, but rather he would make use of the salvum conductum that the king gave him when he wrote to him on March 21, 1670, the letter that Bishop Borkovic gave him and in which he was granted the pardon inherent to imperial power.

Refuting the accusations one by one, he swore that he never seriously attempted an alliance with the Turks and that he always warned the Hungarians against such an alliance. He concludes the defense with the accusatory insinuation: "My enemies know well how much we sweated and bled defending Styria, Carnicola and Croatia; while the Zrinskis stood guard they slept peacefully. Now, as a reward, they advise the king and emperor to annihilate us at the very roots and that they possibly seize the assets that we, with much bloodshed, saved and guarded. Let any of them come to the fore. "that he dared to say that he and his lineage did more benefit to the Austrian house and to Christendom than the Zrinskis did."

Despite the intercession of many European courts and the Pope in favor of Zrinki and Frankopan, on April 25, 1671, Leopold confirmed the sentence of the 18th of the same month by which they were sentenced to death, loss of all dignities and honors and confiscation of all property, for having committed the crime of lesae majestatis and treason. The advisors convinced Leopold that the emperor will not be safe as long as Zrinski lives.

Before executing Zrinski and Frankopan, on April 30, 1671, they executed Francisco Nadasdy in Vienna, on April 25. After having reached an agreement, Vienna and Berlin, regarding their property, executed on December 1, 1671, also Count Erasmus Tattenbach.

V. The extermination of the Zrinski and Frankopan families

With the beheading of the condemned in Wiener Neustadt, the preconceived plan for the gradual extermination of the two noble Croatian families was launched, with a double purpose. On the one hand, it was important to definitively separate themselves from their political power which, apart from their enormous material wealth, exceptional culture, national popularity and international ties, was based on the right of succession to the dignity of ban in these families and, on the other hand, the corollary of the first was to seize the assets they owned.

Even during the captivity of Pedro Zrinski, his wife Catarina and daughter, Zora Veronica, were subjected to harsh treatment by order of the emperor and king Leopold I. On July 15, 1670, the countess definitively abandoned her Cakovac seat in Medjimurje and moved to Graz under the escort of 12 soldiers and with few servants.

Due to the confiscation of Pedro Zrinski's assets, the problem of his livelihood becomes acute. On September 20, 1670, the Croatian servitude of the countess was replaced by German servitude. The physical misery is joined by spiritual sorrows, especially due to the lack of news from her son Juan Antonio, her husband and her brother. It is assumed that he never even received the farewell letter that the count wrote to him on the eve of his execution. Finally, located in February 1672 in the convent of the Dominican nuns in Graz, this extraordinary woman who was also an exceptional writer died in mental obtundation on November 16, 1673.

The daughter, Zora, separated from her mother, was placed in the convent of the nuns of Santa Ursula, living as a nun, still in the year 1683, her subsequent fate unknown.

No less tragic was the fate of Juan Antonio, son of Pedro Zrinski, born in 1651. From Vienna, where he had been, he was sent by his father on April 8, 1670 as a hostage and as a guarantee of his mission, he was sent to Prague to take him away from his father. From Prague he intercedes on behalf of his father before the prince-elector of Saxony, John George II, in Dresden, through his relative John Peranski (of the Subic branch, based in Perna) at that time commander of the royal guard of Croatian horse grenadiers ("Leib-Kompanie Kroaten zu Rosz"), sending him, on November 28, 1670, a letter in the Croatian language that is considered a relic of those sad days. During the great war of 1682, when the Turks penetrated the city of Vienna and besieged it, under false pretenses he was accused and confined in the Rattenbach fortress, in Tyrol, where he remained for 20 years and died in the Schlossberg fortress, near Graz, on November 11, 1703.

The fate of Pedro Zrinski's daughter, Helena, married first to Prince Francis Rákóczy and second to Emerio Tôköli, unfolded outside and sometimes within the reach of the Viennese court, so she was never a mere object in the hand of the enemy. After his marriage to Helena, approved by Vienna, Tôköli denounces the truce on June 24, 1682, continuing the war until 1685 and despite the Turkish defeat in 1633. During his forced stay in Veliki Varadin, where Tôköli had gone in search of Turkish help, Helena heroically defends the Munkacs fortress, surrendering to the imperial forces only after four years of defense, in 1688.

She lived in Vienna for four years, prohibited from leaving the city, when in 1692 she was rescued by Tôköli, now named prince of Northern Hungary, in exchange for an imperial general and colonel. The Peace of Karlovci, in 1699, between the Sultan and Leopold I, forced Tôköli to move with Helena to Constantinople and from there to Nicomedia, where Helena died on February 18, 1703, being buried in the church of the Lazarists, in Galata. In 1896 the Hungarians moved his remains, along with those of Tôköli and his son Francis II Rákóczy, to Kosice. His first tomb was decorated with the following and very accurate inscription "Virilis animi mulier, sexus sui ac saesuli gloria".

Julia Petronita, the second daughter of Pedro Zrinski, died at the end of the 17th century, in the convent of the Poor Clares, an order she entered as a young girl.

Pedro's brother, Ban Nicolás Zrinski, left only one son, Adam, who inherited half of the Zrinski estate. He participated in the war against the Turks, falling in the battle near Slankamen, in 1691, hit in the back by an imperial cannonball. His assets became the property of the court of Vienna.

Count Francisco Cristóbal Frankopan was the last of his line. His wife Julia, from the princely Roman family Barberini of Naro, sought refuge in Venice, with her relative Orfeo Frankopan, an ardent supporter of the conspiracy. No one bothered Julia, out of respect for the Pope, but Vienna demanded the extradition of Orpheus, whose whereabouts remained unknown. This is the fate, in essential lines, of the two great Croatian families that touched them defending justice and the historical-constitutional rights of Croatia.

* * *

Twelve years after the execution in Wiener Neustadt, the twenty-year armistice agreed upon in Vasvar expires and Sultan Mehmed IV declares war on Leopold, managing to penetrate to the city of Vienna. Despite the defeat of the Turkish armies with the help of Poland and Archduke Charles of Lotharingia, the war continued for fifteen years, ending with the peace treaty of Karlovci (Sirmium) in 1699. The victory of Vienna in 1683 was used by Leopold to convene the Diet of Pozun, which solemnly declared on October 18, 1687 the right of succession of the house of Habsburg, in the male line, in the kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia. Likewise, the Diet repealed article 31 of the Bulla Aurea of the year 1222 (ius resistendi et contradicendi), which constituted one of the fundamental laws, that is, the integral part of the constitutional law of Croatia and Hungary. Thus the Habsburg dynasty indirectly recognized the legality of the conspiracy of Zrinski and Frankopan.

With the liquidation of these two noble and powerful Croatian families, a severe blow was dealt to one of the partners in the Danubian Christian community, without any help being given to others, especially Austria itself. The ironic inscription invented and placed by the executioners of Zrinski and Frankopan in a chapel where their remains temporarily rested—"If the blind lead the blind, both end up in the abyss"—today, in retrospect, sheds a different light and offers a different lesson.

The "blind" were seers, and the "seers" were blind. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, conceived and built as a dualism to the detriment of true federal pluralism, was destroyed with all the negative consequences for the Habsburgs, for that part of the world, and for Europe in general. The principle of nationality, later transformed into the right to self-determination, was what confirmed the course of history, prevailing over the hegemony and dynastic interests that invoked divine right, having first destroyed its foundation. The attempted beheading of Croatia in 1671 did not result in the beheading of many.

Literature consulted:

- Smicicklas, Poviest Hrvatska, Dio Drugi, Zagreb 1879, pp. 157-223.

- Ferdo Sisic, Pregled Povijesti Hrvatskoga Naroda, Zagreb, 1916, pp. 194-201.

- Ljudmil Hauptmann, Die Kroaten ijm Wandel der Jahrhunderte, Viking Verlag Berlin S.A.

- Lovre Katic, Pregled Povijeste Hrvata, Zagreb, 1938, pp. 144-151.

- Antun Dabinovic, Europska politika u vrijeme zavjere Petra Zrinskoga i Franje Krste Frankopana, in "Hrvatsko Kolo" Knjiga XXIV, Zagreb 1943, pp. 168-185.

- E. Lqaszovsky, Novi Podaci za Hrvatsku Povijest (Pismo Ivana grofa Zrinskoga), "Hrvatsko Kolo, Jnjiga XIX, Aagreb, 1938, pp. 125-131.

- J. G. Fratija, Nicolás Zrinski - Leonidas of Christianity, in "Studia Croatica", Vol. 22-23, year 1966, pp. 230-350.

- Branko Sesar, Hrvatska po drugi put udovica (Panorama zrinsko-frankopanske urote), "Studentski List, No. 14 (4-27-1971), pp. 12/13, Zagreb, 1971.

- Danilo Pejovic, Zrinskofrankopanska urota i hrvatska povijest, "Hrvatski Tjednik" No. 3 (4-30-1971), pp. 10-11, Zagreb, 1971.

"Le Monde" in service of an unjust cause

The Editorial Staff

Who is Mr. Paul Yankovitch a correspondent for?

Paul Yankovitch, the correspondent for "Le Monde," is a Yugoslav citizen and lives in Belgrade. He is over sixty years old and has worked in journalism for more than forty years. Before the war, he studied in France and worked as a correspondent for the Athens newspaper "Avale." After the war, he was chief of staff to Vladislav Ribnikar, then editor of "Politika," and one of the founders of "Jugopress." A French reader informed "Le Monde" in a letter that P.Y. "was in the Federal Ministry of the Interior after the war." (Which means someone in the terrorist apparatus of the "famous" Yugoslav Beria - Rankovic, Translator's Note.)

What and how is written about us in Yugoslavia affects us very closely. But what about us outside the country? What kind of image do foreign correspondents create of us? How do facts about us reach the world?

By reading what foreign newspapers are writing about us, we will try to answer these questions gradually. In this issue, in the following lines, we will focus our attention on one country, its capital, the best-known newspaper in that capital, and its correspondent in Yugoslavia.

This is our subject: France, Paris, the newspaper "Le Monde," and its correspondent in Belgrade, Paul Yankovitch.

Is it necessary to introduce France, with its fifty million inhabitants, and its capital, Paris? Is it necessary to explain what France and Paris mean to the world and Europe? We consider it unnecessary to do so, but nevertheless, we think it useful to say something about the well-known newspaper "Le Monde."

Every day, 500,000 copies of "Le Monde" are sold in Paris, Europe, and throughout the world. French intellectuals, politicians, and foreign intellectuals in France read what "Le Monde" publishes. This newspaper is often found in many embassies and ministries around the world.

"Le Monde" is a financially independent newspaper, renowned as one of the best and most objective journalistic outlets in the world, thanks to its excellent reporting. We are fully justified in stating that "Le Monde" significantly shapes French and global public and political opinion. "Le Monde's" articles and in-depth analyses serve as political documentation for many states and academic institutions worldwide.

"Le Monde" readers are informed about Yugoslavia through articles from its editorial staff, news reports from news agencies (most often FP, then UPI, Reuters, etc.), and articles from its correspondent in Belgrade, Paul Yankovitch.

In these lines, we intend to analyze P. Yankovitch's contributions regarding Yugoslavia and the self-management socialism of its nations and nationalities, republics, and autonomous regions. We will cover the last three years and try to show what this contributions mean and what they suggest to the French reader and the foreign reader in general.

"A complicated system" and the "Yugoslav merchant"

Self-management socialism and federalism are two things by which the world knows the domestic politics of these six republics and two autonomous regions. However, there are few words on essential issues of self-management socialism in P. Yankovitch's articles. Preferring to simply recalling legal texts and the measures of economic organizations,[41] P. Yankovitch presents self-management as a "complicated system"[42] that only further complicates the already complicated system of social, economic, and political relations in Yugoslavia. Even more: self-management causes "disorder" in the Yugoslav economy, suggest P. Yankovitch's articles.

No one can demand that P. Yankovitch become an active propagandist for self-managed socialism, but one can certainly ask him for objective information for the readers of "Le Monde" regarding the problems of self-management and economic reform in Yugoslavia. Never, on any occasion, has he uttered a word concerning the possibility or impossibility of achieving workers' self-management without the material base and without the workers' right to dispose of the fruits of their labor. Nor are there any clarifications regarding an excessive accumulation of capital, centers of financial power, the colonial currency system—the true causes of illiquidity.

Of course, there is also no mention of the 28.5% Croatian contribution to total Yugoslav output and only 17.2% of financial capital. There is no mention whatsoever of approximately one billion dollars in annual foreign exchange earnings, a surplus of 350 million dollars (from Croatia, translator's note), or the fact that 63% of Croatian workers in Yugoslavia were employed abroad.

The main cause of the economic difficulties, if we disregard the "complicated system" of self-management, lies in the liberalization of foreign trade after 1965 and the uncovered investments, as well as the desire of "all the republics" (according to P.Y.) to achieve self-sufficient national economies.

Foreign trade, according to P.Y., in Yugoslavia depends "solely on companies," and "the Yugoslav merchant, like those in capitalist countries, is buying at lower prices and trying to sell at higher prices" [43](note 3). For a long time, readers of "Le Monde" could find not a single word in their newspaper about who this "Yugoslav merchant" was, where he was, or who controlled Yugoslavia's foreign trade. According to P.Y., it seemed that "everyone" in Yugoslavia shared equally in the difficulties caused by foreign trade. Only in October 1970 (this date is significant) did P.Y., under a suggestive title—"Croatian leaders—dissatisfied with the fate of their republic—demand the nationalization of banks and foreign trade companies" [44]—clarify, in his own way, this central obstacle to the development of self-management in Yugoslavia.

"Croatian theses" and "numerical evidence"

Registering in the conditional (and the conditional in French indicates insecurity and doubt regarding the data) the Croatian reproaches to the prevailing banking system of foreign exchange and foreign trade, P.Y. He outlines for the first time the "crisis in Croatia" and says: "The consequence of this crisis is that the population is leaving Croatia. From three to four hundred thousand people, unable to live on low wages, left to work in the West. Emigration is particularly impacting Dalmatia. The places of those who have left have been presumably filled, as those in Zagreb suggest, by men sometimes of dubious morals, whose ambitions are centralist. The nationality of those occupying these abandoned places is not well determined, but it is no secret that they are, above all, Serbs.

Let us forget for the moment the inaccuracy of the numbers, the silence about the departure of the unemployed, and the suggestion of a certain supposed Croatian xenophobia. Let us look a little at how P. Yangovich "clarifies" economic relations in Yugoslavia for foreigners. Shamefully concealing the geographical location of the banks and exporters, P.Y. writes: "The financial circles in the capital (Belgrade, author's note) vehemently deny the Croatian claims: bankers and exporters assert, confirming it with figures, that Croatian companies are not subject to any discrimination.

Isn't that perfectly clear? After the Croatian claims, presented in the conditional tense, come "proofs with numbers." Is there anything more precise and scientific than figures? The Croatians present their "claims," and the Belgrade "businessmen" "prove them with numbers." Furthermore, don't the "Croatian claims" jeopardize the free movement of people (of Serbs, says P.Y., author's note) and capital, and "discourage businessmen," all at the very moment when "Yugoslavia is making efforts to attract foreign investment?" asks P.Y. (Quoting the words of Comrade M. Bojanic, a senior Serbian official in the financial center of Belgrade (Translator's note).)

Let's set aside the real intentions of the Croatian leaders regarding the demand for a third nationalization, self-managed nationalization. Let's look at the reasons why P.Y. is suggesting what he is suggesting. P.Y. knows full well that any nationalization is a red flag for capitalist eyes. That's why he insinuates that this nationalization could involve others. In short, P.Y.'s message to the foreign public is this: The Croats are unjustifiably demanding a certain nationalization of assets belonging to your Yugoslav partners (and, moreover, they are xenophobic); your business dealings with banks and exporters are also at stake, as is your confidence in trade with them, and perhaps one day... even your investments and other assets in Yugoslavia. In short: a wake-up call!

Investments without economic backing, P.Y. writes, reflect the desire to "All the republics" are driven by an autarkic economy. The blame for all this naturally falls on decentralization. Because of it, "everyone" is equally selfish and, according to P.Y.'s collaboration, equally powerful. To the foreigner who admiringly asks where so much money for so many buildings in Yugoslavia comes from, "the editor of a well-known economic publication" in Belgrade replies: "Nobody in Yugoslavia knows."[45] Nobody, naturally, except for the "businessmen" of Belgrade...

In this general "not knowing" and "disorder" in which "businesses struggle due to lack of money, at least the population finds itself in a comfortable situation" [46]. The proof of this, according to P.Y., is the total amount of savings in Yugoslavia. But what about wages and poverty in Kosovo, Zagora, Lika, Bania, Krajina, etc.? There is nothing about this in P.Y.'s articles because "everyone" somehow manages... Perhaps, P.Y. thinks, just as the "carsija" (a Serbo-Turkic term for the citizens of a city, especially in Belgrade, translator's note) live, so too does "ceo svet" ("everyone"—also a proverbial Serbian term used when Serbs megalomaniacally try to impose their criteria on everyone else, translator's note).

Finally, P.Y. He finds in everything this complicated question of "self-management," of "not knowing" and of "disorder" or a solution: It is "unity," "a plan for infrastructure development" [47], because "decentralization opens up new monopolies for republics, for communes" [48]. In the good old days there was only one... Despite being an economist, P.Y. is more concerned with the politics of our part of the world. His interest is broad, often getting lost in the past and in the good old days. Sometimes it seems that P.Y. lives in the past, but naturally, in a very specific past. Writing thus once about the commemoration "Day of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia," P.Y. could not and would not refrain from concluding nostalgically: "That is why December 1st was not marked by any ceremony." On that date (1918), however, fifty years ago, the first state (author's note) of the South Slavs was proclaimed—the kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. But that, of course, is another story….” The ellipsis wasn't added by the author of these lines, but by P.Y.

His heart is also at work here. We wouldn't reproach him for all this, as we would an elderly gentleman, if it didn't represent a political subversion. Because every foreigner will ask: how is it that the nations living in socialist Yugoslavia don't celebrate the anniversary of “the first state of the South Slavs”? That state was not without significance, P.Y. suggests, adding this time with sadness. “On the eve of the Second World War, there officially existed a (P.Y. emphasized) Yugoslav people. "After the war, it disappeared." Sad, isn't it? This is how P.Y. presents the SFSR and its nations and nationalities in one of the world's most esteemed newspapers. We now wonder what kind of impression this "Yugoslav return" leaves on the French, a people mostly inclined toward centralism. They don't enlist—whether they like it or not—on the side of those who sympathize with a unitary state. Don't such Croats, Albanians, and even Montenegrins represent an anachronistic minority, similar to the minorities within their own country, to whom "the Republic, one and indivisible" (the Republic, one and indivisible) recognizes no kind of individuality whatsoever?

The new Yugoslavia, P.Y.'s lamentations continue. “Contrary to what is being thought abroad” (P.Y. still strives today to maintain this perception abroad, even though most people in Yugoslavia do not think this way), “it is not the land of the Yugoslavs. Its citizens are only Yugoslav abroad” [49].

All of this saddens and puzzles P. Yankovitch. The regime, he says, is categorical regarding the existence of Yugoslav nationality: “For it, this nation does not exist. It is, supposedly, only a remnant of pre-war ‘unitarianism’” (as if there hadn’t been unitarianism without quotation marks even after the war! Author’s note). “All those who declared themselves Yugoslavs during the population census will be placed under the heading ‘undetermined nationality.’ This will be the case for multiple marriages of different nationalities, as well as for the children of these marriages.”

The fact that a Yugoslav nationality never existed and never will does not confuse P.Y. Nor does the fact that there was no Yugoslav nationality during the socialist revolution confuse him. P. Yankovitch also has his own opinion on this matter. Skillfully disguised, but nonetheless "transparent": "The period from 1941 to 1945 was the time of magnificent national resistance in which the Communist Party played the decisive role. But this period was also the time of civil and religious war, which left numerous and deep wounds" [50].

It is necessary to clarify what the thesis of a "civil war" in Yugoslavia during the time of the last war means in the West: this thesis implicates Mihailovic as a "fighter against the occupier" who, with "democratic," "national" forces, suffered defeat in the "civil war" against the communist forces.

P. Yankovitch's Anti-Reformist Variations

Socialist Yugoslavia also interests P.Y. In the end, "Le Monde" is a newspaper, not a historical journal. But it must be emphasized that P.Y. has his own opinion about the political events and living conditions in socialist Yugoslavia, an opinion that differs from the "official opinion." P.Y. has every right to this. But we will nevertheless try to see if there are some transgressions of this right.

Socialist Yugoslavia, according to him, went in the postwar period from "a severe centralism to the broadest decentralization" [51]. We will not go into the matter of the reorganization of self-management in Yugoslavia, which in his view is the "broadest of decentralizations," for now. Let us return to the "path already overcome." P.Y. dwells on this path very often on "decentralization" and laments the inconveniences supposedly caused by it.

Having learned the essentials of the announced political reforms in Yugoslavia in October 1970, P.Y. He developed a veritable campaign of warnings to world public opinion about the "danger" that would arise from the decentralization of Yugoslavia. Because, according to him, "the distribution of powers threatens to increase misunderstandings between the republics" [52]. "If the constitutional amendments are adopted, Yugoslavia will retain its designation as a federal state, but it will have nothing, or almost nothing, in common with a federal or confederal state." Decentralization tends to "deprive the Federation of its functions in all fields in favor of the republics" [53].

P.Y. wrote this for the benefit of those who are cultivating and defending the oppression of a unitary state. As for "socialist needs," P.Y. continues to express his astonishment: "as if the death of the state should come after the extinction of the Federation." Regarding the priority of choosing between the death of the Federation and the republics, P.Y. He opts for the republics, invoking a satirical newspaper for help,” P.Y. writes that, by strengthening the republics, the state actually “multiplies” before dying.[54] This is not another thesis but a furtive defense of the Marxist and destructive thesis of constitutional amendments.

P. Yankovitch used all the political events from the announcement of Tito’s reform to its adoption to demonstrate the perniciousness of decentralization. This anti-amendment activity by P.Y. ran parallel to the same activity of forces of this orientation in Yugoslavia. The amendment project is, according to him, the result of a compromise “at the top.”

These same agreements were reached "behind closed doors" in Brioni. P.Y. also considers the fight against the amendments to be the fight against constitutional reform: contributing to the campaign against M. Tripalo (member of the Presidium of Yugoslavia, one of the three delegates from Croatia, translator's note), P. Yankovich wrote in a truly sensationalist manner regarding the discussions held last March: "Tripalo stoked the fire" [55].

P.Y. does not take the opponents of constitutional reform and socialism in Yugoslavia seriously. Because, he says, the terms "Stalinist" and "communist" can cause confusion. Most of the time they point out that the conception of internal problems, in accordance with the official opinion (sic! Author's note), is very similar to that of the former Kremlin dictator." P.Y. concludes his logical but not entirely accurate opinion: "The blindness of such a discredited ideology cannot represent a danger to the regime" [56]. Possibly because the external danger "does not exist," P.Y. does not miss the opportunity to also touch upon the foundations of military defense policy in Yugoslavia. In an article of an economic nature, he skillfully introduces allusions to "the application of the theory of general national defense, which ensures territorial units a broad autonomy, unknown to any other modern army" [57]. Let us leave aside the question of whether there is any other "modern army" that understands territorial autonomy. The existence of these units evidently bothers the ambitions of P.Y. and his sympathizers both inside and outside the country.

P.Y.'s Political Subversions

With his articles, P.Y. set himself The active campaign of the Orthodox Church against the erection of the "pagan monument" to Njegós, "the greatest Yugoslav poet," was a key service. Yankovitch does not fail to emphasize that King Alexander Karageorgevic himself provided "considerable means" for the current chapel and that, consequently, the Orthodox Church "never recognized the official theory that Serbs and Montenegrins are two different peoples and nations" [58].

Albanians are a constant target of P.Y.'s articles. Writing about the events in Kosovo and Tetovo in 1968, P.Y. reduces them exclusively to "manifestations of Albanian irredentism" and "the hatred of Albanians against Serbs and Macedonians" [59]. P.Y. portrays Albanians, especially the youth and intellectuals, as a criminal and backward mass that hates other nations. When referring to Kosovo, his chronicle is almost a call for revenge: "It is Imagine the emotion provoked in this climate of decision-making by one council or another under the pretext of Albanian majority when the Serbian director of an industrial company is dismissed, or when an Albanian judge releases one of his compatriots who stabbed a Serb "because the injury was not serious" [60].

According to P.Y., the demonstrations in Kosovo open the "Serbian question" because "the Serbs are the most numerous nation in the Federation, present in all the republics except Slovenia, and such a state of affairs threatens to further complicate already complicated relations" [61].

The opening of the "Serbian question" is indeed a dangerous thing, foreign readers will surely think, for the very reason that, according to P.Y., only in Serbia are liberal forces or "a new creative generation" active [62] and [63].

The Croats, in turn, with their past and present, are, as a people or as individuals, the constant target of disinformation in P.Y.'s articles. At the beginning of 1970, he used the attack by Milos Zanko (a unitarian extremist of Croatian origin, condemned by the Central Committee of the Croatian Communist League and expelled as a federal deputy, translator's note) against the Croatian intelligentsia. P.Y. wrote that "in Zagreb, the writers Petar Segedin, Vlado Gotovac, Vlatko Pavletic, Franjo Tudjman, and Tomislav Ladan were accused of chauvinism" and "separatism" [64]. P.Y.'s articles target not only Croatian intellectuals but also political leaders of the Croatian Communist League and the Republic of Croatia itself. It is curious to note that P.Y. He remained silent for 40 days about the 10th session (of the Central Committee of the Communist League of Croatia, held in January 1970, translator's note) and about "the Zanko case," leaving it to the news agency France Presse to report on such a crucial event for Croatia and self-management socialism in general.

According to P.Y., Zanko was "brought" before the Central Committee of the Communist League of Croatia and, "after three days of discussions, was accused, rightly or wrongly, of being a 'unitary'." After Zanko's conviction, P.Y. reported: "...things have become more complicated." First, the leaders of the other federal republics received the condemnation with icy silence, as did the federal assembly" [65].

The height of political subversion and hostility toward Croatia is represented by P.Y.'s commentary on the attack against the Yugoslav ambassador in Sweden and the corresponding communiqué from the Central Committee of the Communist League of Croatia, concerning the conspiracy against the legitimate Croatian leaders. We reproduce here entire sections of the aforementioned commentary so that readers can judge for themselves, although others should as well: "...Of the approximately forty thousand Yugoslav citizens" in Sweden, "a good number are of Croatian origin. Some of them do not hide their sympathies for the "Ustaša" movement of the former Independent State of Croatia, created by Hitler and Mussolini.

A few lines later, commenting on the voices of the Croatian émigré community regarding the same event, P.Y. writes unequivocally: "Some of these voices even confirm the existence of secret contacts between the leaders of the Croatian Communist Party and the 'Ustaša émigré community.'"

Then, referring to the declaration of the Central Committee of the Communist League of Croatia concerning a conspiracy against it, P.Y. concludes in his characteristic style: "In any case, this accusation is serious because of its consequences, while there are many other problems of discord regarding the new reorganization of the State." [66]

Casting suspicion on Croatian workers in Sweden, writing tendentiously to discredit the political leaders of the Federal Republic of Croatia—this is the essence of the moral, national, and political position of this single article by P. Yankovitch.[67]

"Le Monde" has not published any reaction from the official representatives or organs of power of the FSR of Yugoslavia, nor from Croatia. We assume there was no such reaction because "Le Monde" usually publishes protests and corrections from diplomats and foreign state representatives.

The silence of official representatives emboldens "journalists" like Yankovitch. The consequences of such behavior are pernicious. Ask the readers of "Le Monde" what they think of Croatia and the Croats! They will hear, in abbreviated form, everything you have just read.

P. Yankovitch is not "Le Monde." But he is not an isolated case either. We will discuss others on another occasion.

These notes refer to articles in the Parisian daily "Le Monde." We will cite only the corresponding dates and pages:

(Translated from Hrvatski Tjednik - The Croatian Weekly, No. 23, September 24, 1971, Zagreb, Croatia, Yugoslavia. Spanish version by F. Nevistic.)

Starcevic, revitalizer of Croatian nationalism

Alejandro Dussaut

La Prensa, November 21, 1971, Buenos Aires, published this article, which we reproduce here in its essential parts:

"The Croatian people, whose origins date back to the 7th century, have been part of history since the coronation of the first king, Tomislav, of the national dynasty, in 925. From then on, they maintained not only their historical continuity but also their attributes of sovereignty.

"In 1102, Coloman, of the Arpad dynasty, was elected, and a personal union pact was established with the kings of Hungary. In 1527, Ferdinand, of the Habsburg dynasty, was re-enthroned as King of Croatia."

" "After the war of 1848 and Bach's absolutism, in 1868, the political-administrative treaty with Hungary was ratified, remaining in force until October 29, 1918, when the Croatian Parliament broke all its commitments to Austria and Hungary.

"The struggle against the Turks forced Croatia to align itself with the Western powers, which had occupied Budapest and besieged Vienna on several occasions, although they never managed, as the Croatians emphatically boast, to 'drink their horses at the holy water fountains of Zagreb Cathedral.'"

"After a failed attempt at Germanization by Vienna in 1861, Austria and Hungary signed a pact whereby Dalmatia (Croatian territory) would join Austria, and the rest of Croatia would join Hungary. The reaction was swift, and the man who would become the driving force behind Croatian nationalism, the national hero, the father of the nation, appeared on the political scene: Ante Starčević.

Born in the village of Žitnik, near Gošpić, on May 23, 1823, he is the greatest Croatian of the 19th century, the one who would raise the banner of the legitimate demands of a people with a thousand years of history who, for thirteen centuries, had been victims of the hegemonic aspirations, primarily of the great Austro-Hungarian Empire.

"Fruitless struggles reduce Croatia to a tiny expression: to what Parliament called Reliquiae reliquiarum olim inclyti regni Croatiae and what the Holy Father Leo X, in recognition of its heroism, named Antemurale Christianitatis, back in 1519 when they lived in a state of perpetual war."

Starcevic completed his primary studies in Klanac; At 23, he earned a doctorate in Philosophy, and two years later, he completed his studies in Theology. However, he did not take the priesthood; instead, he entered a law firm, where he practiced until 1878, having served as a notary in Rijeka between 1861 and 1863.

"From 1878 onward, at the age of 55, he devoted himself exclusively to journalism and politics. Croatia was enduring the injustices of its neighbors; it not only had to fight against the Turks but also against its own allies, such as the Austrians, who acted as if they were in an occupied country, committing all kinds of depredations and crimes that inflamed Starcevic's spirit.

"A vigorous and combative politician, he instilled fear in anti-Croatism, stirring the patriotic fervor of the Croats. He moved Parliament and soon became the true interpreter of national sentiment."

"He was always very poor and only aspired to subsist, but the people, who idolized him, acquired a magnificent residence through public subscription, which they presented to him in a solemn ceremony on July 15, 1895. Starcevic enjoyed it only briefly, as he died in 1896. It served as the headquarters of the Civic Club, the Parliamentary Club, and the offices of the party's newspaper, 'Croatian Law.' To this day, it is known as Starcevic's Home...

"Starcevic founded the Croatian Constitutional Law Party, with its unequivocal democratic leanings, and included prominent interpreters and followers of his ideology, such as Stjepan Radic, Vlatko Macek, Trumbic, Supilo, and others.

Considered the Mazzini of Croatia, Starcevic's motto, reflecting his unmistakable democratic stance, was: 'Political parties are the sign and proof of the freedom and strength of the state, such that where there are no parties, there is no freedom either.'"

"Starcevic founded the Croatian Constitutional Law Party, with its unequivocal democratic leanings, and it boasted qualified interpreters and followers of his ideology, such as Stjepan Radic, Vlatko Macek, Trumbic, Supilo, and others.

Considered the Mazzini of Croatia, Starcevic's motto, reflecting his unmistakable democratic position, was: 'Political parties are the sign and proof of the freedom and strength of the state, such that where there are no parties, there is no freedom.'" "In a document addressed to the Emperor, Franz Joseph of Habsburg in 1878, Starcevic told him, 'Your Majesty: in states governed by the rule of law, as is the Kingdom of Croatia, sovereignty resides in the people, and if the rulers are not convinced of this truth and do not abide by it, the situation will change to their detriment.'

His love for the land, his extraordinary culture, and his unwavering faith in freedom and democracy were the attributes that made him the soul of the people." Regarding Rijeka, recalling that Croatia was an associated country, he later said:

"Just as Your Majesty's family has not conquered by force of arms an inch of the vast Austrian state, so the Kingdom of Croatia, of its own free will, has chosen the august Habsburg-Lorraine family as its constitutional monarchs. The Croatian people are the only ones among the peoples of Austria who have never renounced their rights, nor have these been taken from them under any pretext of their faults. Nevertheless, the Croatian people are the only ones who fought against treason and persecution for the sake of their sovereigns."

"On June 26, 1861, he had already delivered a speech in Parliament vigorously attacking Austria, citing the foundations of what would become the Croatian Party of Right. And regarding the fate of that monarchy, he added: 'Let Austria not mock us; No, lest fortune turn against her and mockery befall her. The Croatian people, in all the misfortunes they unjustly suffer at the hands of Austria, always retain an invaluable gift: faith in God and in their own strength.'

"As if prophesying, he continued: 'For just as some thrones conspire against the freedom and happiness of their peoples, all peoples, without distinction of name or outward appearance, aware that they are all children of God, can unite against the attacks of their enemies.' Foretelling the world war, he predicted that Austria would end up a plaything in the hands of Russia.

"He returned to the matter on October 14, 1878, presenting to Parliament a note addressed to the King of Austria-Hungary, in which he demanded the complete independence of Croatia, specifying: 'I do not understand what those who claim that the Kingdom of Croatia, which for centuries resisted both East and West, cannot live alone, independently, mean." No people can exist outside the community of other peoples. However, each village can be like an independent state.

"His love of liberty and his deep-rooted patriotism made him irreconcilable with the Illyrians, Yugoslavs, Serbs-Croats, and Slavs in general, with whom the Croats did not identify. The Croatian leader could not conceive of an electoral system whose right to vote was limited to 5 percent of the population and which only benefited merchants and bureaucrats, always ready to serve as lackeys to the most deranged of tyrants, from whose favors and privileges they enjoyed."

"He conceived of cooperatives as the most sacred and advantageous associations. 'Such associations are sustained by blood and kinship, that is to say, in a natural, practical, and useful way. No other association can be more effective, healthy, and economical,' were his words in the speech he delivered on May 20, 1871.

His unwavering faith in his people led him to say in an election speech on October 14, 1878: 'I am not worried about remaining in the minority in Parliament, as long as outside of it I remain with the majority of the people, as I have been until now.' His tenacious struggle had to overcome the opposition of the nobility, the bureaucracy, and a good part of the clergy, who shaped public opinion in their own way. The people were not consulted; their interests were debated in salons and offices."

"In the political sphere, he struggled, unsuccessfully, to amend the electoral laws so that the Croatian Parliament would truly reflect the will of the people. He strove to ensure his people had a generous and democratic constitution, but his efforts were thwarted by monarchical despotisms, especially Austrian, which ultimately became a pawn of Russia, just as he had predicted.

The national hero of Croatia died on February 28, 1896, at the age of 73, and was buried modestly in the village of Sestine, among peasants. In the village cemetery, a short walk from the church door, Ante Starcevic rests in eternal peace. The people there paid homage to their favorite son by erecting a monument in his memory on October 11, 1911, a work by the celebrated sculptor Ivan Radic (Redic is a typographical error, SC note)."

"The national hero of Croatia died on February 28, 1896, at the age of 73, and was buried modestly among peasants. In the village cemetery, a short walk from the church door, Ante Starcevic rests in eternal peace. The villagers paid tribute to their beloved son by erecting a monument in his memory on October 11, 1911, a work by the celebrated sculptor Ivan Radic (Redic is a typographical error, SC note)."

"The national hero died on February 28, 1896, at the age of 73, and was buried in a modest plot among peasant farmers. In the village cemetery, a few steps from the church door, Ante Starcevic rests in eternal peace." "Its base features a bas-relief evoking Croatian history. Above it appears a lion breaking an iron fence with its claws and jaws, and beside it a woman representing Croatia, her clenched fists poised to do the same, even with chains. Above this allegorical mass is the bust of Starcevic. It is a powerful ensemble evoking a glorious history, symbolized in the monument to the life-giver of nationalism in this small and meritorious people. Every year on February 28, Zagreb pays homage to him in procession.

"Stevban Radic (1871-1928), president of the Croatian Republican Peasant Party, assassinated by a Serbian deputy in the Belgrade Parliament, delivered a speech on June 11, 1922, at the tomb that holds Starcevic's remains, and among other things said:

"...this glorious tomb, around which we have gathered today as men and as Croats, it is a great altar to that magnificent and grand idea that gives our Croatian nationality true content and value. This idea is the idea of right, stronger than any other power; the idea of the self-determination of a people against any kind of tyranny... Oh great and unshakeable son of small and stony Lika! (his native province). When you were laying the foundations of the party of the people's self-determination, the powerful rulers mocked you, suggesting they could carry all your followers in a basket over the summit of Sljeme (a mountain near Zagreb). But look! Today all of us Croats are "pravasi," that is, followers of the right to self-determination; we are all followers of a humanist policy of peace and order...'

"August Harambasic, a contemporary of that great democrat, sang his praises through heroic marches and evocative songs imbued with Starcevic's soul. Eugen Kumicic (in error omitted from La Prensa) is the author of the historical novel 'The Conspiracy of Zrinski and Frankopan,' which served the cause of freedom in the hands of the national apostle, the unconditional friend of the people, who, armed with universal principles, illuminated Croatia and clothed it in a clarity that future circumstances would challenge. For his part, Dr. Ante Kovacic, a novelist whose satire deeply wounded the enemies of freedom, was part of that group of men who fought for the independence of their noble people."

Strossmayer and the Bulgarians

Ante Kadic

For most well-known South Slavic historians, from the time of Strossmayer to the present day (e.g., Franjo Racki, Tade Smiciklas, Ivan Sismanov, Ferdo Sisicg, Vladimir Corovic, Slobodan Jovanovic, Viktor Novak, and Jaroslav Sidak), the Bishop of Djakovo was and remains a lucid and fervent supporter of the South Slavic cultural and political community.[68] When he declared (1885) "that the idea of a Slavic federation in the Balkan Peninsula was imperative,"[69] he not only expressed the essence of his convictions but also outlined a program, which has not been fully realized to this day.

Understandably, given the geographical proximity, linguistic similarity, and mixed population, Strossmayer paid particular attention to the Slovenes, Serbs, and Montenegrins, but he did not neglect the Bulgarians. He believed that Bulgarians were as close to Croats as other South Slavs, hence his love and interest in them.

Since the eastern branch of the South Slavic ethnic and linguistic community did not form the same state in either 1918 or 1945, it is often omitted, when discussing Strossmayer and his political views, that he—following in this respect some Croatian forerunners—spoke and wrote that the Bulgarians were his beloved Slavic brothers; he rejoiced in their political emancipation and was pleased by their rapid economic and cultural progress, and he did everything in his power to ensure that this country, once the cradle of ancient Slavic literature, would once again be an equal among the civilized peoples of Europe. More than all these political and economic achievements, the bishop was thrilled by the news of the emancipation of the Bulgarian peasants. Strossmayer sincerely admired "that South Slavic brother" who refused to allow the age-old enemy to deprive him of his rich spiritual heritage, so zealously guarded since the time of Saints Cyril and Methodius.

One of the most important dates in modern Bulgarian history, marking the transition from the period of Turkish and Greek subjugation to that of a conscious struggle for cultural development and political liberation, was 1762, when in the Zograf Monastery (on Mount Athos) the monk Paisij wrote the work *Istorija slavenobolgarskaia* (History of Slavic-Bolivarianism).

This book, circulated in numerous copies, filled the hearts of Bulgarian intellectuals (mostly priests) and young people with the pride of being descendants and heirs of the once very powerful Bulgarian state. His conclusion was logical: If we were masters of our own destiny before, why can't we be now? And the miracle occurred. Only a century later (1878) was Bulgaria proclaimed an independent political entity. For Bulgarians, the monk Paisij, along with Saints Cyril and Methodius, are the most influential figures in their national emancipation.

While writing his book, Paisij drew extensively on two works by Croatian authors: Il regno degli Slavi (1601) by Mavro Orbini of Ragus and Razgovor ugodni naroda slovinskoga (1759) (A Pleasant Conversation of the Croatian People) by Andrija Kacic-Miosic, a native of Makarska.

Peter the Great commissioned Sava Vladislavic, born in Herzegovina, to translate Orbini's work from Italian into Russian. Although this translation (1722) is incomplete and inaccurate, it was widely read among Orthodox Slavs and significantly influenced the beginnings of Serbian and Bulgarian historiography. Reading Orbini, Paisij criticized him for not mentioning Bulgarian saints, while at the same time thanking him for pointing out that Greek historians did not refer to the great Bulgarian monarchs because they were ashamed of having been defeated several times by their powerful Bulgarian neighbors. By comparing Paisij and Orbini, Professor Bojan Penev conclusively demonstrated that the Croatian Benedictine was an important source for the Bulgarian patriarch.[70]

At the end of 1761 it was written in Atos Zografska istoriia (The History of Zograf) to which Paisij often resorted. As proven by Professor Jurdan Trifonov, the anonymous author of that chronicle compiled certain passages from Kacic, which is especially clear from the chapter in which the Franciscan Mata refers to the "chiefs of Bulgaria." The author of Zograf's history faithfully follows the "Talk" from the Fourth Crusade ("in a short time they stormed Constantinople and took it by force, naming Baldwin emperor of the eastern regions") to the collapse of the Bulgarian empire ("since then Bulgaria has been subject to Turkey").

Since the legendary Illyrian rulers are also mentioned in this Bulgarian history, they did not appear in the first edition of the Talk (1756), which means that the monks of Atos learned about Kacic's collection of poems only two years after it was printed (1759)[71]. Tomo Matic, the first to point out this important study by Trifonov, correctly concludes: "Thus, at the moment when the Bulgarian monks began to awaken the dormant national consciousness through stories of a more beautiful past, alongside the Bulgarian national revival was also the Croatian Franciscan Kacic[72].

Croatian-Bulgarian ties were not limited to the cultural sphere but also extended to the religious and political sphere. In the course of the 17th century the Bulgarian Catholics, whose center was Ciprovac, had organized a strong resistance to the Ottomans. With their uprising they preceded the national movements of other Balkan Christians. The spiritual leaders of these Bulgarian Catholics were mainly the Croatian Franciscans, especially those who had arrived from Bosnia[73].

The Illyrian movement adopted the idea of the South Slavic union that was maturing in Croatia from Orbini, Gundulic, Mrnavic and Krizanic to Kacic. The leaders of the Croatian revival considered the Bulgarians an integral part of Magna Illyria, which in their opinion extended from the Triglav peak to the Black Sea. Ljudevit Gaj, for example, in his second Manifesto (1835), listing all the Slovenian and Croatian provinces, belonging to lliria ("Lira of Europe"), also included Montenegro, Servia, Bulgaria and Lower Hungary. In the newspaper Danica llirska (1837, Nos. 32 and 33) the article "Bulgarian Harvesters" was published, in which popular customs around Sofia were described.

This article begins: "In Macedonia, as is known, in addition to the Turks, Vlachs, Greeks and Albanians, many Bulgarian people live today, especially in the villages"[74]. Stanko Vraz inserted among "33 Bulgarian folk songs" (Kolo 1847, book IV and V) some collected in Bulgaria and others in present-day Macedonia. The beginning of Vraz's prologue to this successful selection is interesting: "To the east there is a tribe of our lineage, a people scattered throughout the fields and mountains of ancient Moesia, Thrace, Macedonia and Epirus itself, that we in the West only know that, poor and subjugated, they must serve the Turkish sultan and that they speak a Slavic dialect."

Since the Croats knew very little about the Bulgarians, Vraz decided to "publish some popular poetry of the Bulgarian people, collected in different regions of their homeland" [75]. His article, written according to the manuscript of the Russian folklorist V. Grigorovic, was concluded by Vraz: "Travelers report that Bulgarians like to sing songs. In that sense that people are brothers of the other Slavs" [76]. Many other Illyrians wrote about the Bulgarians in the 1840s and 1850s. Thus, for example, the combative and active Ivan Kukuljevic wrote for Zagreb's "Katolicki list" (1858) a review of modern Bulgarian literature, and two years later in the same newspaper Franjo Racki published a complement to this pioneering study of Kukuljevic.

I considered it appropriate to briefly refer to Croatian-Bulgarian cultural ties before Strossmayer for two reasons: first, because it is frequently written that Strossmayer initiated these links,[77] and second, although thanks to the bishop's outstanding personality, Bulgarian-Croatian relations in the 1860s entered one of their most important phases, Strossmayer merely deepened the long-standing interest of Slavophiles or Illyrian Croats in the eastern border of the South Slavic ethnic community.

Since Bulgarian scholars have also frequently written about Strossmayer,[78] I will not dwell on the issues they adequately illustrated, but will limit myself to the aspects and facts that did not attract their attention or were omitted.

In the 1860s, the Bulgarians were going through very difficult times. Not only were they still oppressed by the Turks, but the Greeks were also hindering their cultural progress. The moderate Bulgarians hoped to obtain ecclesiastical independence from the Sultan and then, through their metropolitans and monks, spread Bulgarian culture and literature. Others, feeling besieged on all sides, appealed to Pope Pius IX, requesting to be received into the Catholic Church.[79] The third group of Bulgarians took refuge in neighboring countries, Serbia and Romania, and from there, through their revolutionary activity, contributed first to ecclesiastical emancipation and then to the politics of their country.

During those decisive years, Strossmayer did much for the Bulgarians. On December 10, 1860, he addressed a letter to the Croatian ban (viceroy), enclosing the first contribution toward the founding of the South Slavic Academy. The bishop was convinced that the South Slavs, like the Italians and Germans, should found a learned society to promote the arts and sciences. Zagreb, already a deserving city for the resurgence of Croatian culture, should become the cultural center of the Balkan Slavs.

In this famous legacy, Strossmayer referred not only to the Croatian-Serbian linguistic rapprochement, but also mentioned the Bulgarians in the following beautiful terms: "The diligent Bulgarians should also join this circle. This people, numbering five million, already deserves our attention because in the past, in the literary field, they were ahead not only of the South Slavs but also of the North Slavs; even in recent times, they give proof that the spirit of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Clement, Exarch Ivan, and the great Emperor Simeon is not extinguished within them" [80]. This also opened the door to Bulgarians. Indeed, until the liberation of Bulgaria, Bulgarian scholars wrote for the Academy's Radovi, while before and after that date, the Academy published several high-quality works on Bulgarians and their past (e.g., Racki wrote about the most brilliant period in Bulgarian history, the reign of Samuilo, and Fermendzin, of Bulgarian origin, published the important work Acta Bulgariae ecclesiastica).

A few months later, on April 29, 1861, when he was advocating in the Croatian Parliament (Sabor) for the need to found a university, Strossmayer did not forget the Bulgarians, for he foresaw that in the Balkan mountains too "the dawn of a better future is beginning to show its face" [81]. As soon as the Croatian University was inaugurated (1874), Bulgarians began to enroll. Their numbers were significant at the beginning of this century, especially in the period between the two world wars.[82] After 1945, for the first time, there were no Bulgarian students in Zagreb.

During the 1860s and 70s, with the formation of modern Bulgaria, Macedonia once again played a leading role. Prominent cultural figures emerged within its territory: Rajko Zinzifov, who, based primarily in Russia, informed Russian circles about the precarious situation of the Balkan Slavs, and Grigor Prilicev, who began writing in Greek and later (moved by the tragedy of the Miladinov brothers, as recounted in his Autobiography) in the Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect. However, the most important figures were the Miladinov brothers.

Dimitar, the elder, distinguished himself more as a politician than as a writer, for his energetic struggle against the Phanariote ecclesiastical authorities and for introducing the Slavic language into schools. Constantine published about fifteen poems, predominantly imbued with patriotic sentiment. His most beautiful poem is titled "Sadness for the South" (Taga za jug). He wrote it in Moscow, ill, longing for the midday sun to warm his soul and body:

“No, I cannot live here: Nor always gaze at the ice! Give me light wings to fly to my beloved homeland, to visit the places I yearn for, to see beautiful Ohyid and Struga.”

As early as the 1840s, while working as a teacher in several Macedonian villages, Dimitar dedicated himself to collecting folklore. He was encouraged by the well-known Russian ethnographer Victor Grigorovic, who was interested in cultural documents in the territory of the then Ottoman Empire. When Dimitar's younger brother, Constantine, went to Russia to continue his studies, he took with him a collection prepared by his brother. In Moscow, he refined it and included the poems given to him by his friends Zinzifov and Colakov. However, he searched in vain for a publisher in Russia.

Already on the verge of despair, Constantine learned that Bishop Strossmayer, the renowned protector and benefactor of the Slavs, was in Vienna. Constantine hurried to Vienna, presented himself to the bishop, and asked for his help in publishing a collection of Bulgarian folk poetry. Strossmayer promised to cover the publication costs on the condition that it be printed not in Greek characters (as the Miladinov brothers intended) but in Cyrillic. Constantine readily agreed. He traveled with the bishop to Djakovo, stayed at the seminary, and in three months prepared and copied the collection for printing. While the book was at the printer, from January to June 1861, Constantine resided in Zagreb.

At the end of June, Bulgarski narodni pesmi, sobrani od Bratia Miladinovci i izdani od Konstantina (published by Jakic)[83] (Bulgarian Folk Poems), compiled by the Miladinov brothers and edited by Constantine, appeared. This voluminous book (550 pages) contained 660 Bulgarian folk poems, mostly collected in Macedonia. The historical significance of this collection lies in having paved the way for future compilers of folk treasures (such as Ron Kuzman Sapkarev and Marko Copenkov) and laid the foundation upon which not only Bulgarian literature but also, later, Macedonian literature developed. Moreover, these poems stirred national pride among the people.

The book was dedicated to Strossmayer, "who kindly took an interest in the Bulgarians, South Slavs," and generously assisted in the editing of this collection. Without his help, Constantine writes, those Bulgarian poems would have remained for a long time "hidden in uncertainty" [84].

The list and names of the Croatian subscribers (meaning the vast majority) were printed in Latin characters.[85] A few Serbs and several Bulgarians subscribed from Belgrade. Of the Bulgarian cities, only Hazkovo is mentioned. Petar Beron, the first Bulgarian secular writer, ordered 25 copies from Paris.

Constantine, very pleased, brought some copies to Hazkovo, which he gave to the bishop and his friends there. But this joy did not last long for this man with "sunken eyes and a suffering face." In those days, he received news that his brother Dimitar, accused by the Greeks of being a Russian propagandist, was imprisoned. He immediately left to help his brother. Passing through Belgrade, where he spoke with Bulgarian revolutionaries and the poet Georgi Rakovski, Miladinov learned that his brother had already been transferred to Istanbul. Therefore, instead of returning to his native Macedonia, he went to the Turkish capital. As soon as he arrived, the Greeks apparently denounced him to the Porte, and the Turks imprisoned him along with his brother.

The bishop only learned of Constantine's fate at the end of October. He immediately wrote to Johann Rechberg, the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, requesting his intervention in the release of the Miladinov brothers.[86] Strossmayer assured Rechberg that he knew Constantine well, having resided for a time in Djakovo, and believed him incapable of breaking any law. The minister, in turn, wrote to his ambassador in Istanbul, Prokesch Osten, who replied that he had received a note from the Turkish Grand Vizier informing him that the Turkish police were charging the Miladinov brothers with involvement in a conspiracy and that many important documents testified against them.[87] Rechberg informed Strossmayer about this.

Strossmayer then addressed Rechberg again with a long and important letter (December 28, 1861), which in subsequent decades would become a "stumbling block" for some Bulgarians and Macedonians. The speed with which he replied to the letter from the Foreign Ministry in Vienna, dated December 22, demonstrates how great his interest was in the Miladinov brothers. Referring to certain charges brought against the imprisoned brothers, Strossmayer expresses his conviction that the Turkish police had been misinformed. Austria should intervene on behalf of the innocent Constantine, the bishop writes, since he "belongs to the Catholic party." Croatia, now that Bulgaria will align itself with either the East or the West, could play a decisive role. Every reasonable policy should assist the Croats in this historic mission.[88]

This correspondence between the bishop and Rechberg, and that of the latter with his ambassador in Istanbul, abruptly ceased on January 29, 1862. Prokesch Osten informed his minister that the Miladinov brothers had died (Constantine on the 18th and Dimitar on the 23rd of January). It had previously been claimed that they had been poisoned, presumably because the Turks feared that further interventions might force them to surrender, but it was later suggested that the brothers, weakened and tortured, succumbed to typhus.

This unwelcome news deeply affected the bishop. An article ("The Sad Voice of a Bulgarian" by Vasil Colakov) was published in his party's newspaper, Pozor, accusing Russia, rather than the Phanariots, of having caused the brothers' deaths through the negligence of its agents (or perhaps deliberately). Colakov is convinced that the martyred Miladinov brothers have erected a lasting monument in the hearts of all Bulgarians.[89]

Bulgarians and Macedonians are grateful to the bishop for his assistance in publishing the Miladinov collection and for his zealous intervention in securing their release from prison, but since the 1960s, some (albeit very few) have suspected Strossmayer of having dishonest and covert intentions.[90] He is mainly criticized for two things: first, for having said of Constantine that he belonged to the Catholic party ("Miladinov gehört, ohne allen Zweifel, zu der karhalische Parthei")[91]; second, for having financially supported some young Bulgarians who studied at the Greek Catholic seminary in Zagreb.

As for Constantine's Catholicism, it is possible, according to Traikov, that the bishop expressly emphasized it to win the sympathies of the Austrian authorities for his protégée. I do not know, moreover, why Traikov categorically states that Constantine was "an adversary of Catholic propaganda and union"[92]. We know that men change, and we can understand that Constantine, who during his stay in Moscow (1858) translated Flerov's anti-unionist work from Russian, saw the ecclesiastical schism in a different light.

The Russians had utterly disappointed him, and he experienced Strossmayer's magnanimity and kindness. Polenakovid admits that Constantine, while residing in Zagreb, "had become enthusiastic about the union" and often visited the Greek Catholic seminary.[93] Moreover, it is clear from his letter to Rakovsky (written in Zagreb at the beginning of February 1861) that the question of church unification was of great interest to him and that he hoped the salvation of the Bulgarian people might come from elsewhere, not from the Russian side.[94]

Any account of the Bulgarians' struggle for church freedom[95] will tell you that a pro-Catholic movement had emerged without any interference or influence from Strossmayer. When, in this situation, church superiors asked him for help in the education of young Bulgarians, he agreed to grant scholarships to four students.[96]

In his reply to "the Bulgarian Catholic brothers in Istanbul" (written for Easter 1861), he acknowledges closely following the ecclesiastical movement that had arisen within the Bulgarian people. Above all, he cherishes the hope that the Bulgarian people could, through Catholicism, share in all the benefits that Western Europe had long enjoyed. Then, by this same path, he will establish "the link that will bind them to the Croatian people." No one understood the visionary Strossmayer better than Jurinic, who transcribed the bishop's correspondence on this subject in more than ten pages.

This Bulgarian professor (of Croatian origin) understood the bishop's joy, for the bishop saw in the reconciliation of the Eastern and Western churches a guarantee of the future political union of South Slavic Europe. In the 1960s, when dark clouds loomed over Bulgaria and Croatia, Strossmayer prayed to God that the South Slavs (when nothing else was possible) might at least find common ground in the cultural and ecclesiastical spheres. He was guided solely by pure and noble intentions.[97]

* * *

While the situation in Croatia continued to worsen (after the Compromise of 1868), in Bulgaria, due to the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the tenacious struggle of the revolutionary forces, things were improving. First, the Sultan granted the Bulgarians independence from the Phanariote Church, and then they strove to achieve political freedom as well. They rose up in April 1876, hoping to force the Turks to retreat, but they were defeated, thousands upon thousands hanged, their villages burned. The Turks proceeded as in the Middle Ages, conquering region after region with fire and sword before the indifferent gaze of the West. Gone were the days of Marko Marulic, the father of Croatian literature, when, impoverished in the 15th century, he implored the Western powers for help for the Christians of the Balkans.

Europe now followed the uprising of the Bulgarian masses with sympathy and was horrified by their martyrdom. Not only various correspondents but also several writers raised their voices in his defense. The most eloquent was the celebrated English statesman Gladstone, who censured the British government for its collusion with the sick man of the Bosporus.[98] The impact of his indictment was enormous. Even in southeastern Europe, his writing on "the Bulgarian Horrors" (The Bulgarian Horrors, 1876) had an encouraging impact as clear proof that the awakened moral conscience of the British people would condemn Disraeli's pro-Turkish policies.

Gladstone and Strossmayer had already established contact through Lord Acton, who met the bishop in Rome during his opposition to the dogma of papal infallibility. Liddon, a well-known London preacher, encouraged Strossmayer to write to Gladstone. This advocate for the Balkan Christians, while visiting Belgrade, traveled to Djakovo and became good friends with Strossmayer.[99] R. W. Seton-Watson[100] was the first to publish Strossmayer's letters, which greatly influenced Gladstone's views on the Eastern Question and in which the bishop condemned the excessive influence of Italian prelates in the Roman Curia.

Strossmayer begins his first letter to Gladstone (dated Djakovo, October 1, 1876) by thanking the English statesman "for having intervened so generously before your glorious people, before the whole civilized world, for the rights of humanity and liberty so longed for by the unfortunate South Slavs, for whom they shed their blood in unequal struggle"; he also writes "to ease the burden that weighs on his heart."

Here is the bishop's plea on behalf of the persecuted Bulgarians: "The Bulgarians are a peaceful, reasonable, and hardworking people, endowed with various virtues. And an ethical and hardworking people is inherently capable of governing themselves. If an independent government were granted to this noble Slavic race, forces would be unleashed that would very soon contribute to the enrichment of civilization, both moral and material; the ecclesiastical autonomy, partially implemented, will serve as a school for their political autonomy."

Referring to the Serbs as "a warrior race, full of vital force," the bishop did not fail to emphasize the role he assigned to his people. We Croats, in fact, can say that in this small group of Slavic brothers, we represent the Tuscan element... We have earned the title of being guides on the path of spiritual progress and high ideals. We are aware of our mission in that region (the Balkans) and of the issues that trouble the world.” While he was striving with all his might for the Bulgarians and other South Slavs, Strossmayer hoped that his Croatia could become the spiritual center. When the Russians conquered Pleven in 1877 and launched a general offensive in early 1878, seizing Sofia, Plodiv, and Adrianople successively, they planned to march on Istanbul. Great Britain opposed the Russian troops conquering the Turkish capital, even provisionally. In this situation, the Russians agreed to negotiate peace with the Turks.

Before the Treaty of San Stefano, the bishop wrote to Gladstone, expressing his fear that his beloved Bulgarians might lose in the political arena what they had gained, with Russian support, in the military. In his letter of February 13, 1878, Strossmayer thanked Gladstone for the brilliant proofs of his support. Unfortunate Balkan Christians. Since all the States have already consented to convene the Congress and thus to pacification, he wishes to make a few observations: he believes it would be "worthy not only of this or that party in England, but of the eternal and glorious English nation, to advocate in the Congress for the principles of humanity and liberty without allowing petty calculations to divert it from this path. You must admit that in this regard, he is somewhat apprehensive.

When the liberation of all northern and southern Bulgaria was being debated in the English Parliament, your Prime Minister spoke in a flippant and clumsy manner. He exclaimed in a threatening tone: 'Regarding the liberation of Bulgaria, there are others also who wish their interests to be considered...' It seems to me that he meant: the liberation of Bulgaria is a just cause; and the English people have nothing against it; however, for other reasons, England would be pleased if others opposed it. This implies, to some extent, proceeding like Pilate, who believed it was as easy to cleanse a dirty conscience as dirty hands... If England in Congress were to advocate for the interests of oppressed peoples, it would morally win in the eyes of the whole world, and above all in the eyes of the oppressed peoples whose interests are at stake" [101].

Shortly after the San Stefano agreement, Strossmayer wrote (March 14) a lengthy "memorial" to Cardinal Franchi, the papal Secretary of State, in which he protested against certain Catholic newspapers, prone to amputating Bulgaria. He feared that at the future Congress (the Berlin Congress) the great powers would not leave Bulgaria the borders guaranteed to it at San Stefano. This must not happen; rather, all of Europe, together with Russia, must give Bulgaria what belongs to it [102]. What Strossmayer feared came to pass: Bulgaria was amputated and partitioned. It is no wonder, then, that the news of the brilliant victory of Gladstone in the elections (March 30, 1880)[103]. He hastened to express his most sincere congratulations to him in writing (April 17). "The Austrian Slavs and the Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula were most sincerely pleased by your victory... Your opinion concerning the nationalities in European Turkey is quite accurate.

Let these peoples be allowed to adopt the system they deem most suitable for preserving and fostering their freedoms and cultures.” Guided by his visions, Strossmayer expresses his conviction that Gladstone’s victory is the work of Providence, which bestowed upon him this honor to “put an end to the brutal Turkish rule in Europe… I cannot find words to express what my joy would be if I could witness the Christian service in the magnificent church of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul” [104]. Bulgarian spiritual and political leaders shared identical dreams.

It is interesting to note that all this diplomatic activity by Strossmayer on behalf of the Bulgarians was not unknown in the remote Balkan mountains. Even some Bulgarian guerrillas approached him requesting financial assistance. We transcribe the beginning of their request: “Your noble name and the fact that you are the benefactor, patron, and protector of all South Slavs have also reached our Macedonian mountains, covered with eternal snow. The Macedonian-Bulgarian League 'Freedom or Death', established with the aim of liberating Macedonia from the indescribable Turkish barbarism, which still groans under the Turkish yoke—from which the famous holy apostles Cyril and Methodius originate—is encouraged to address this modest request to Your Excellency. This is the plea of the entire Bulgarian people in Macedonia for you, great patriot and patron, to help us with a small contribution.” Although careful not to offend anyone, the bishop decided to send the Bulgarian guerrillas 100 florins.[105]

At the beginning of September, Bulgarian revolutionary detachments seized Plovdiv, the capital of eastern Rumelia, expelled the Turkish representative, Gabrilo Kruitevic, and established a provisional government, which elected A. Battenberg as its prince and, with this act, formally proclaimed the unification of the two Bulgarian provinces. Petko Karavelov's government took steps to obtain the consent of the great powers and neighboring countries. Milan, King of Serbia, considered that the Bulgarians had thereby upset the balance of power established by the Congress of Berlin and declared war on Bulgaria. The war lasted 15 days (from November 14 to 29). The Serbian army was first defeated at the Battle of Three days near Slivnica and then at Firot.

The enthusiasm of the Bulgarian people was indescribable; they united, defeated their belligerent neighbour, and won the moral support of the entire civilized world. After these victories, no one doubts the fait accompli. How much Strossmayer cared for justice is clearly demonstrated by his letters to Ralki and his contributions to the Bulgarian Red Cross. As soon as he learned of the Serbian defeat at Pirot, Strossmayer wrote Ralki a long letter (November 29), from which I transcribe some characteristic passages that clearly speak to the bishop's political acumen:

"I cannot express how pleased I am that the just Bulgarian cause, under the protection of divine Providence, has triumphed. It is the hand of God! In this way, the plan completely opposed to the Slavs was defeated.[106] With this, our intentions also triumphed."

"The Serbs planned to eradicate, with the help of the Slavs' perennial enemies, the Croatian state, under whose protection they had found fraternal protection and enjoyed for centuries. And if they succeed in exterminating the good Bulgarian people, there they will have Dusan's empire renewed! May God grant that they now open their eyes; they should see the grave they dug for others, a grave they first prepared for themselves.

"For some time now, we have been pleased to see your promising youth among us, and when we hear or read that some of them hold positions of honor, prestige, and influence... we rejoice sincerely, considering your progress, your freedom, and your happiness as our own." As was his custom, he also sent financial assistance to this association.[111]

This letter of thanks touched the Bulgarian intellectuals. That same year, Professor Teodorov wrote a study on Strossmayer's merits for Miladinov's collection.[112] At the beginning of his work, Teodorov quoted the aforementioned letter; then, at length and convincingly, he substantiated Strossmayer's importance in the awakening of Bulgarian national consciousness. Had Miladinov's poems been printed in Greek script, then used by many Bulgarians, they would not have achieved nearly the success they did, Teodorov argues, by being printed in Cyrillic characters. These poems, published during a difficult time for the Bulgarian people, greatly contributed to scholars' growing appreciation of the Bulgarian vernacular and the people who created it.

At the end of his study, Teodorov proposed that the grateful Bulgarian people would be celebrating, two years later, the 25th anniversary of the death of the martyred Miladinov brothers. His proposal was enthusiastically accepted. And when the Bulgarians paid homage to the memory of the Miladinov brothers, they did not forget Strossmayer. On that occasion, they sent him many telegrams of gratitude, expressing their hopes that he would continue his fruitful work. Professor Sismanov, who witnessed these celebrations, later wrote that those days were an apotheosis not only for the Miladinov brothers but also for the Croatian bishop.[113]

Ivan Sismanov, the esteemed Bulgarian literary historian, begins his account of his trip to Djakovo (summer of 1898) by stating that it was his long-held desire to meet the brilliant bishop and obtain from him some detailed information about the younger Miladinov. While Emile de Laveley sketched the bishop as an almost ascetically thin figure, like a saint from Fra Angelico's paintings in St. Mark's Church,[114] Sismanov sees him "as a tall, still vigorous old man with a handsome and impressive head. With an immensely gentle smile that illuminates his whole face, he advances with a firm and virile stride toward me, cordially offering his hand. Had I not known, I would never have thought that an 84-year-old man was standing and speaking before me; for everything about him is proportionately young: his gait, his beautiful, manly voice, and above all, the spirit that radiates from him."

After describing their two-day conversation, Sismanov concludes: "Strossmayer, who so influenced my childhood soul, was before me in the flesh, not as an unattainable deity, not as a doctrinaire and ascetic, but as the embodiment of all that is noble, humane, and endearing in human nature." Since Strossmayer was celebrating his last birthday of the 19th century in March 1899, Sismanov says that every Bulgarian wished him "many years," and the poet Popoy congratulated him on behalf of the Slavs: "On this day of pure and sublime glory, not only do the Croats cheer you with fervor, noble old man, but all Slavs profess their sympathy and immense affection with good wishes for you..."[115].

[115] Jurinic, who contributed the most to Strossmayer's popularity in Bulgaria, greeted him in Djakovo on the occasion of his 50th anniversary as bishop (in September (1900), he stressed that his work also warmed the Bulgarian people who greatly appreciate him[116].

Jurinic, who contributed the most to Strossmayer's popularity in Bulgaria, greeted him in Djakovo on the occasion of his 50th anniversary as bishop (in September (1900), he stressed that his work also warmed the Bulgarian people who greatly appreciate him[116].

Ilija Koney, the foremost expert on Bulgarian-Croatian cultural relations, wrote an excellent study on the occasion of Miladinov's collection, addressing all the debatable issues and considering that "the essential element in the bishop's relationship with Miladinov is his Slavophilia, his idea of uniting the Western and Eastern churches during the era of the national struggles of the South Slavic peoples" [117]. He also emphasizes that the bishop helped lay the cornerstone of what is now a magnificent Bulgarian cultural edifice.

In this way, Strossmayer also did much good for the Bulgarians, demonstrating that he was "neither an Austrian agent" nor an "opportunist" but a visionary and an idealist. "He loved all the branches of the great Slavic tree," his biographers write, "without diminishing in the least his love for his Croatian people" [118].

Bloomington, Indiana, USA. Spanish translation: Branko Kadic

Benedetto Croce and the crossroads of European civilization

Bogdan Radica

"Violence is neither power nor strength, but weakness."

The development of Croce's thought over the last fifteen years unfolded on the ethical-political plane, where the conflict between his metapolitical liberalism and the totalitarian-statist conception of the State becomes ever more acute and adverse. As the political praxis of the dynamic and totalitarian State extends to all spheres of the country's life, Croce's idea becomes stronger, more powerful, and increasingly solid. This relationship between the authentic idea and the political attitude, which are ideologically separated in an irreconcilable contrast of opposition, constitutes a dramatic conflict of historical significance.

With the exception of the intellectual betrayal of G. Gentile, to use J. Benda's terms, and the Guelphian and medieval stance of G. Pappini, the entire rest of Italy's spiritual "elite," imbued with the continuity of the great and fundamental Italian ideal of the Risorgimento, believed and professed that politics is nothing other than a struggle of ideas, grounded in ethics and morality. This is why they had to leave the country and live in exile.

Croce remained alone and isolated in his Baroque Naples, in the great Thomistic tradition of medieval monasteries, against whose walls, as he himself said, the waves of life crash in vain. In his library of tens of thousands of volumes, which the attacks of the frenzied streets often attempted to brand with the mark of resurgent vandalism, the master of one of the most restless Italian generations remained completely alone. Despite the growing number of his readers, he remains alone and proud in his solitude. Croce remains alone, proudly and enthusiastically alone, whether in his patrician house in Naples, where the humanist tradition is alive in the presence of G. B. Vico, revived in his historical understanding of the relationships between time; whether attentively following the sessions of the Roman Senate, his lively presence bearing witness to the resistance to the passage of time; or whether resting in the old-fashioned settings of liberal Piedmont.

In this solitude, forged by the experience of a sovereign spirit, in which the tragedy of life is transformed, through a universal idea, into a resilient optimism of wisdom, Croce's Neapolitan humor and active intelligence are revived, enlivened by the laughter of his four daughters and his bibliophilic passion. The solitude of the author of the Philosophy of Spirit, whom all the Italian academies rejected and whose works were proscribed in every school, is not merely symbolic of the era in which old Europe was both living and dying. This solitude is historically significant and even pathetically dramatic. As this solitude deepens, Croce's thought becomes more sublime, more brilliant, and, religiously, more exciting. Through this solitude, brought about by his renunciation of political reality, Croce's thought managed to move from the aesthetic-literary-critical plane to the realm where the eternal idea, in the catharsis of life, seeks the answer to and the solution of conflicting ethical and ideological problems.

The moral and intellectual development of Croce's personality began with the study of small historical documents and the writing of an aesthetic treatise. When his Aesthetics appeared, Italy was still following the positivist-Lombrosian orientation and embracing the moral and political ideals of D. Sanetis and Carducci. Croce introduces discontent, doubt, and revolt into this world of established beliefs and concepts, where the boundaries and definitions of beauty and goodness were already predetermined. He launches his protest through his opinions on beauty. Italy is the country where beauty has always been the passion of generations.

If Italy remained ethically and politically dead for centuries, until the awakening of liberal and positivist thinkers, if it lacked a clear and precise idea regarding its national and moral formation, its philosophical and religious mission as an ethnic whole, this was a consequence of having overshadowed all other forces, inspirations, and aspirations with the pursuit of beauty. It is in Italy that treatises on beauty were the exclusive preoccupation of entire generations, and where the idea of the State was long forgotten, only beginning to take shape from the ashes of forgotten tradition and imported, transplanted influences.

Although he is considered a supporter of Carducci's idealist generation and in opposition to Lombroso's positivist one, Croce made considerable contributions to the destruction of the established foundations and definitions upon which the old Italian world rested. Croce's neo-idealism, in this sense, undoubtedly propelled Italy into a boundless adventure of ideas, from which the great political adventure also emerged. Croce distanced himself on several occasions from the influences that his compatriot and contemporary, Giuseppe D'Annunzio, had on Italy at that time. D'Annunzio's vitalist, intuitive, dynamic, and imperialist-nationalist vision was made possible by Croce's neo-idealist vision, which lacked a conscious connection between thought, spirit, life, and action. In this latter vision, thought, spirit, life, and action constituted the original basis of the aesthetic individualism of the Philosophy of Spirit, which was not yet fully formulated.

This view regarding the formation of Croce's thought finds confirmation in his autobiography, written during the war, *Contribution to the Critique of Myself*, where Croce anticipates the collapse of his earlier aspirations, announcing, through *Logic and Practice*, the development of his knowledge in the ethical and political fields. The philosophy that originated from life and sought its greatest strength in the experience of constant contact with it could not remain indifferent to the unfolding of reality. His thought proceeded quite naturally from aesthetics, passing through logic and economics directly to ethics and politics, considering them as the totality of moral and practical life. Historical materialism and Marxism, which he overcame in his dialectical critique under the influence of Labriola and on the basis of Hegel's idealism, prepared him for this path.

The history of the old Neapolitan archives and his contact with Vico, with whom Croce began his considerations of the life of ideas, provided him with the decisive insight in this final stage of his development. When the new political doctrine of national fascism found its ideological basis in neo-idealism, in vital intuition, in national vitalism and dynamism, denying the abstract, positivist and outdated form of the democratic-liberal State, and the historical materialism of socialism as well as the arithmetic and rigid utopianism of Marx's Manifesto, B. Croce returns to history as the basis of all thought, to ethics as the support of all action and to freedom as the source of all religion.

While Gentile embraced the Nazi-fascist state, seeing in it the result of the neo-idealist conception of practice and giving it a complete philosophical system, Croce justified his distancing himself from and opposition to the supremacy of the national-fascist doctrine solely on the grounds of individualism, ethics, and morality, as well as the absolute impossibility of the spiritual personality being lost in the collective supremacy of state totalitarianism. Abandoned by Gentile and removed from the university and secondary schools, Croce began his tragic solitude. This solitude led him to return to the "sacred sources" not only of the new Italian thought but also of European thought in general. By reviving Vico's work, Croce claimed to be doing so not only to make Italians feel more Italian but also to encourage them to think more in a European way. The solitude imposed upon Croce by the political reality of the mystified idealism of the national-fascist state led him back to the Europe of the great idealist tradition and aristocratic liberalism.

Currently, in the final phase of his rich research, everything converges on a single concern: the position of philosophy in relation to history, history conceived as idea and action, from which, logically and naturally, politics also arises, interpreted as a component of ethical law.

Indeed, Croce concludes his work at the same point from which he began, when his entire system recognized the indivisible totality of the spirit, denying dualism. The creative act, for Croce, was always individual in nature, originally incomparable, and the absolute expression of individual genius. History, as Croce conceives it, is the individual embodiment of humanity. Metapolitical liberalism is the personification of aristocratic individualism, in which Croce sees the culmination of human aspirations. Croce, in reality, is in all four aspects of his philosophical system an extreme defender of individualism and the human personality as the most sublime form of 19th-century Europe.

Forced to live like Plotinus, Dante, and Machiavelli in the humiliating and intellectually withered atmosphere of his homeland, Croce resolves his discontent by perfecting his own thought. This period, which we can consider, given his age, as the end of his life, is filled with works in the ethical-political and historical fields. Ethics and Politics, which, along with the earlier Fragments of Ethics, contains the foundations of politics, and the current Moral Considerations on Political Life, marks the beginning of Croce's subsequent analysis of the contemporary philosophical and political foundations of most of Europe.

Alongside Moral Considerations... which are, in effect, the application of Political Bases, adding here also Orientations, short essays on political philosophy, is where Croce expresses, comments on, and criticizes National Socialism and Communism and all other forms of totalitarian doctrines, dismantling the historical pessimism of contemporary German relativist thought, historical materialism, and communist ideology. On this foundation are built great works: History of Italy (1814-1914); History of Europe (19th Century). From the philosopher of beauty, who saw the grandeur of artistic work, he became the author of an idea that encapsulates the entire moral and ideological destiny of humanity.

Starting from the premise that the old philosophy had died and that modern human thought, preceded by the efforts of Descartes, Vico, Kant, and Hegel, had begun with a new idea that identified philosophy and history, ethics and politics, Croce, in his moral and intellectual development, achieved the culmination of all his endeavors as well as the realization of all his spiritual aspirations. This achievement culminated in his latest work, *History as Thought and Action*, where all these ideas are synthesized into a broad and well-defined vision of life, rising above experience and reality themselves.

In stark opposition to the apocalyptic positions of contemporary European thought, characterized by activism and relativism, and addressing the historical thought of O. Spengler and the catastrophic opinions of the latest false prophets of European decline, Croce raises from the ashes of European thought a faith in history, morality, and the ideal of freedom. Sincerely and profoundly exploring all the paths and detours of thought, synthesizing them into a historical vision, Croce draws certain conclusions about the current moment of profound confusion in which the catharsis of Europe is identified with the concept of the dissolution and disappearance of all historical consciousness. The anti-historical position of the current philosophical generation is a result of the loss of awareness regarding the individual's mission, the reason for their existence. It is necessarily linked to the crisis of thought and culture. Human beings are historical beings, products of history. In this capacity, humanity is the seat of universality. History is thought itself.

History was long considered the least valuable form of thought and knowledge. But history is not "chronicle," nor erudition, nor anecdote, nor simply accumulating and recounting facts. History is being born today from the effort of human thought; it is nothing other than the historical idea, the historical judgment, that is, the judgment of conscience and the historical problem. As a historical idea and as a judgment of the human condition, history becomes the most integral and complete form of knowledge. As a historical judgment and as a historical problem, as thought and knowledge, history is universal. Croce rightly distinguishes Philosophy from the history of thought itself. Thinking historically, history is logically identified with philosophy.

History is the synthesis of idea and action. It represents the continuity between the past, present, and future. History, conceived as an idea, does not sever ties; rather, it binds efforts together in time. Therefore, in the history-idea there is no absolute stagnation but continuous enrichment and incessant progress. History, therefore, is progress. History as an idea, history as progress, history as judgment—the judgment of human conscience—is identical to freedom in its singularity as an eternal position of human endeavors. History as progress is identical to history as freedom.

In history, there is no decline that does not simultaneously represent preparation, formation, and incitement for a new life. History is a synthesis of human oppositions, which characterize the rise and fall of human progress. Within these periods, there are stages in which freedom is completely obscured and the traces of civilization are almost lost, only to rise again from the ashes, even stronger and more powerful. Through a history thus conceived, humanity marches ceaselessly in the direction that leads to the conquest of ever broader and more complete freedom. Here we find the essence of the law of progress and freedom according to Croce's conception.

Unlike the Marxist, economic, and naturalist conception of progress and freedom, which Croce criticizes here, his concept of progress does not stop there. In his thought, progress is unlimited insofar as it is, in effect, the progress of the spirit of freedom, which continually engenders and provokes new opposites and constantly overcomes them. Croce defines the history-idea as "the history about histories," because it would be the history-political and the history of civilization. In this way, the history-idea synthesizes within itself all the dense histories (of the economy, of wars, of art), becoming the history of the State, conceived as an ethical State, which directs the life of history. It is also, at the same time, the history of civilization insofar as it characterizes moral and ethical life, rescuing it from the vulgarity and stagnation of the State. Ethical-political history becomes the history of freedom, elevating it to the position of the permanent creator of history. In this way, freedom becomes the principle that interprets the development of history and the moral ideal of humanity.

Freedom is perennial insofar as it incorporates historical judgment as the conscience of humanity. Humankind always yearns for "a more intense freedom." "History," says Croce, "is neither an idyll nor a tragedy. It is a drama in which all activities, all characters, all members of the chorus, in the Aristotelian sense, are mingled in good and evil, but, despite everything, in the guiding idea only good remains, which evil accepts to serve and acts as its instigator. This drama is the work of freedom, which is striving to re-establish and is always re-establishing the social and political conditions for a more intense freedom." Humanity continually experiences tragic setbacks, encountering triumphs but also defeats of its freedom. We find this progress in Periclean Athens, then in Republican Rome, as well as in the medieval republics. Even Napoleon became the decisive instigator of a broader conquest of liberty.

History as an idea creates a historicism that, when it stems from the Enlightenment, surpasses and completes it insofar as it overcomes and conquers the abstract rationalism of the Enlightenment and identifies it with reason. Historicism, says Croce, proceeds from logical reason in the same way that poetry is born from poetic imagination. Historicism also bears within itself signs of revolution, of an authentic and constructive revolution, insofar as it is the evolution toward a new direction that leads to liberty.

Herein also lies the difference between the French Revolution and that of 1848. Historicism also encompasses and absorbs humanism, which, renewed and adapted to modern times, creates the conditions for the renewal of liberalism. History as liberty, historicism as a synthesis of all the adversities through which humanity ceaselessly passes in order to conquer liberty, finds its ethical and political system in liberalism.

At the heart of liberalism lies moral conscience. For Croce, morality is the struggle against evil. Evil is an eternal enemy of the totality-unity of life. Morality is a tendency, an aspiration toward the restoration of totality and the balance between life and spirit, constantly trampled by evil, imbalance, and immorality. Immorality arises as the opposite of morality, carrying within it fatalism, skepticism, and historicism. It signifies optimism and religious confidence in the victory of good. Immorality arises as the opposite of morality, carrying within it fatalism, skepticism, agnosticism, and historical pessimism.

Historicism is the source of activity, while immorality is the source of inaction and disorganization. Knowledge, historical gnosis, arises from action or from the constant need to clarify and define ideas of action—obscured and dimmed—in order to establish new ideals and carry out new actions. We access practical action from a comprehensive historical perspective. Practical action, by its very nature, is always limited, constrained, and particularistic. The historical perspective watches over things like the spirit.

The relationship of history and historiography with politics is characterized by their position outside of political parties. Despite the identification of historicism with liberalism, Croce does not understand liberalism as a political party. Historiography does not contain within itself the biased and transient institutions that political parties represent, but rather the idea of freedom. The basis of historicism, in relation to action, lies in the position that all activities are always preceded by the act of knowing and a prior resolution of the theoretical problem. Reason converses with God. Manzini's religious formula, "thinking and action," also determines for Croce the relationship between history-as-idea and history-as-action. This relationship corresponds to the religious totality of life. This is why Croce believes that all history, in its highest form, is religious history. Moral or ethical-political history perfectly explains economics, philosophy, and art, but by transcending them and elevating them to a higher sphere and a metapolitical synthesis.

Ethical-political and liberal history clashes with that of materialism and Marxism insofar as it assumes that economic and material freedom is logically meaningless. To the Marxist observation that liberal freedom is merely a freedom of law, Croce replies that economic freedom is not complete freedom and that there is no economic equality. The liberal party represents only a historical situation. The crisis of liberalism does not occur because there is no crisis of freedom.

Freedom is eternal. The change in material conditions and the rationale of material and technical progress cannot determine the crisis of freedom and liberalism. The crisis of the liberal party consists of the liquidation of the old liberal class, which needs renewal and adaptation to the new conditions. The old ruling class was aristocratic insofar as the ideal was accessible only to the enlightened classes. It was a minority, but minorities will always lead the masses. Minorities are the ones that have historical importance. History, understood as freedom, overthrows all forms of domination and re-establishes the true relationship between force and violence, between reason and impulse.

For Croce, violence is neither power nor force, but weakness. Force is constructive, while violence is a destructive power. Historical judgment and historiography distinguish force from violence. According to them, totalitarian regimes represent transitional states where total cooperation and harmony do not prevail, but total oppression. The relationship of racist, nationalist, or communist doctrine with history, historicism, and liberalism is irreconcilable. It manifests itself in opposition. Unlike other oppositions to freedom, communism seeks to base itself on ethical and political principles, on principles of equality.

According to Croce, the principle of equality invoked by communism is an abstract and unreal principle; it exists only in the realm of mathematics, not in real life. Communism attempts to achieve the ideal of economic and material equality, but without success, as this ideal is abstract and lacks any prospect of realization. This is why communism falls squarely within the same sphere as regimes of violence and absolutism, where humanity and society are not considered from a living, ethical-political perspective, but rather as constituent members of a living organism.

By denying freedom, communism denies the existence of humanity and society, because they cannot exist without it. Historiography is an undeniable source of freedom and, therefore, a creator of constructive revolutions, carrying within it an accelerated pace of evolution. True revolutions are those that embody evolution and know how to preserve and pass on the heritage of the parents to the children. Freedom is not a contingent fact, but an idea. Freedom, in its essence, is moral consciousness. Humanity as a category coincides with the category of freedom. A liberal institution is born when one or many people recognize freedom and make other people free. If religion is a conception of life to which a corresponding ethical attitude corresponds, Croce states, then liberalism is also a religion.

Liberalism prides itself on having its martyrs and apostles. But the religion of liberalism is not a utopian or mystical religion, but a critical and rational one. Myth is the opposite of reason. To distinguish it from other political forms that develop under the favorable climate of liberalism and historicism and that are in a state of decadence and death, Croce considers that democratism, radicalism, and Freemasonry are the concepts that have been transformed into material things and static objects and, consequently, have withered and died.

Croce believes that the Church and the State are the institutions subject to the criticism and critical activity of historians. Therefore, he affirms, there is no perfect or definitive State. Such a conception is condemned by liberalism, clashing with totalitarianism and Marxism, which it defines as utopias and myths. The liberal vision of life, even if religious and optimistic, does not believe in the possibility of a paradise on earth, nor in arithmetic harmonies to be achieved by coordinating social and economic oppositions. Sociology is not metaphysics, nor an idea, nor ethics; it is a material instrument with a very limited meaning. Herein lies a conflict between Croce and Pareto.

The belief in creating paradise on earth is a myth. The liberal and historicist conception, aware of the abysmal opposites through which human efforts must pass and which must push each other to achieve harmony and freedom, rejects utopias and myths, finding its objective in the ethical and religious contemplation of life, in a vision of freedom that transcends optimism and pessimism, encompassing the unity of life and reality. A vision of life of this kind is found in Plato's Republic and Vico's Generis Humani Respublica: not only the ethical state, perhaps the most sublime, but also the entire history of humankind.

Opposing the historicist current, which sees in historicism the liquidation of the great ideals of the 19th century, B. Croce restores the complete, obscured faith in the ideals and in the Europe of historicism and freedom. "It is clear," says Croce, "that historical sentiment coincides with European sentiment, insofar as the best and richest human history is concentrated in Europe, and insofar as Europe gave liberalism its idea, it assumed the civilizing mission of the whole world in such a way that there is no history within it of nations or states taken individually and that could be understood separately, taken out of the general organism of which they are integral parts." From this point of view, Croce also judges the anti-historicist movement of anti-Europe, considering that it arises from the viscera of the lower instincts and the formless dispositions of the plebeian masses without conscience and, historically, without importance.

Even though he doesn't believe in the League of Nations, considering it useless as a political idea and institution because its essence is the general history of nations, the living history present in the tradition and continuity of the centuries, Croce believes that Europe and humanity can only exist on the condition of fully understanding their historical mission on Earth. "Each person who opens their heart to historical sentiment will no longer be alone but linked to the life of the cosmos, a brother or son, and companion of the spirits who have already worked on Earth and live on in the work they completed—apostles, martyrs, and geniuses—creators of beauty and truth, of a good and humble world that scattered the seed of goodness and preserved human nobility. It is to all of them that one is addressing oneself through one's contribution; it is to them that one invokes; it is from them that one receives support; it is in their embrace that one wishes to rest, uniting one's work with theirs."

Humanity cannot live without poetry and truth, without history, freedom, and tradition, nor without knowing its ethical and moral value. Croce feels this keenly and poignantly. His thought, a synthesis of intuition, knowledge, and experience, expressed in the form of a profound and classical lyricism, leaves the impression of wisdom speaking to us clearly and unmistakably from its heart.

* * *

I visited B. Croce, after ten years, in his small house in Piedmont. I spontaneously recalled my encounters with him in Naples, in his library, then in Rome, in the Senate Library, or during short walks in the 18th-century atmosphere of the Sapienza University of Rome. At that time, Croce was younger and fresher, ready to engage in opposition, aware of the value of his intellectual and moral position. Meanwhile, these last ten years had deposited in his vibrant and brilliant reasoning traces of moral discontent and a sense of impatience: that all further efforts would be futile. I sensed this disposition in Croce as soon as he declined in his letters to discuss the fate of Europe, avoiding acknowledging that the words of the isolated intellectual are lost and vanish in the streets.

“It seems to me,” he told me with a stately accent, “that conversation is pointless and futile. I am becoming increasingly convinced that the impression of a German friend of mine is accurate: To speak today means to stand on a bridge and speak while the most violent wind blows… All I can do is what I have done until now and what I have always done. It is about the warning that I have disseminated through my books and writings, indicating what the crisis of our time consists of and where it lies.

My politics are in my books. My most beautiful conversation is my History as idea and as action. Just as my most beautiful conversations yesterday were the History of Italy and the History of Europe.” Croce is short, oval-shaped, and sloping. His face expresses anything but serenity. But his Neapolitan chuckle sets the tone for his temperament. One observes the effort of decades of intense inner work. His whole life is an intellectual endeavor. All his short trips through the old European cities mean long lingers in libraries, a passion for books and printed words, as well as constant research. of the truth. But Croce knows the environment, the men, and the ideas well. Especially if he can speak Italian or, better yet, Neapolitan.

It is then that Croce shines. His words are sweet, sonorous, lively, and vivid. His accent is warm. His Neapolitan humor is ever-present, brimming with energy. There is much in his philosophy, in his poignant and Neapolitan language, of Attic dialogue, and he is much closer to Plato and the Athenian Sophists in southern Italy than in Athens today. Croce's conversation carries within it the century of the old Attic dialectic, revived by a continuous and uninterrupted contact with the reality of contemporary life, ideas, and actions. The life of intellectual Naples and Rome, where Croce moved during his teaching career, was accessible until recently to the dialectic of the Agora. Croce is perhaps the last Italian in whose presence one experiences the impression of such a conversation, even though the Agora and its disciples have disappeared.

We were sitting in the garden. When I mentioned the ten-year period (1928-1938) and our last meeting in Paris, where he would arrive unnoticed in the old libraries of the French capital, he awoke, but always under the weight of knowledge and experience.

"We who still believe in something and haven't lost all hope, come to you to ask for your opinion. During these ten years, extremely important events occurred, which you yourself witnessed, and that is why you could tell us what you think of the current conditions in Europe and the world, as well as what we should foresee and do. I have the impression that during the last ten years, the state of affairs in Europe has not only failed to become clearer or calmer, but is now more unbalanced, obscure, and complex."

"Allow me to eliminate the verb 'foresee' and stick only to the verb 'work.' You know that I hate predictions that serve only vain optimism and frightening pessimism." There is nothing we could foresee, because it is impossible to see anything in advance. We can only see what exists and what happens before our eyes. All of us who do not dedicate ourselves exclusively (which, as you know, is impossible) to our personal and private concerns, see very well what is happening in the world.

- If you consider it necessary to "work," how is it possible to work and act if we have no light, no guide, before us?

- But that is no longer foresight. That light is before us, because it is within us: it is in human conscience, it is the human ideal, the moral sense and moral enthusiasm that are speaking clearly and distinctly in all noble spirits and all honest souls.

- What I am especially asking of you is that you confirm for me an ideal, a guide, a standard for practical and political life amidst the chaos in which we live.

- I was referring precisely to this when I said that moral conscience alone imposes the ideal. It is necessary to make a great effort to understand that the ideal is the very one we hear and that is repeated in everyone's conversations, and it is called "freedom." Freedom means freedom for oneself and for others, taking into account human dignity and, consequently, the constant pursuit of progress and the realization of truth, justice, and all other useful and beautiful things. When I say "freedom for oneself and for others," I mean having freedom for oneself while others are enslaved and have no freedom; it means, in effect, not having freedom and suffering within a limited and chained freedom: whoever renounces freedom rebels against the spirit and is blaspheming against God.

Nevertheless, many today deny freedom, many doubt, many are disillusioned and lost, unsure what to think of this ideal that was so dear to the generation of our parents and grandparents and that came to us as a sacred legacy. Today, contrary doctrines, labeled authoritarian and totalitarian, predominate or at least have more success.

That is why we feel the need to defend the ideal of freedom doctrinally, because it is possible to overcome inferior doctrines with superior ones, false ones with true ones, in such a way that their very motives illuminate even error. Herein lies the total duty of thinkers and writers, especially those who discourse and expound on moral and historical doctrines. Regarding my work, let me say that I have fulfilled and am fulfilling a duty. I have dedicated as much attention and effort to the theory and history of freedom as I previously dedicated to aesthetics, criticism, and the history of poetry. During these last few years, among other things, I published the History of Italy (1871-1914), History of Europe in the 19th Century, the book on Ethics and Politics, and recently, History as Idea and Action.

I wanted to ask you a few questions precisely on the doctrinal level. For example, what is your opinion on nationalism, racism, historical materialism, the so-called Catholic revival, and everything found in the books you just mentioned?

As you know from my previous books and these, I have answered all these questions and transcended them in my doctrine on history and historicism, in a conception of progress and freedom. It is very kind of you to return to these questions because they still lie at the heart of our dramatic concerns, and although it is difficult for me to repeat things that are well known and elementary to me, and which you can learn about in many books, including my own, I find it hard to dwell on the matter in this new way. Historical materialism! It is absurd in its very name, because materialism excludes history, which is spirituality, and history excludes materialism.

It is one of the several doctrinal aberrations of the years preceding 1848, from the left wing of Hegel's school, which sought something to replace God and finally found a hidden god—which is matter and economics. Racism! It also signifies the negation of history, because if instead of human beings there were races with their established characteristics and activities stemming from them as necessary consequences, humanity would become a monotonous, ridiculous, impoverished, and empty mechanism. It would cease to be what it has always been, that is, a continuous process of rejuvenation and growth. The same applies to the other phenomena of our time. Beat me, calix esta!

You will at least tell me what you think of the accusations being made today against liberal governments? What is the meaning of this enumeration of its errors and weaknesses, this highlighting and emphasizing of its bad habits and episodes, corruptions and deceptions, and similar things that happened and continue to happen in liberal times and countries?

These accusations and complaints of our time against the errors and defects of the liberal system signify, in their essence, a great lack of seriousness and are an enormous sophism, hardly worthy of discussion. They simply do not deserve to be questioned seriously and scientifically. Evil, error, corruption, vices, and crimes will always exist in this world, because no one can explain life without death, good without evil, truth without falsehood, beauty without ugliness, or the positive without the negative. Good must constantly and relentlessly struggle against these negative forces to assert itself, to grow, to perfect itself, and to progress.

Regimes of freedom do not promise the elimination of the eternal category of evil in the world, nor do they proclaim universal righteousness or general purity. They merely point to the path by which the human struggle can unfold in its most sublime form and with the most beneficial results. Therein lies their reason and their entire justification. To accuse liberalism of the existence of the thieves and criminals who live within it would be to accuse it in the same way as if its accusers were directing their accusations against the Creator, who surely had his reasons for creating the world as it is.

It would be of great interest to determine what is dead and what still lives in the doctrine of liberalism, taking into consideration the prevailing political doctrines in Europe and the world.

There is talk of the definitive decline of liberalism and the death of freedom. These are very weak and unfounded positions. They come, generally speaking, from a generation of young people who have not been able to find their purpose or balance. If liberalism were dead, and if those ideas and ideals that permanently formed the basis of society and humanity had vanished forever, we would undoubtedly see, in these new movements you refer to, which are proliferating, claiming to have changed the axis of society and the face of the earth, new principles and ideas that would surpass the old ones. On the contrary, we are witnessing chaos and confusion, from which an indeterminate and unconfirmed authority is claimed, thus necessarily giving rise to dictatorship without any clear objective or defined order. Consequently, we cannot speak of the death of liberalism, nor of something being dead within it.

It is merely a temporary obscuring of the ideal of freedom, after which liberalism will inevitably re-emerge, invigorated and rejuvenated in the full consciousness of humankind by the sufferings and pains that humanity is currently enduring in its perpetual pursuit of freedom. The retreat of liberalism is intimately linked to the current decline of modern thought and ethical weakening, lost in agnosticism and a skeptical, content-free relativism that rejects dialogue, disregards principles and laws, seducing, but only temporarily, human thought toward deviation, from which it will shine again with a more expansive splendor of its renewal. If we can speak of a crisis of liberalism, then we should say that it originated in Bismarck's policies. Everything currently happening in Europe is nothing other than the latest, most serious, and most disastrous stage of the consequences of Bismarck's departure from the ideals of liberty.

Imbued with German thought, knowing it in all its nuances perhaps like no other Italian, and constantly influenced by the ideas of his true master and companion Goethe—whom he never forgot during the war—Croce deeply and painfully felt the German alienation—ideological and political—from Europe and the whole of humanity. This fear is not so strong in any other European thinker I consulted in recent years. The precipitous development of German thought, with its Dionysian and catastrophic vision of life and history, especially with the emergence of Spengler, stirred in Croce's spirit a yearning for the heights where the peace and serenity of Goethe reigned.

- In our country, the problem is much simpler. Historical experience has accustomed Italy to viewing everything from a truly historical perspective. In Germany, the problem has other dimensions. It is intertwined not only with fantasy but also with the conscience of every German.

Croce adds that, recently, a serious German philosopher visited him and tried to convince him that Hitler was one of the greatest German phenomena because he was trying to reform the German man. An attempt that, until now, had been foreign to the German spirit. Croce replied: "The German man! But I am primarily interested in man, plain and simple, then the German, the Italian, the Frenchman, etc..."

- Returning to our problem, and having determined that the problem of leadership, the norms and ideals of political and spiritual life will be centered on the ideal of freedom, it would therefore be interesting to determine what needs to be done, that is, how the ideal of freedom should be translated into effective reality? The ideal of freedom translates into reality in the same way as the poetic ideal, that is, through countless forms, each of which demands poetic genius.

Likewise, the ideal of freedom that springs from the ever-awake moral conscience will inspire, case by case, each person of goodwill with what they must do, taking into account the country they belong to, the conditions in which they live, their individual abilities and corresponding limitations, the day and the hour itself, and so on. It is not true that there is no work to be done or that we don't know what needs to be done. These are excuses of ill will. Good will not only knows what must be done, but also discovers the work and reveals paths that were never considered.

I agree that, even though everything you have just said seems theoretically correct, I expect something else, something broader and more decisive.

I understand your concern well because I have heard it in conversations with others, and I share it myself. You wish to point to an action that could restore to Europe its already dimmed confidence, its trampled freedom, and the civilization that is disappearing and dying before our very eyes. Action, in this sublime form, is proper to a political genius, whose arrival we must desire, but which we can neither create nor accomplish within our own efforts and positions. I have the impression that Europe is currently abandoned by political genius, or that it is not abundant in it. It is necessary to maintain patience and constancy.

If I am not mistaken, you said that you knew of no other hero outside of his time, but that you know of many eras that vainly yearned for and sought their hero. Waiting, then, let us leave each one to do what he can. Age rem tuam. A political genius can accelerate the realization of a work toward which we are all striving. Meanwhile, we will accomplish useful work if we work on what we ought to do and for which we have a vocation. For this is precisely what is worthwhile and what can soothe the conscience of our duty.

Would it be necessary to coordinate all these flawed actions of individuals pursuing the same goal through an effective apostolate, such as, for example, the European apostolate of G. Mazzini?

I believe that this desire and yearning are also encompassed within what I have just said. An English philosopher, author of a valuable book that opposes the ethics of force, wrote to me years ago that he was giving up writing books to dedicate himself to a practical, Christian-religious movement for the salvation of society, which is in danger. There is a tradition in England of collective forms of work for moral renewal. One cannot even imagine anything similar, or even a similar attempt, in other countries. As for me, I have complete faith in truth and the spirit of freedom.

These are two widely held values that cooperate, discover their harmony and concordance, and, regardless of the practical organization upon which political action depends, form schools of thought and ideals. I am also confident when I contemplate the spiritual state of today, not only of my Italy, but also of much of Europe. I am confident because historical experience is on our side, and our position and ideals are confirmed by uninterrupted experience throughout the centuries. This knowledge began with humanism; the ancient Greeks possessed it, and it existed in the Middle Ages as well.

It is a synthesis of the entire history of humanity and of Europe. All attempts to destroy this knowledge will prove ephemeral and transitory, affirming and bearing witness that freedom is eternal. I am not afraid, nor do I fear for Italy. Was this third Italy, so dear to us, whose history they are destroying, trampling, and forgetting, not once the land of freedom, intelligence, honesty, and tenacious work? I am convinced that nations will emerge from these sufferings with renewed strength, transformed, and possessing a broader understanding of their mission in the life and history of humanity.

Here Croce paused, acknowledging that Goethe had never been closer to him in his solitude; that he continued to read him and that a contemporary mind, an observer of our times, could find in him inner tranquility and peace. In the small room where Croce works, Goethe is omnipresent.

"Does your ethical-political idea, it seems, logically fit into the entirety of your conception concerning the relationship between a work of art, the poetry of the individual, and society?"

"Of course. A work of art is neither the phenomenon of the individual nor of society. It is the expression of a personality that contains within itself both the individual and society, and where history and the universe meet and intertwine, emerging from that personality transformed and elevated in the form of a completely free and independent creation." This creation finds nothing comparable in the material world or in the dogmas of society. That is why we cannot say that poetry and artistic works depend on society or not. If they depended on society, they would cease to be works of art. If they were independent, they would lack some of the elements that poetry gathers within itself, consumes, and reworks. The relationship of poetry and artistic works with society and the individual is not one of independence, but of supremacy.

In this sense, would it be absurd to speak of social, peasant, or proletarian poetry?

The answer to this question is included in my previous answer. The desires and aspirations of workers or peasants are manifested in the declarations of their leaders, their ideologues—political or social—their delegates, their orators; in short, in the words and deeds of their men of action. This, it is understood, is sufficient. When it comes to true poets, they don't limit themselves to expressing only one-sided concerns. On the contrary, they will try and strive to express humanity in its entirety, the eternity of the heart, and the integrity of the human spirit.

—Jumping from one subject to another, I wanted to ask you if you still maintain the same position you formulated some twenty years ago, referring to Masaryk's book on Russian thought, when you said that Russian philosophy had very little logical force and lacked originality?

"I may be mistaken, but as far as philosophy is concerned, Russia merely repeats, fantastically distorts, and grossly misrepresents European thought. Even in the last twenty years, during the Bolshevik period, Russia didn't give us a single book, a single page capable of illuminating even a single philosophical problem. What I read in the translations of Russian writers was merely a trivial application of Marxist formulas. Russia did have artistic geniuses, such as Tolstoy. Moreover, I wasn't the first to point out the serious and profound rift left in the Russian intellect by the lack of logical-scholastic education, from which European culture derived great benefit. This is a rather old assertion."

"Finally, one more question: where and at what stage of development is your thought?" —While I continue my studies in literary criticism and history, publishing them in the journal "La Crítica," I would like to contribute more in these later years to the development of the philosophical problems that have interested me throughout my life. I am about to enter my seventy-third year and feel a natural desire to leave behind, if possible in a definitive way, the dissertations on my preferred topics and enrich them with everything I have discovered through thinking and learning in recent decades. Thus, two years ago I published the book Poetry, and this year the book History. Now, in the third volume, I would like to clarify and explain the way in which I have attempted to approach philosophy.

—Can you give me an idea of this approach?

—The answer is, almost necessarily, obscure and incomplete, given the stagnation of its development. But the idea is indeed this: Philosophy, for centuries, in its understanding and posing of problems, as well as in the nature of those problems, was aware of its connection with religion. This is especially evident from the last great philosophical system, Hegel's system. The same, however, can be said of the systems of positivism, materialism, and other systems as well.

Now, the current reform would consist of discussing philosophy as if it were exclusively the clarification of the concepts that the understanding of historical reality is seeking, or on the basis of the formula I gave in historical methodology. An immanent conception of life must have an immanent, not a transcendent, philosophy; that is, it must coincide with historiography and its corresponding methodology.

On the one hand, it is understood that I have tried to fulfill and carry out this reform. In this respect, I can offer arguments and demonstrate the necessity of this conclusion, having examined the course of the entire history of philosophy. But I do not believe that this will be of interest to those to whom you are addressing yourself, and in whose interest, as elsewhere, political interest predominates, even though everything leads to good politics, even offering a defense of the immanence of the philosophy of history against its transcendentalism. What are all these theories of race, violence, the state, and communism, if not, at best, religious fanaticisms that are constructing myths and trying to rationalize them into theologies?

I get the impression that you are not despairing about the fate of European civilization.

"I would despair if that were possible. If despair had a definite meaning, if, in other words, the world could end. But since the world will not cease to exist, and since we must consequently continue living and working, thinking and loving, fighting and yearning for victory, we have nothing left but hope: the explosion of life that continues. The day will come when—I don't mean us, but surely future generations—looking back, will be aware of what is happening now and will understand the meaning of our sufferings and efforts, perhaps finding with pleasure and joy the traces of our words and deeds that will serve them to prepare and build a new and renewed civilization."

Pollone, 1938.

Translated by: F. Nevistic

* * *

We reproduce this conversation with the Croatian professor and publicist Bogdan Radica from his book *The Agony of Europe*, published in 1940. Are the Italian philosopher's opinions outdated? We don't think so. Although he formulated them before the Second World War, that is, before a new and tremendous historical experience, the defense of freedom—the central idea of Croce's philosophy—remains as relevant today as ever, even more so than on the eve of the Second World War and the collapse of Christian civilization. The current danger of political, social, and economic totalitarianism threatens the entire world.

Freedom could play the role of catalyst for so many of the problems and conflicts of our time, when the world is so fanatically and dogmatically divided. We disagree with the late Italian philosopher that a genuinely immanentist freedom, rejecting the transcendent, could prevent the evil, and even worse, that we have experienced in the last two world wars and social revolutions. Nevertheless, we believe that, in freedom, people would more easily find the path to a higher synthesis of respect for human personality and the forms of its individual or collective existence.

We also thank Professor B. Radica for his kind permission to reprint this fascinating conversation, which is highly characteristic of the intellectual caliber of this renowned Croatian writer, especially well-known in the United States, where he currently resides and teaches university courses in modern European history. At the age of 32, he published his nearly 550-page book, *The Agony of Europe*. In addition to Croce, Radica held similar conversations with G. Ferrero, P. Valéry, Th. Mann, A. Gidel, N. Berdjajeff, G. Duhamel, J. Ortega y Gosset, J. Bendal, S. de Madariaga, C. F. Ramuz, Gonzague de Reynoll, Ch. Maurras, G. Papini, F. Mauriac, J. Maritain, C. Sforza, A. Siegried, M. Gorky, L. Pirandello, F. T. Marinetti, Merezkovski, A. Tilgher, and M. de Unamuno. In conversations with such prominent figures of that era, Radica outlined a complete political, cultural, and economic philosophy, grounding it in the opinions of his interlocutors. This testifies once again to the inseparability of Croatian intellectual life from the West and the substantial and temporal convergence of the interests of Croatian intellectuals with those of the Western world.

(S.C. Editorial Staff)

Documents:

Letter from the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture to the Holy See on the occasion of Tito's reception at the Vatican

Buenos Aires, October 8, 1970

His Holiness

Pope Paul VI Vatican City

Holy Father:

On October 10, 1966, we took the liberty of sending Your Holiness a Note concerning the signing of the Protocol, concluded on June 25 of that year between the Holy See and the communist government of Belgrade.

Given the imminent possibility that Your Holiness will receive Marshal Tito—Joseph Broz—the Yugoslav communist dictator, in a special audience, we feel it our inescapable duty to address ourselves once again to the Supreme Pontiff.

In the aforementioned Note of 1966, we already expressed our fears and concerns that the new ecclesiastical policy toward the communist and foreign regime that currently subjugates Croatia and its people could cause serious inconveniences and irreparable harm to the Croatian people, despite certain concessions regarding religious life and the exercise of worship. Today—four years later—our fears and concerns are confirmed by an irrefutable reality.

We do not deny certain reliefs regarding religious life, whether for ecclesiastical authorities or for the people, but the truth is that the Protocol, despite this positive aspect, has become a special source that morally strengthens the Great Serbian communist regime before the entire world and thus enables it to apply the policy of genocide against the Croatian people with greater perseverance and certainty. With the Church silenced, the Belgrade regime more easily carries out its aims of exterminating that people who, last June, arrived in a large delegation to witness the canonization of their first saint, whom you, Holy Father, deigned to raise to the altar of the universal values of our Church.

But the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Belgrade and the announced visit of Tito to His Holiness now confound us all after that enthusiasm and those hopes of June. The prestige of that cunning dictator will thus regain its recently diminished value, and his atheist and anti-Croatian policies will continue with greater ease. The aims of these policies are far removed from the Christian religion and the right to self-determination of the Croatian people.

According to the most accurate information we are receiving from our homeland, all the religious freedoms granted by the regime through the Protocol are extremely precarious and can be revoked at any time. The ecumenical prospects that were expected—the dialogue to be established between Croatian Catholicism and Serbian Orthodoxy—are practically nonexistent.

The leading candidate for the top position in the Serbian Orthodox Church, Bishop Dr. Danilo Krstic, declared last year that, in his opinion, no Catholic sacrament would be valid under the jurisdiction of his Church. What, then, can we legitimately expect from attempts at ecumenical dialogue in that part of the world, especially knowing that the Serbs are the true masters of that country? Their hegemony has been imposed on the Croatian people in many ways.

The current mass emigration of our people, leaving their ancestral homes without hope of ever seeing them again, opens up the best prospects for the Serbs to occupy them and thus definitively replace the followers of Dr. Krstic with the faithful of Saint Nicholas Tavelic. This possibility is rapidly becoming a painful reality for us and for our Catholic Church, which, since the disappearance of the Croatian people from that part of the world, will no longer have the opportunity to preach the values of Catholicism, just as it does not have that opportunity today in Bulgaria, Romania, or Soviet Russia.

Aware of our small numbers and human limitations, but also of the immense value of the right we are defending, we implore His Holiness, if a meeting and handshake with the person primarily responsible for the violent deaths of over 400 Catholic priests, including the distinguished Cardinal Stepinac, is now unavoidable, to use all his moral authority and international prestige to alleviate the mortal suffering of the Croatian people under the regime still held by that unscrupulous international adventurer.

We implore because we are convinced that there is no contradiction, nor can there be, between the natural rights of the Croatian people and the religious life and policies that His Holiness seeks to implement there through the diplomats recently sent to Belgrade. The Catholicism of the Croatian people is the decisive factor and the sole justification for the presence of that diplomatic mission in the communist and Orthodox Yugoslav capital. In that city, political decisions of a religious, cultural, economic, and social nature are being made that profoundly affect the entire life of the Croatian people, given that communist Yugoslavia was a totalitarian state par excellence.

Even though the politics of the "earthly city" are not directly within the Church's purview, we all know very well that religion and religious politics are inseparable from public life in general and the fate of the respective peoples. The new Vatican diplomacy in Belgrade can and should contribute to the Croatian people's aspirations for national freedom. Currently, all peoples, absolutely all of them, and the Croatian people are no exception, compare their temporal destiny with the eternal one defended by their ecclesiastical and religious representatives. Disagreement on this matter harms everyone.

Without further pretensions, we simply recall how dangerous Tito's visit to His Holiness could be if a serious attempt is not made to counterbalance it with correct and appropriate approaches to the many problems and if positive results are not achieved in pursuit of the Croatian people's temporal and political well-being as well. Until now, the new ecclesiastical policy in that country has served the communist masters more effectively to subjugate our people under the guise of religious freedom than the true interests of Croatia, whether as a "heavenly city" or an earthly one. With the firm hope that the Holy Father will receive this letter in the same spirit of confidence with which we send it, we pray to the Almighty that He may grant His infallible assistance to His Holiness in these turbulent times, when such varied and difficult decisions must be made daily.

For the Institute:

Milan Rakovac

Secretary

Dr. F. Nevistic

President

Comments and news

The Yugoslav crisis as seen by the world press

The ongoing crisis of the Yugoslav state culminated this year in the urgent need for a fourth amendment to its Constitution. Below are some of the opinions expressed by the world press on this matter: Le Monde Diplomatique, in its June issue, stated, among other things: "It seems as if the moment of truth for Yugoslavia is fast approaching. To overcome this crisis, composed of economic, ideological, national, and cultural elements, and whose scope is unprecedented since the period between 1929 and 1941, the peoples that make up this multinational state—peoples so different in their traditions, mentalities, and levels of development—are once again called upon to demonstrate their political maturity, to find the reasons that unite them above their differences and that, as long as they remain united, guarantee them an important international position."

After reproducing the opinion of a British historian that Marshal Tito played a role analogous to that of Joseph Bonaparte, with both becoming the principal unifying factor of their respective multinational political formations, the author of a lengthy article, François Fejto, adds: "To understand the current crisis, the pathetic aspect of the Serbian-Croatian, Serbian-Albanian, etc., conflicts, it is necessary to give it its full historical dimension. Many Western observers, regarding the virulent nationalism of the Croats, are inclined to recall the precedent of Pavelić's Ustaše, responsible for the assassination of King Alexander and Barthou in Marseille, and who, in 1941, in the hope of creating a Greater Croatia, shamelessly became fascist accomplices. But it is important not to forget that the Ustaše were able to prevail for a time... because they were able to exploit the collective psyche marked by frustrations and disappointments similar to those of other peoples." Traumatized people from Central and Eastern Europe: Slovaks, Poles, and Ukrainians especially.

After describing the creation of the first Yugoslavia, that is, a monarchy, in 1918, which degenerated into militarism and the personal dictatorship of Serbian King Alexander F. Fejto, he referred to the current crisis: "Well aware of the growing strength of centrifugal forces—checked only for the moment by the impact of the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia—and concerned with leaving his successors (who would they be?) a stabilized Yugoslavia, Marshal Tito announced in Zagreb in September 1970 the constitutional reform containing the institution of the collective presidency and a new—and largely decentralizing—definition of federal powers. The acceptance, in principle, of the changes by all has not prevented discussions about the manner of the new distribution of powers from taking on a very dangerous character. This is especially true in the economic field. Among all the legacies of the centralist system, it is the centralization of finance and foreign trade in Belgrade that poses the most serious problem to overcome.

Indeed, Croatia, which Croatia, which held a dominant financial position before the war and currently accounts for 33% of Yugoslavia's industrial production and 27% of its gross national product, does not have access to the 17% of capital allocated to it compared to the 60% designated for Serbia. In a highly charged interview, M. Tripalo (one of Croatia's three delegates to the collective presidency of Yugoslavia, translator's note) demanded the renationalization of Big Business and the large centralized banks in Belgrade. This would mean the redistribution of assets from the largest import-export firms and three former federal banks with a capital of $4.5 billion. Belgrade responded by accusing the Croats of megalomania and separatism. "Isn't it unfair," Zagreb countered, "that Serbia, representing 43% of the population, holds 73.6% of the federal civil servants, while Croatia, with its 23% of the population, holds only 8.5%?"

Referring to the near future of the Yugoslav state, Mr. Fejto concludes: “By opposing the powerful current of autonomism that I believe is intelligent, M. Tripalo risks losing popularity. But by yielding to it, he would hasten the conflict with Belgrade, which could turn into a disaster. It seems, in fact, that the compromise reached in Brioni represents the extreme limit that could be reached to reconcile the minimum of indispensable authority with the maximum of the republics' independence. Will this limit be respected after the death of the man (Tito, op. cit.) whose arbitration was once again indispensable and decisive?”

Mr. Fejto seems to find little reason for unity among the peoples of Yugoslavia if he places the hope of that state's salvation solely in the Army. But it should not be forgotten that the Army is composed of the sons of disunited peoples. Placing hopes in the Army means defending dictatorship and, moreover, communist totalitarianism.

Raices, the Jewish magazine of Buenos Aires, in its June 1971 issue (number 29), states, among other things, the following:

Yugoslavia is currently going through a period of difficult upheaval with a nationalistic undertone. At the heart of the great debate are the Serbs and Croats, the two great nations of the South Slavs, between whom a kind of historical conflict exists. The Croats generally expressed a tendency toward isolationism, while in Serbia the centralizing forces were concentrated. This is the historical backdrop of the relations between the two nations.

In socialist Yugoslavia, a new stage is evident, and surrounding these two great nations are others: the Slovenes, whose standard of living is equal to and even surpasses that of neighboring Austria, a country with a high standard of living, and who tend to turn inward; The Macedonians and Montenegrins, who find it difficult to escape their economic backwardness, inherited from generations past, and in between are the inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a Muslim tradition of Slavic origin, clearly defined ethnically but still searching for their national identity. There is also the large Albanian minority, numbering 1,000,000, which over the last 25 years has fostered a national intellectual class.

The debates have a cultural and economic character. Is there a single Serbo-Croatian language with various dialects, or are these two different languages? A census of the population in Yugoslavia was recently completed, preceded by a debate that lasted more than a year, precisely on national identity. After this debate, only a small minority of young intellectuals declared themselves "Yugoslav." There was an almost universal consensus that the word "Yugoslav" should not be included in the section on national identity. Even those assimilated among the 7,000 Jews currently living in Yugoslavia registered as "Jewish," just like other nationalities. There is a clash between specific power groups. In response, the Yugoslavian federal leadership is very weak at all levels.

Precisely to strengthen local leadership in the republics, over the years, a portion of the central leadership has been transferred to the republics. These republics joined forces with younger, local groups, so that the most heated journalistic debate is now between the president of the Communist Alliance of Croatia and the president of the Communist Alliance of Serbia, both members of the presidency of the All-Yugoslavian Communist Alliance.

The leaders of the Croatian communists demand the formation of their republic as a socialist state in the truest sense of the word. "When we speak of the Socialist Republic of Croatia as a state, our intention is that it should above all have the character of a national state, since the Croatian people cannot build their state anywhere else in the world but in this historical territory," one of the party leaders in Zagreb recently declared. They also accuse their Serbian colleagues of economically exploiting the other republics because they are closer to the central treasury in Belgrade.

It's clear from the subtext of Tito's speeches—he is of Croatian origin—that he doesn't much like the policies of the current Croatian leadership. Tito, who celebrated his 79th birthday in May, is very concerned about the situation in the country and didn't try to hide it in his recent public addresses. "We live in a time when we must show at all times our willingness to defend our country and the socialist system of self-management," he said during a ceremony. Lately, speaking to a youth group, Tito said: “We must work as if we were certain that peace would reign for a hundred years, but we must prepare for war as if it were to break out tomorrow.” After Brezhnev’s last visit to Belgrade, the general tone has become somewhat reassuring. Die Welt (Hamburg), July 23, 1971, under the headline: “Growing concern in Yugoslavia: The Prague example is frightening – Moscow increases pressure on Tito and his system,” also states: “Yugoslavia is finding itself increasingly exposed to the Soviet Union’s propaganda campaign. At the same time, forces within the country that never forgave Tito for his particular path to socialism, which led to the break with Moscow, are stirring. Will the Soviet Union, at a favorable moment, dare to march on Yugoslavia, invoking the Brezhnev Doctrine?

Some observers confirm this question… The Soviets were openly accused by the Yugoslavs of aiding the Stalinists’ open subversion.” The chief commentator of Radio Zagreb... referred to the matter in these terms: "They are trying to convince Soviet citizens that our situation is desperate and in many respects similar to that of Czechoslovakia in 1968. In this way, they are trying to emphasize the need for corresponding measures." "Corresponding measures" could indeed mean military intervention in Yugoslavia. Not only Tito, but many of his subordinates have recently been speaking in each of the republics about the danger of Yugoslavia's disintegration by external forces that are not clearly defined and that want to divide the country according to the Yalta "fifty-fifty" formula...

An even greater irritation was provoked by the book by Central Committee member and ideologue Sergei Trapesnikov, which appeared in Moscow and was evidently provided as educational material for Soviet party officials. Trapesnikov speaks of "four phases of revisionism"—and it is clear that he considers Titoism, as he puts it, "the most dangerous" under the fourth phase. The new Soviet book states verbatim: "The goal now is the liquidation of the fourth phase... We have entered a new period in which revisionism must be broken and destroyed..."

In Belgrade, it is openly discussed that the center of tension has shifted from Central Europe to the Mediterranean. In conversations among experts, one often hears the question: Can détente occur in Germany and Berlin if the balance of power in the Mediterranean is simultaneously altered? Moscow's strengthened interest in establishing a firm foothold in the Mediterranean leads to the threat posed by Yugoslavia, because this increases interest in the Yugoslav shore of the Adriatic.

Highlighting opportune moments for Soviet intervention in Yugoslavia—moments in foreign and domestic policy—Hans Krainer, author of the article in "Die Welt," adds:

"The Munich-based organ of the Croatian émigré community, 'State Croat,' mouthpiece of the Croatian National Committee, offered the Soviets air and sea bases on the Croatian coast a few months ago if Moscow helps the Croats achieve independence. Yugoslavia, it is said here, is an invention of the Western powers to keep Russia away from the Adriatic Sea."

Specifically mentioning the Macedonian problem in relation to Bulgaria and its claims to that part of Yugoslavia, "Die Welt" concludes:

"Thus, Soviet-Yugoslav relations, in light of the changes of the last ten years, remain an uncertain chapter." Moscow reserves for itself and for the future all open paths.”

The major Buenos Aires newspaper La Nación, in its April 23, 1971 edition, stated:

“Yugoslavia is going through one of its most critical periods since it created its own independent form of communism more than twenty years ago. At stake is the future of this unique multinational country, which links East and West, and whose theories of worker self-management and free markets pose a challenge to the monolithic model of socialism practiced by the Soviet Union and its satellites.

The shadow of the 1968 Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia hangs over Yugoslavia, which is determined not to suffer the same fate.

Against this backdrop, Tito, who celebrates his seventy-ninth birthday this month, summoned more than sixty communist leaders to his retreat on the island of Brioni in the Adriatic in April and kept them there until a certain level of unity was achieved.

Tito wanted this unity amidst confusing and complex times.” Some diplomats confessed that they had never heard or seen so much controversy and alarmed discussion here. However, some responsible Yugoslavs consider the problems as the birth pangs of a new state system or insist that Tito wanted it to happen now, while he is still in a position to exert control.

Tito, the last great one. The Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia, in its July 7, 1971 article, commenting on the Yugoslav crisis, praises Tito:

"The future of Yugoslavia is full of troubling unknowns. The country faces the serious problem of long-standing national differences that continue to hinder the work of unification. But this accumulation of problems, instead of diminishing, highlights the capacity of those who manage to overcome them.

"Tito has his little weaknesses. They say he likes beautiful women, brand-new uniforms, and a certain ostentation. He likes life and enjoys the pleasures it offers. He represents, in short, the antithesis of the leaden and weak leaders of the People's Republics; and perhaps that is why he has never felt comfortable in their company. He has not shrunk from the blood of his enemies, but he has never wanted to spill the blood of his friends.

The case of Gilas demonstrates this. We deeply admire Gilas's courage and nonconformity. But we must recognize that no other regime would have treated a rebellion as leniently as his." Tito summoned him and warned him not to take his criticisms too far. But Gilas chose to heed his own conscience. Tito, however, also demonstrated his own conscience when he minimized the punishment. He did the same later with Rankovic, another former comrade-in-arms who was trying to derail the new course.

The fact remains that Tito has the makings of a true head of state. In contemporary history, he plays a far more important role than his country would without him.”

But “La Vanguardia Española” says nothing about whether Tito was so generous with Hebrang, a Croatian minister who was beheaded in prison. Tito’s generosity toward Rankovic and Gilas is equivalent to his fear of the “most numerous nation,” that is, Serbia. The Times of August 9, 1971, under the headline: Yugoslavia: Tito’s bold experiment, made a comment that we partially reproduce here:

“The twenty constitutional amendments that are to put into operation a Cabinet and a collective presidency seek to drastically change the relations between the central government in Belgrade and the republics and provinces. Since its creation at the end of the First World War, Yugoslavia was an unstable alliance of six republics with three official languages, three dominant religions, and two alphabets.

” "Croatia and Slovenia developed essentially as part of Europe under the Habsburg Empire. The south—Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina—stagnant under the Turks for centuries.

The expansionist Serbs, who numerically dominate the country, desire firm national unity among the Yugoslavs. The Croats dream of Croatian independence, which ultimately means vast autonomy. The southern republics suffer from rural poverty, alleviated by the distribution of wealth from the resentful northern republics by the central government. Only the Communist Party and Tito's leadership were able to hold such unequal parts together.

Firm decision: The new amendments aim for national unity while guaranteeing greater autonomy to its constituent parts. The federal regime wanted to retain supreme authority in foreign affairs, defense, international security, as well as in financial matters and free trade with Yugoslavia, and in granting some loans to the underdeveloped regions." Control of matters such as education and public health will be the sole responsibility of the republics and autonomous regions... Will all this work? The usual Yugoslav response is that even Tito himself doesn't know.

In Zagreb, International Mariological and Marian Congress

Under this title, L'Osservatore Romano of August 15, 1971, published the letter from Pope Paul VI addressed to Cardinal Seper, appointing him "Special Envoy" to preside over "the sacred functions and the other meetings that are to be held there." At the beginning of his letter, the Holy Father says:

"Venerable brother, greetings and apostolic blessing.

"In Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, a very pleasant city due to its geographical location, and famous for its artistic monuments, the annals of its history, and the nobility of its people, there is a temple dedicated to Mary, which in the local language is called Maria Bistrica, and is like a most beautiful pearl set in an equally beautiful diadem."

There is, evidently, an error in the Holy Father's letter. The temple of Maria Bistrica is not located in Zagreb but in the town of the same name, Maria Bistrica, about 25 kilometers from Zagreb. L'Osservatore Romano, Spanish edition of August 22, 1971, published a report on the Marian and Mariological Congress under the title: Homage to the Virgin in Zagreb, which we partially reproduce here:

"The capital of Croatia, in particular its cathedral, its seminary, and the sanctuary of Maria Bistrica, has been the scene in recent days of..." Two major religious events took place: the VI International Mariological Congress, which opened on August 6, and the XIII International Marian Congress, which concluded on August 15, the Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady.

"Cardinal Franco Seper, former archbishop and currently Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Roman Curia, presided over both Congresses on behalf of the Pope. In the previous issue, we published the letter that Paul VI addressed to Cardinal Seper, and on this page, we present the address that the Pope delivered at noon on the 15th from his residence in Castel Gandolfo, connected by radio to the Shrine of Maria Bistrica. At this national shrine in Croatia, more than one hundred thousand faithful from all over Yugoslavia and other countries had gathered to honor the Virgin.

At the new altar, inaugurated to commemorate the event, the Pope's Special Envoy, Cardinal Seper, concelebrated the Eucharist with Cardinal Suenens, Archbishop of Manila-Brussels and President of the Committee for International Marian Congresses; with Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy; and with the Cardinal Carberry, Archbishop of Saint Louis in the United States; Cardinal Oddi of the Roman Curia; the Apostolic Nuncio in Belgrade, Archbishop Cagna; the Archbishop of Zagreb, Archbishop Kuharic; and numerous other bishops from Yugoslavia and other countries, as well as several representatives of Marian shrines from around the world, were present. The Serbian Orthodox Patriarch and representatives of other Eastern Churches were also in attendance. Zagreb's radio and television broadcast the ceremony, which was of an exceptional nature.

"L'Osservatore Romano" makes no mention whatsoever of Father Carlos Balic, the driving force behind both Congresses. His absence from the Congress, despite previous rumors to the contrary, was a great disappointment to the faithful in Croatia. Furthermore, the local Croatian Catholic press criticizes the fact that the Pope did not address the congressmen via radio but rather through a recorded message that arrived late and with errors.

These problems have caused further distress among the faithful. The Pope's absence has so far gone unanswered. Were there diplomatic reasons?

Catholicism in Croatia

Informaciones Católicas Internacionales, The bimonthly newspaper, Spanish edition, No. 383, May 1, 1971, Mexico, published a map of Yugoslavia, which we reproduce here, referring in the article "Letter from Yugoslavia - The New Face of the Church in Croatia" to the problem of the Catholic press in that country and the Catholic priests and their mission in the present time. Regarding the first problem, the newspaper stated, among other things:

"Theologians and journalists first observed that the Church in Croatia was marked very deeply in the past by a double silence: the silence of the faithful who, before the Council, were content to obey the hierarchy, and the silence imposed by the regime during the Stalinist era.

Since then, several new elements have broken that silence: the Second Vatican Council, the regularization of relations between the State and the Holy See, the opening of the State and society to the outside world, and the increased participation of young people."

"The Church was unprepared to face such a situation. Deprived of much of its material resources, cut off from modern religious thought, isolated in the midst of an atheist environment, it was further weakened by the war and its consequences, by the loss of a significant number of its pastors and faithful.

"In this atmosphere, a new style of Catholic press emerged, directly from the Council. This press changed the 'old style' of acting before reporting, adopting the principle that 'what is being done must be reported first.'"

"In this atmosphere, a new style of Catholic press was created, directly influenced by the Council." "However, their efforts quickly encountered numerous obstacles: indeed, the events described by the new newspapers did not always present a favorable image of priests and bishops and contributed to bringing these figures down from the 'sacred' pedestal on which they stood, leading the traditionalist media to ask the question: who, in the Church, has the right to speak?

"The new press—and especially Glas Koncila—believes this is a false problem. For them, it is not so much who speaks, but what is spoken about. And they think it is essential to speak above all about the issues of vital importance to the Church: the liturgy, seminaries, social engagement, worker migration, urban pastoral care, etc."

" Regarding the priestly problem, the newspaper highlighted:

"The real problem," Father Sagi-Bunic asserts, "is that everything in society is changing—young people are moving to the city, the population is becoming urbanized, workers are emigrating—and the Church hasn't realized it. A diocese is emptying out, the old world is disappearing, but the rural, feudal-style priest remains. To solve this problem, it would be necessary to create communities of priests, change the style of rural pastoral care, and give priority to urban ministry."

Siroki Brijeg (Herzegovina) - Croatian Cassino, once again the source of scandal

In February 1945, Yugoslav communists occupied Siroki Brijeg, a small town in Herzegovina with a Franciscan monastery and school. For over a century, it had been the spiritual and intellectual center of this Croatian province. The mutual love between the people and the Franciscans is almost legendary, confirmed by centuries of Ottoman oppression. In those times, the Franciscans were everything to their abandoned and persecuted people.

During the last world war, in the fierce fighting against Tito's communists, Siroki Brijeg was occupied by Croatian and German troops, including the monastery and school, just as Cassino in Italy had been. The demands of war prevailed over the protests of the unarmed Franciscans. Therefore, when Tito and his communists occupied the aforementioned town in February 1945, they killed 29 Franciscans, nine of whom were burned alive in an air-raid shelter built next to the basilica, after being doused with gasoline.

From then until now, Siroki Brijeg could only be mentioned publicly as a place worthy of contempt, and its victims—the Franciscans—as "enemies of the people" and "servants of fascism." The traditional Serbian expansion into Croatian lands, in this case, went hand in hand with international communism. Yet another Croatian cultural bastion and a center of Catholicism had to be erased.

To restore the dignity of the innocent, the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina published a small, 24-page pamphlet in August of this year, after a quarter of a century, giving the true version of events. Thus, the Serbian-communist denigration, which until now had been the sole source of historical "truth," was publicly called into question.

The communists sounded the alarm. The prosecutor in Split (Republic of Croatia, because the book was published there) filed charges, requesting the book's prohibition and the punishment of its author. On August 12, the district court prohibited the distribution of the pamphlet. However, after the Franciscans appealed to the Supreme Court of Croatia, the latter overturned the lower court's ruling. Under intense pressure from Serbian communists in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia, the Bosnian prosecutor nevertheless ordered the pamphlet's prohibition, referring the matter to the federal prosecutor to request a ruling from the Federal Court.

On October 26, this Court, composed almost entirely of Serbians, definitively upheld the pamphlet's prohibition. The land "without justice," as that Djilas, who contributed so much to its state, would say, could not have acted otherwise! Purely political, unilateral, Serbian-communist, totalitarian criteria have prevailed. So that our readers can see what is being prosecuted, we reproduce some excerpts from the aforementioned pamphlet. According to what the Yugoslav communist press published: "In the center of Herzegovina lies a hill. It is called Siroki Brijeg (The Broad Hill).

This hill, for the children of Herzegovina, is their pride; from birth, an idea of greatness, a bastion of culture. It is the sanctuary of Mary, the meeting point (Mecca, our note) of the Herzegovinans. That is why their love for her is great to the point of madness, but also their hatred to the point of rage... The year 1945 cut short Siroki Brijeg's prospects and brought it agony. The church was devastated; 296 cannon shots were fired at it; the monastery's numbering was removed, the historical inscription above its main door destroyed. Through bombing, fire, and devastation, the cultural treasure of that region was destroyed: the archive, the museum, the library, and the physical, chemical, and biological laboratory; 29 lives were extinguished in that house. This is the greatest loss being irreparable.

Siroki Brijeg also lost its name (Forbidden and renamed Listica, Obs. of the R. of SC). But from the ashes and blood arose a new generation that does not die. Siroki Brijeg is green again. From its burns, new life sprang forth. Two bell towers, like two strong and vigorous children, recall the past and embrace their mother who stands guard by her children's grave, weeping. Siroki Brijeg has no artistic value, treasures, or adornments. Neither does Herzegovina. We have no historical or cultural monuments because cultural revolutions keep taking place in our land...

The Virgin is accompanied by the martyred friars, innocent victims. Their mortal remains, what time did not take nor fire devour, were moved from the air-raid shelter... and placed beneath the altar of Saint Anthony...

To demonstrate their loyalty to their martyred brothers, one hundred Franciscans from Herzegovina declared their solidarity with the author of the incriminating pamphlet. They offered their full cooperation to the public authorities, while unequivocally defending the innocence and moral and national integrity of their religious and national brothers, victims of a barbaric attack.

As a sign of support, our journal Studia Croatica also unequivocally expresses its absolute solidarity with the victims and their intrepid defenders, our brothers in blood and faith.

Dr. Ricardo Floegel has died

On June 12, 1971, Dr. R. Floegel, a prominent public figure in the Croatian community of Buenos Aires, passed away in Buenos Aires. A lawyer by profession, Dr. Floegel was one of the most audacious defenders of Croatian university students, who were persecuted by the dictatorial regime of Serbian King Alexander Karageorgevich between the two world wars. The late intellectual was also involved in socio-political activism, regularly collaborating with the organization "Zemlja" – "The Land," presided over by Dr. Dj. Basaricek, who, along with Esteban Radic, was a victim of the Serbian attack on the parliament in 1928. Dr. Floegel paid particular attention to the internal resettlement of the Croatian population, relocating numerous families from poorer areas to wealthier ones. Without assistance from the Greater Serbian state, "Zemlja" and his collaborators raised funds for their charitable work through private initiative, attempting to counteract the Greater Serbian state's colonization efforts in the rich agricultural regions of Croatian Slavonia. (He was born in Zagreb in 1900).

Dr. R. Floegel was also a contributor to Studia Croatica, where he published a highly informative work about this colonization activity that so concerned him and to which he dedicated so many hours, months, and years of his work.

The remains of this noble patriot rest in the Chacarita Cemetery, alongside his brother Ivica. Both died in the same San José Sanatorium in Buenos Aires, on the same date and within half an hour of each other. Providence did not wish to separate those who loved each other so fraternally in this "valley of tears." Studia Croatica will keep alive the memory of its collaborator Ricardo and his brother Ivica, a musical composer also in Argentina, whose works are featured in the program of the Croatian Choir "Jadran" in Buenos Aires.

Micro-news

- The Argentine Catholic newspaper Esquiú, in its July 11, 1971 edition, listed Studia Croatica, issues 40-41, enumerating its main articles. Los Principios, a newspaper from Córdoba, Argentina, in its July 18, 1971 edition, under the heading "La Mesa Revuelta" (The Revolted Table), which refers to Argentine cultural life, states first: "In the list of articles from Studia Croatica, one might believe that only those of interest to the community are included. However, while it is true that the topics of the articles are linked to matters concerning the history and present of that nation, they possess a general appeal.

The article jumps from "The Destruction of the Croatian Economy," written by Jure Petricevic, to "Ivan (Juan) Ratkai, First Croatian Missionary in America" (1647-1633), signed by George J. Prpic, editor Francisco Nevistic." —“SIJ”—Dawn of Slovenian Freedom, Buenos Aires, in its issue number 12 of July 31, 1971, states the following: “Every new publication from the (Croatian and Slovenian) émigré community signifies a new success, a milestone in the struggle of peoples for their freedom, of peoples currently forcibly included in Yugoslavia. The publication Studia Croatica in Buenos Aires plays an important role in this. The new volume of Studia Croatica has appeared again—within its planned periodicity.” After listing the contents of the volume, SIJ adds the following observation: “It should be noted that the journal is received by all scientific and cultural institutions worldwide and is accessible to everyone because it is published in Spanish.” SIJ is published fortnightly in Slovenian. Its editor is the well-known writer, publicist, and journalist Rudi Jurcec. Under his experienced leadership, the publication deserves to be considered a true magazine, even though it appears in the form of a daily newspaper. Its focus is primarily on the political and cultural issues of Slovenia, but it also provides, in each edition, a brief yet substantial overview of political and cultural events worldwide.

The Congress of Slavicists of North America and Canada was held in Montreal in July 1971. Professors Dr. Kadic and Bogdan Radica were two Croatian representatives. Before an audience of 400 specialists, Professor A. Kadic presented on the literary activity and output of the Croatian diaspora, paying particular attention to the Croatian Review (Hrvatska Revija) on the occasion of its twentieth anniversary, while Professor B. Radica delivered a dissertation on the Bogumili (the Bosnian paternalists). Professor Dojcev, the Bulgarian delegate, participated actively in the discussion. The Congress expressed in writing its special gratitude to the Croatian historian Dr. D. Mandic for his substantial contributions in clarifying the religious and cultural phenomenon of Bogumilism or Patarenism in Bosnia.

- J. Cosmelli Ibáñez made a serious error in his *Historia anticroata y medieval* (Torquel S.A. Publishers, Buenos Aires), when he wrote on page 444, under the heading "The Slavs": "b) Those from the south pressed upon the borders of the Byzantine Empire, and after crossing the Danube, settled in the Balkans on the Adriatic Sea. Among them were the Yugoslavs, who adopted the Byzantine religion and customs, and the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, who received Western influences." Double error: There is no distinct Yugoslav ethnic group separate from the South Slavs who are not Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians, or Bulgarians, and who are of the Byzantine Orthodox faith. Furthermore, Serbs are neither of Western religion nor custom. Religiously and culturally, they belong to the Byzantine-Eastern world. It would be worthwhile to correct Mr. Cosmelli's information, which is truly misleading.

"Solzenicin is not alone," reads the title of a note in the Rheinischer Merkur, No. 45/71, concerning the four-year prison sentence handed down by Tito's tribunal to the Croatian poet and writer Mirko Vidovic. Furthermore, the same tribunal forbade the young and talented Croatian writer from publishing any work for seven years after he had served his four-year prison sentence. It is worth adding that Vidovic was Tito's "adarnik" (Stahhanov) in the "voluntary" youth labor program immediately after the war. Lately, Vidovic had been living in Lyon, France, working as a professor of Russian literature; he was married to a French woman, the father of four children, and a French citizen. However, while visiting his dying mother in Bosnia, Tito's "neo-humanists" ambushed him in Zadar, with the consequences just mentioned. The Latin American Croatian Institute of Culture in Buenos Aires, among many other Croatian entities in the free world, has directed a A special note was sent to the French government, through its embassy in Buenos Aires, requesting intervention on behalf of the young writer and father of a large, destitute family. Vidovic was once a close collaborator of Professor Mihajlov, whose release so alarmed the Western literary world. In Vidovic's case, there is almost complete silence. The reason? Mihajlov is a "Yugoslav" writer of Russian origin, and Vidovic is a Croatian! The latter are almost destined to die in obscurity. The note in "Rheinischer Morkur" is signed by Ivona Doncevic, whose example other Croatians in the free world should follow.

The death of the Argentine academic Dr. B. Houssay, which occurred in August of this year, plunged Argentine science and the entire nation into mourning. In addition to receiving the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1947, Dr. Houssay was an extraordinary educator and pedagogue, becoming a shared glory of Latin America. To perpetuate his spirit as a researcher and teacher, the OAS decided to establish the B. Rousay Prize of $30,000, to be awarded annually to the most outstanding Latin American researchers.

- According to news reports, the Archbishop of Zagreb, Monsignor F. Kuharic, vigorously defended the dignity and freedom of man and nations at the Synod of Bishops (Rome), even invoking the right to violence in extreme cases. It is believed that the dignitary was alluding to the case of his homeland, Croatia, subjugated in communist Yugoslavia.

- Father Lino Pedisic, spiritual director of the Croatian community in Argentina, was elected and re-elected as Secretary General of the Argentine Catholic Commission for Immigration and director of the magazine Migración, published by this charitable organization. We are very pleased with Father Lino Pedisic's success.

- According to news from international press agencies, 30,000 university students from In Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, after a massive demonstration, students declared an indefinite strike, protesting against the oppression and economic exploitation of the Croatian people. The student assembly rejected the proposed constitutional amendments for their republic (Croatia), demanding Croatian admission to the United Nations and the establishment of the Croatian National Bank.

On December 4th, Archbishop Dr. Frano Franic of Split (Spalato) and Dr. V. Stankovic, spiritual director of the Croatian exiles, arrived in Buenos Aires to visit hundreds of thousands of Croatians in various countries who had fled their homeland due to communist terror. As delegates of the Croatian Episcopal Conference, the signatories, warmly received by the Croatian community, gathered information and provided guidance on how to organize a more effective religious and moral life for their compatriots.

Book review

Branko Miljus: Les Habsburg, L'Eglise et les Slaves du sud

(The Habsburgs, the Church, and the South Slavs, Paris, 1970, p. 252.) Eduardo Benes once wrote: "...having the Habsburgs in Vienna or Budapest means never having any peace or quiet." This is the main theme of the book in the epigraph. It is an anachronistic book and, despite its author's formal intention to give it a scientific character, a book contrary to the objective and critical-scientific spirit. Anachronistic, because it reproduces once again prefabricated "arguments" against Habsburg Austria, the Catholic Church, and the Croatian people, which were prepared more than half a century ago. Its anti-scientific spirit lies in the fact that the author uses the relevant documentation in a very biased and one-sided way. He lacks the audacity to contrast and compare the documents, examining them critically and thus seeking the truth. Instead of giving precedence to reason in his work, the author gives in to the passions that They blind him.

And this is because B. Miljus starts from a point that frightens him. The activities of Archduke Otto of Habsburg disturb his peace of mind. Austria was Serbia's main obstacle to expanding its territory, to subjugating all of Croatia and Slovenia, and to forming a small "empire" in the Balkans, penetrating through Croatian and Slovenian lands into the heart of Europe. For this reason, Serbia provoked the First World War, which caused so much harm to humanity. Otto of Habsburg, among other things, presented a proposal in 1969 to the French Academy of Moral and Political Sciences to create a Danubian federation, which could encompass Austria, Yugoslavia, and Italy. Furthermore, the author says, there is a similar English plan, advocating a Danubian federation of Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Transylvania, and Galicia, with Vienna as its capital.

These almost purely academic combinations unsettled a Serbian from Croatia, who It is Branko Miljus, so much so that he felt compelled to write a book with "scientific" pretensions. Indeed, Miljus is a Serb originally from Croatia (the westernmost part of Bosnia, referred to by historians as "Turkish Croatia"), a former minister in the Great Serbian dictatorship between the two world wars. Resentful of the fall of monarchical Yugoslavia, this man, one of the pillars of the ruthless dictatorship of the tyrant Alexander Karageorgevic, cannot find peace, cannot find tranquility, but instead seeks someone against whom to vent his frustrations.

The Danubian alliances of Archduke Otto offer him the opportunity to do so against the Habsburgs, the Catholic Church, and the Croats. Upon hearing this triad, the Great Serbian nationalists' allergies intensify. Croatian discontent with Serbian hegemony is particularly unwelcome to them. Therefore, Miljus's attack against the Habsburgs and the Catholic Church is a calculated and deliberate attack. secondary to being able to unleash his hatred against the Croats on an international plan, invoking all international forces while also including the Habsburgs and the Catholic Church, which are, of course, not few.

By elevating the Croatian problem to such a level of international hatred, it becomes easier to identify the enemy as the living Croatian national consciousness and its ever-renewed attempts to liberate itself from Serbian rule. Of course, to avoid confronting an entire people, Miljus attacks the Ustaše, whom he portrays as an adventurous minority, a docile instrument in the hands of the Habsburgs and the Catholic Church, while the rest, the majority of Croats, are good people, almost brothers—that part of the Serbian people who even consider the Serbian Karageorgević dynasty as their own, the one that brought them liberation and happiness!

All of Miljus's theses lack historical and political rigor, as well as scientific objectivity. From the very beginning of his "explanations," he starts from a false premise. According to him, a large part of the South Slavs were dominated for centuries by the Hungarians and the Austrians. He states this without any consideration of what the most prominent Croatian representatives say, such as Esteban Radic (See his speech in SC, Nos. 40-41, p. 81).

Indeed, we Croatians found ourselves in that community after long centuries of Ottoman siege, in a position of inferiority, but we were never completely dominated. Furthermore, Miljus's "objective and scientific" spirit must also have recognized that a very sensitive part of this inferiority was caused by the penetration of his ancestors into Croatian lands as Turkish auxiliary troops, devastating the Croatian homeland and occupying its most fertile lands, after exterminating and forcing the flight of its natural inhabitants. These same Serb-influenced Valais, who proclaimed themselves liberators of the Croatian people after 1918, were the destructive force in Croatia under Turkish command, later becoming the instrument of Khuen Herdevary and his ilk in the subjugation of Croatia and the most serious obstacle to its independence. When we Croats fought to regain our independence, these "Serbs" were determined to keep us in the Hungarian clutches, and when we later resisted their "liberating" policies, they accused us of surrendering to foreign powers or lamented the domination imposed upon us by the Austro-Hungarians.

Despite all this Despite the difficulties we have faced in the Danubian community, our political and legal position within it remained unchanged. We were recognized as a separate nation with our national rights clearly visible and acknowledged (See: SC, Nos. 32-35, M. Blazekovic, The Centenary of the Hungarian-Croatian Compromise, pp. 98-157). If someone writes about certain issues, emphasizing the scientific nature of their work, but ignores or intentionally omits what is essential to scientific work, they undermine their own credibility and expose themselves to ridicule.

Logically, Mr. Miljus, true to his scientism, places all the blame for the First World War on the Habsburgs and the Catholic Church, portraying the Croats as a docile instrument in their hands. (On this issue, see: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Buenos Aires 1965, special edition of Studia Croatica).

To facilitate his role as advocate for Serbian hegemony in Yugoslavia between Regarding the two wars, Miljos links the persecution of Serbs in Croatia to that of Jews. In the spirit of objectivity, he "forgets" to mention that the number of Jewish victims was greater in his Serbia than in Croatia. We cannot discuss this issue here. Mr. Miljos, well aware of the moral and material power of France, that wonderful nation, attempts to mobilize it for his cause and against the legitimate rights of the Croatian people to self-determination.

Consistent with his objective of denigrating Croats and to lend his assertions at least a semblance of historical legitimacy, in analyzing the Ustaše phenomenon, I go back to Dr. Ante Starčević of the last century. This Croatian Cato, according to Miljus, is the father of Croatian nationalism in its most extreme form, which destroyed Serbian businesses, deprived them of their property, and even prohibited the use of the Serbian Cyrillic script. But as always, Miljus forgets to mention the causes of the events of 1902, a spontaneous wave of protest and hatred provoked by Serbs in the very heart of Croatia, Zagreb.

The event to which Mr. Miljus refers is the following: In that year, the 20-year collaboration between the Serbian minority and the Croatian ban, the Hungarian Khuen Hedervary, known by the Croatian people as "the Serbian ban," culminated in their efforts to subjugate and oppress Croatia. To make matters worse, the Serbian newspaper published in Zagreb, Srbobran, reprinted an article from another Serbian newspaper, Srpski Knjizevni Glas, claiming that a war was being waged between the Serbian and Croat people, a war that would end with "our or your extermination," as the article stated verbatim.

We ask: Is there a capital city in the entire world, a democracy so perfect, or such absolute political and national tolerance that they could permit such a provocation on their own soil by a foreign minority? But according to Miljos, the responsibility for all this lies with Starcevic, who instilled in the Croats a Catholic and imperialist-tinged nationalism that justified the extermination of the Serbian people, Orthodox and "oppressed." It was Starcevic who fomented the mass killing of the Serbs. But the truth is quite different.

On March 23, 1883, Starcevic wrote an article entitled "Slovenci i Srbi" (The Slovenes and the Serbs), in which he stated, among other things: "The author asks me what position we have taken regarding the population that claims to be Serbian in Croatia. We have taken the same position as with regard to other peoples. In every country there are peoples who are different because of their language, religion, or race, etc. There are also Italians, Jews, Roma, etc., in Croatia. I do not understand why this fact could be harmful to the general interests of the inhabitants or the nation. As long as these peoples exist, there is no reason to deny or impose them. Let everyone call them what they want. But there are things that can be useful or harmful not only to individual populations, but also to all the inhabitants of the nation, whatever their designation."

Then, warning of the nefarious laws that weigh equally on all citizens, and advocating for their collaboration and unity for the sake of the common homeland, Starcevic continued: "Adhering to these principles, we sincerely love and consider as our brothers Serbs, Germans, Italians, Jews, Gypsies, Lutherans, etc., all those who are working for the common good of the entire people, of the whole homeland; but we also fear Croats, Serbs, and all those who are against those sacred and common things."

For this class of people, Starcevic coined the term "Slavic-Servian," amplifying to its fullest extent a servile spirit with two Latin terms meant to describe those who oppose "those sacred and common things" in Croatia. Starcevic could not forgive this class of traitors, and since they were mostly recruited in Croatia from the Serbian minority, it was natural and logical that Starcevic would accuse them, and that they, being truly guilty, would feel resentful of Starcevic's attitude. Without expressing our own opinion on the matter, we ask: is there a human conscience or a national community that, having to survive, can formulate its attitude toward treachery within its own ranks in any other way?

Considering Mr. Miljus completely unqualified to expound on common problems, regarding his accusations against the Croats for the alleged genocide of Serbs during the last war, we recommend the book *L'Occidente joue et perd la Yugoslavie dans la gerre* by B. George, Paris, 1968, or the one written by Ernest Pezet on the Stepinac case. There you will see what a disservice his book does to the truth and to the disinterested spirits of France.

In our times, we need more serenity, more objectivity, and more love of truth if we want to overcome these turbulent times that are enveloping us all in a confusion of lies and half-truths, as the elderly Miljus does, at a point in his life when he should be displaying all the responsibility he lacked in his youth. Furthermore, Mr. Miljus, without the organizational capacity of the Habsburgs and the blood shed by Croatian, German, and Hungarian soldiers, when would your Serbia have been liberated from the centuries-old Turkish yoke? By disregarding this essential fact, you distort the truth and act with utter disregard for justice. Can one truly be a supporter and defender of genuine democratic values? Despite the inner turmoil that tells you "no," you lack the moral decency to acknowledge it publicly. Such are the ways of weak and unfortunate human nature!

F. Nevistic

John Prcela and Stanko Guldescu Operation Slaughterhouse

(Operation Slaughterhouse). Eyewitness accounts of the massacres carried out in Yugoslavia after the war; Dorrance & Company, Philadelphia, 1970, pp. 557 and several illustrations.

The internal politics of Yugoslavia, from the birth of this multinational state until its destruction in 1941, were characterized by one salient feature: the Serbian struggle for hegemony and the Croatian resistance against it. From April 1941, this struggle was transferred to the battlefield. Immediately after the anti-German "putsch" in Belgrade in 1941, Germany attacked Yugoslavia, whose army offered no significant resistance because its commanders, along with the government, fled, first to Greece and then to England.

Of the two main regions that made up Yugoslavia, Serbia became a sui generis German protectorate, while Croatia was proclaimed independent. From that moment, the Serbian-Croatian War began, which did not end until the conclusion of World War II. The Serbian partisans, one group under General D. Mihajlovic and the other led by Tito, rarely fought against the Germans; their main, and almost sole, objective was to destroy the Croatian state and re-establish Serbian power there.

In this struggle, the Croatian army did not suffer a significant defeat until the end of the war. However, due to its dependence on German war supplies, it was forced to abandon the battlefield due to a lack of ammunition. Instead of ordering the surrender of the Croatian army to the Serbian partisans, the Croatian government ordered its commanders to hand over their units to the Western Allies, who were by then near the Austro-Yugoslav border. Some 200,000 men, or more, attempted to surrender to the British as prisoners of war.

The book under review meticulously recounts the most dramatic moments of the attempted surrender, the British rejection, and the capture and disarmament carried out by Tito's partisans. At that point, Operation Slaughter began, or rather, the extermination and systematic killing of that army in peacetime. The massacre was necessary, as the author of "The New Class" (N. Djilas), who was also responsible for it, later stated, so that "Yugoslavia could live." Two hundred thousand young and politically aware Croats represented a serious threat to Yugoslavia, not deserving of extermination, according to the logic of the famous neo-humanist. What political value did Yugoslavia, in turn, represent that warranted sacrificing so many young lives?

For the Serbs, it was of paramount importance because the Croats and other non-Serbian peoples, subject to their power, are the source of their own economic well-being. And in the international arena? This is truly difficult to determine. Yugoslavia was a French ally against Germany while the latter was weak, but as soon as Hitler's Germany established itself as a military power, Yugoslavia, under Stojadinovic's leadership, switched sides to the Axis powers. When Hitler later attacked Yugoslavia after the Belgrade coup, its army demonstrated its insignificance to the world, as it was unable to offer any resistance. Guerrilla operations were undertaken later, but primarily against Croatia.

Killing some 200,000 soldiers in wartime operations is a horrific thing in itself. But killing them in peacetime represents an unprecedented crime. Despite this evidence, when Croatian representatives tried to protest to the Allies or the United Nations, they always found deaf ears; perhaps no one wanted to mention the case. Simply because Yugoslavia was an ally and, consequently, its crimes were considered crimes of the Allies.

The preface to the book was written by U.S. General Charles A. Willoughby, former intelligence chief under General MacArthur. He was so embittered by the silence surrounding the postwar crimes in the West that he put the words "democracy" and "civilized world" in quotation marks. He later adds, "These mass killings are a stain on the Anglo-American military and political shield, because these two peoples had the strength and the opportunity to prevent their execution."

In addition to the preface, the book contains five chapters and impressive and horrifying eyewitness accounts. In the first chapter, American history professor Stanko Guldescu wrote a brief and concise overview of Croatian history spanning more than a thousand years. His method of presentation is strictly scholarly, providing sources and supplementary bibliography for each assertion.

The second chapter, titled "The Serbian-Croatian Antagonism," was written by American sociologist David Baxter. The work represents an excellent study of Yugoslav internal relations, encompassing not only the political reasons but also the well-documented economic motives of the Croatian-Serbian conflict. The very first proposition clarifies for foreigners the deep-seated cause of the Yugoslav discord: "Despite the fact that Croats and Serbs speak very similar languages, thirteen centuries of separate political life created a distinct national identity in both peoples."

The author of the third chapter is the Croatian general Vjekoslav Luburic, and its title is "The End of the Croatian Army." Luburic demonstrates clearly and convincingly that the Croatian army was never defeated in its war with the Serbs and the communists. However, due to the German withdrawal, this army was left without sources of ammunition, which motivated its decision to lay down its arms. But, to avoid surrendering to the communists, it attempted to surrender to the Western Allies.

Chapter Four, a collaborative work by the book's editors (Prcela and Guldescu), is titled "The Extradition of the Croatian Victims." The article describes the tragic situation of Croatian soldiers who had managed to cross into the Austrian region, occupied by British armed forces. After promising the Croatian soldiers safe passage to Italy, and after they surrendered their weapons and boarded trains supposedly destined for Italy, the British authorities sent them to Yugoslavia, handing them over to the Serbs and communists who ruthlessly murdered them.

Chapter Five, written by John Prcela, is titled "The Bleiburg-Maribor Massacres in Journalistic Accounts and Witness Testimonies." His exposition is excellent, revealing how the monstrous crime of murdering 200,000 Croatian soldiers after the war ended was covered up by all means. The Croatian Committee for the Investigation of These Crimes repeatedly appealed to the United Nations, as the most prominent forum for investigating international crimes of this nature. They first contacted Secretaries-General Hammerskjöld and U Thant, and then various individual delegates. And the result? Nothing, absolutely nothing, not even a formal acknowledgment of their request.

Human nature has always been driven by passion, sacrificing normal and legal principles to political opportunism. If today's international jurists, as well as politicians and moralists, consider themselves humanists, then the Croatian case should not be approached as a specific Croatian-Serbian problem, but as a problem of human conscience in general. The massacres in Vietnam, in the town of My Lai, provoked worldwide outrage.

Lieutenant Galley was sentenced to life imprisonment, held responsible for the deaths of 22 people. And all this during military operations. And Marshal Tito? His responsibility lies in the cold-blooded murder of some 200,000 young Croatian soldiers who had laid down their arms at the end of the war. In the 450 pages of this well-documented book, based on eyewitness accounts, the murder of those unfortunate young men is described. The descriptions are so horrifying that they would surpass the power of human imagination, were they not actually committed. What kind of punishment did Marshal Titus receive for these crimes? He was solemnly received by the Queen of England, the American President, and His Holiness the Pope. The question inevitably arises: Did these dignitaries not notice that Titus's hands were bloodied up to his elbows?

Angel Belic

Ivan Tomas: Dva predvodnika Bozje Hrvatske (Two Drivers from God's Croatia)

Offprint from the magazine "Novi Zivot" (The New Life), Rome, 1968, vols. 3-4 - 68, special edition of 1971, pp. 45.

Dr. Ivan Tomas, a contributor to Studia Croatica, is a Croatian priest from Herzegovina. He currently lives and works in Rome, where he has lived for many years. While preparing in Rome to carry out important missions and objectives in his native Bosnia and Herzegovina, he was caught off guard by the outbreak of World War II and had to remain in the Eternal City throughout the conflict. The tragic end of the war and the imposition of the communist regime in Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as an integral part of it, prevented Father Tomas from returning to his homeland. The prospects and plans of this talented priest underwent their first and fatal alteration in 1945. Instead of entering the hierarchical ranks of his country with promising prospects for his people and for himself personally, Father Tomas had to "join" and become part of the mass of Croatian exiles.

After many difficult and laborious years, helping thousands of compatriots in conditions even worse than his own immediately after the war, and after having earned doctorates in theology and philosophy, the Vatican Radio Directorate entrusted him with the management of the Croatian Hour program. In the broadcasts under his direction, both his organizational skills and his personality, deeply concerned with the pressing problems of our time, as well as his patriotism and love for the freedom of humankind and of his Croatian people, were revealed.

Precisely for this reason, and after the infamous 1966 Air Protocol, which paved the way for the reestablishment of normal diplomatic relations between the Vatican and the communist government in Belgrade, Father Tomas suffered another harsh blow in his life as a priest, intellectual, and Croatian exile. Seeking a reciprocal rapprochement with Belgrade, the Vatican sacrificed Father Tomas in accordance with the demands of its future diplomatic employer. Priests trusted by Tito replaced those in exile.

Since then, Dr. Tomas's life has been monotonous, isolated in a house near Rome, purchased by the Croatian industrialist Pedro Dicca and intended specifically for the Croatian Historical Institute and Croatian priests in similar circumstances to Father Tomas.

In these conditions—cum offitio et sine benefitio, we might say—an intellectual and a priest of rare Christian virtues is withering away.

To "forget" so many setbacks, Tomas promoted and implemented the idea of a magazine dedicated to the current problems of the Church, especially those in Croatia. In addition to his extensive contributions to and editorship of the magazine Novi Zivot (The New Life), Tomas published a book last year, Running with Death, dedicated to the life and work of another Croatian priest—Dr. Carlos Kamber, who died in 1968 in Canada—revealing glimpses of a true orator, publicist, and brilliant organizer. Analyzing his personality, sometimes with extreme rigor, the author revealed the qualities of an excellent connoisseur of the Croatian literary language and style, as well as a broad theological, philosophical, and general literary culture.

With this supplement, the priest wished to better preserve the text dedicated to two other extraordinary figures in recent Croatian history: the Archbishop of Sarajevo, Dr. Joseph Standler, and Professor Dr. Ivo Merz. Dr. Standler was the first archbishop of Croatian Bosnia after centuries of Turkish occupation and the destruction of the ancient Croatian ecclesiastical hierarchy. Standler was a contemporary of the famous Bishop Strossmayer, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius X.

Appointed Archbishop of Bosnia a few years after the nominal occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austro-Hungarian troops, but under the command of the Croatian General Filipovic, Standler found himself in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. As a priest and a Croatian patriot, he had to fight for the rights of his flock in the religious, cultural, economic, and national spheres. With exceptional ability and entrepreneurial spirit, he soon built a whole network of churches, constructed the college and seminary in Travnik, and entrusted it to the Jesuit fathers. He then also built the Faculty of Theology in Sarajevo, placing it under the direction of the same Order. He chose suitable and cultured individuals to collaborate with him. Among them, two Slovenian priests—the Jesuit fathers F. Sanc and Jeglic—deserve special mention, particularly esteemed in Croatia as philosophical writers and preachers.

Standler paid particular attention to the press, theological and philosophical books, as well as devotional manuals for the people. Up to this point, the dignitary enjoyed great prestige and respect for being a man of impeccable religious integrity. But Standler also fought for the Trialist reorganization of Austria-Hungary, recommending the reunification of Bosnia-Herzegovina with the other Croatian provinces as the most solid foundation for the third partner in that community, which should have been Croatia. This led to serious difficulties for the archbishop.

In Bosnia, the interests of three major powers of the time intersected: Austria-Hungary, which wanted to prevent the reunification of Bosnia with Croatia; Russia, which defended Serbian claims; and Turkey, which could not easily relinquish its "historical rights." This is why Standler was attacked by all sides and driven to the point of resigning his post. Thanks to the personal intervention of Pope Pius X, who knew Standler personally as a devout priest and who decided the matter with the words, "Manet et manebit" (He will remain and he will remain), he was able to save his position as Archbishop of Sarajevo until his death on December 8, 1918.

Standler was born in the town of Bosanski Brod, on the border between northern Croatia and Bosnia, the son of a German craftsman and a Croatian mother, on January 24, 1843. At the Pontifical Germanicum College, where he was an excellent student, his superiors noted in his personal file: "Erat Croata ex toto corde" (He was Croatian through and through). The historical importance of this dignitary, who died at the age of 74, for the Church and the Croatian people is still not sufficiently researched or properly appreciated. Father Tomas drew attention to this, offering more of an overview and guidance than a direct contribution to the study of Dr. Standler's life and work. This booklet is all the more valuable given the very difficult situation the Croatian people and Catholicism in Bosnia are currently facing under the Great Serbian and communist regime.

The second part of this booklet is dedicated to Dr. Ivan Merz, born in Banja Luka, Bosnia, to German parents. He died in Zagreb at the age of 32 in May 1928. He studied in Vienna, Paris, and Zagreb and served as a professor at the large seminary of the Diocese of Zagreb, distinguished by his religious and sacramental life. He was the most zealous implementer of Church directives in the organization of Catholic Action.

Numerous organizations, conferences, and articles served to put those directives into practice among the Croatian people. He took a vow of chastity, despite being a layman his entire life. Currently, the hierarchy and historians in Croatia are preparing the material to one day promote the cause for his beatification. Father Tomas highlights his personality as the ideal lay type for the religious and ecclesiastical activities desired by the Second Vatican Council. His example could serve as an inspiration to young Croatians—intellectuals and workers—who still believe in the mission of Christianity in the modern world. It is hoped that Father Tomas's work will bear the abundant fruit that its author so desires.

F. Nevistic

Stepan Buc: Zur Slavischen Problematik (Regarding the Slavic problem)

Viena-Stuttgart, 1971.

The well-known Croatian publicist, Dr. Esteban Buc, published his contribution entitled "On the Slavic Problem" as a separate publication in the book "Volkstum zwischen Moldau, Etson und Donau" (People Between the Moldau, Etson, and Donau), prepared to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the Austrian historian Franz H. Riedl, by W. Braunmüller Universitätsbuchhandlung, Vienna-Stuttgart, 1971. In this contribution, the author reiterates his thesis, already familiar to Croatians and German scholars, regarding the Slavic problem. The German Slavist, Dr. J. H. Strosche, referring to this thesis, opines that it "deserves attention as a rejection of linguistic-philological, economic, and other forms of romanticism on this matter." Dr. Buc argues that the Slavic question, as it is presented—beginning with Slavic mythology, then through Byzantine sources (Constantine Porphytogenus), and Mavro Orbini's book *Il regno degli Slavi corrotamente detti Sciavoni* (Pesaro, 1601), and continuing with the work of Herder, Koilar, and Safarik (who portrayed the Slavs as a nation with distinct tribes)—is not sufficiently clear and lacks the necessary historical critique.

The author cites the following reasons for this confusion: first, the Slavs have been considered a single ethnic entity; second, the starting point has been the "label" of language, whereas the reality is that each of the peoples within this linguistic group has its own individual "ethnogenesis," history, and culture. He also considers it a mistake to speak today of the "Slavic man," the "Slavic world," and the "Slavic spirit." He then engages in a debate with the Czech historian F. Grauss, according to whom there must have existed in the Middle Ages "a Slavic noble upper class," founders of the states, which would imply recognizing the existence of an original Slavic nation, something our author cannot accept.

Dr. Buc briefly analyzes the ethnogenesis of all Slavic peoples (listing 12 of them) and considers that their racial background generally originates from Asian nomads (the Huns, the Avars, the Pechenegs, the Kumans, the Finns, etc.). Upon arriving in Europe, these people readily abandoned their own languages and embraced Church Slavonic (and the Cyrillic alphabet), forming a distinct culture around Thessaloniki between the seventh and eighth centuries CE. However, this does not mean that the same question is also asked, for example, about how the Hungarians developed their culture or language.

Be that as it may, it must be admitted that the "Slavic problem" remains enigmatic in many aspects and that much still needs to be clarified, especially regarding the ethnogenesis of each of the Slavic peoples. But, in any case, it is difficult to accept the author's schematic process concerning the formation of the Slavic peoples of today.

One wonders, for example, how the Hungarians, also a nomadic people, in their new homeland and amidst the sea of Slavic peoples—or rather, according to the same author, those who adopted the Slavic language—preserved their Hungarian language to this day, while the Croats (Illyrian-Goths, according to the author) accepted the Slavic language despite not having had such intense contact with the Church Slavonic language, nor with Cyrillic script (having received Roman baptism)?

F. Nevistic

James Nash: Yugoslavia in pictures (Yugoslavia en fotografías)

Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., New York, Revised Edition 1970, p. 64.

Yugoslavia is one of the sixty-four countries covered in the 1970 revised edition of the "Visual Geography Series," intended for Great Britain and the United States. Each country in this series is presented by a different author, in collaboration with, and with the assistance of, various U.S. airlines, information centers, ministries, tourism agencies, etc.

The volumes are generally divided into five chapters: history, land, people, government, and economy. Because of their brevity, illustrations, and panoramic view, the books in this series are very useful for tourists visiting a country for the first time who need general information and orientation. Therefore, it is worthwhile to know how Yugoslavia is presented here.

The author and publisher thank American World Airways for providing the photograph of Dubrovnik that appears on the cover of this edition. to the United States Department of Commerce for a map of Yugoslavia and to the Yugoslav Embassy in Washington, the Yugoslav Information Center in New York, as well as the Yugoslav Information Center in Belgrade for the other photographs and information. When it comes to countries like Ecuador, Peru, or Mexico, it is not of particular importance whether the information comes from their own information centers, from foreign companies, or from some official institutions.

In the case of Yugoslavia, this circumstance does have a special character, and not because it lies, of course, in its sympathetic presentation of the Yugoslav communist political and economic system since 1948; that was foreseeable. There are even certain critical observations about the system, with which the author wanted to highlight his independence from official information. Thus, for example, when discussing the Five-Year Plan, he says: "Unfortunately, as is often the case in communist countries, the planners are better at setting goals than at actually increasing production and achieving the objectives" (p. 58). Or, when blaming the workers' councils for industrial stagnation, arguing that profits should be reinvested in industry: "Naturally, this has to happen if the workers' councils vote to invest money in Olympic-sized swimming pools (as has happened). Yugoslavia cannot afford such symbols of luxury at the present time" (p. 61).

Given that the employees of the Yugoslav embassy in Washington and the Information Center in New York, especially Mr. Stamatovic, were the ones who provided information to Mr. James Nach, and that they are Serbian, it is not surprising that Croatians are not represented in this publication's history or literature. This time too the Great Serbian tactic is applied in its entirety, according to which everything that is Serbian is listed as Serbian, and everything that is Croatian is designated as Yugoslav.

In the chapter "History," under the sections "Middle Ages" and "Ottoman Domination," only Serbian history is presented. Mentioning the conditions under Ottoman rule, the author states that "the Yugoslavs fared no better under the Austro-Hungarian Christian House of Habsburg." To corroborate his opinion, he cites the case of the "peasant rebellion in Croatia, led by M. Gubec in 1573" (p. 12). In the section "The Seed of War"—referring to the First World War—it is stated that everyone wanted unification except "the Croatian extremists who wanted nothing to do with the Orthodox Serbs."

The author alludes to Ante Starcevic, thus preparing the reader for the discussion of the Second World War. The murderer Gavrilo Princip was mentioned, while the name of Esteban Radic was disguised with the expression "a leading political figure." The limited autonomy with which the Croatian question was addressed "only angered the Serbs and Slovenes," says the author, only being half right; that is, one could speak of anger only among the Serbs. The section "Under the Nazis" repeats the communist propaganda already known from the war, which is not surprising given its origin. But it is surprising that the author and the publisher reproduce a photograph of Dr. A. Artukovic from the time of... The war, amidst German officials visiting Zagreb, with the observation that his case "was the cause of misunderstandings between Yugoslavia and the United States and that Yugoslavia continues to request his extradition 'so far without success'" (p. 17).

In the chapter "The Government," section "Religion," of the five photographs, four depict various well-identified Orthodox monasteries, while one refers to an unnamed mosque, without indicating its name or location.

The section "Language and Literature" represents a singular case of Serbian intemperance, highlighting its own culture and silencing that of others. It begins with the assertion that Yugoslavia has a long literary tradition. "In Serbia, literature had its beginnings in the 9th century," the author states, lamenting the interruption of creative activity due to the Turkish invasion for several centuries, "while the original Croatian style suffered greatly under Italian and Austro-Hungarian influence." The author says nothing about what kind of influence is being discussed, or to what this negative function is attributed; it seems he felt the need to demonstrate that Croatia, too, did not enjoy freedom, just as Serbia did not.

The literature of Dubrovnik and that of the Dalmatian coast—that is, Croatian literature—has no nationality. Nowhere in the book is it stated that Dalmatia is a constituent part of Croatia. Demetrius (possibly Dositheus?) Obradovic is a Serb who traveled extensively and is the initiator of modern literature. The most prominent writers in the field of the modern novel are Ignjatovic, Lj. Nenadovic, and S. Sremac. Through Ivo Andric, the author arrives at Miroslav Krleza, whom he refers to as the best known of the "unknown" authors of Yugoslavia (the author also uses quotation marks in his original text). The book devotes more space to Milovan Djilas than to Andric and Krleza combined!

In the section "Art," we again find only Serbian art from different periods. Information is provided about Serbian monasteries and churches in Serbia and Macedonia. The expressions "the Serbian kingdom," "the Serbian fresco painters," and "the Serbian artists" also appear. In contrast, Mestrovic and Augustincic are described as "two Yugoslav sculptors" who achieved international renown (p. 35).

If we consider that Croatian communists denounce such phenomena in their publications (for example, in "VUS" of June 23, 1971, p. 9: "French Croatia") without achieving anything concrete, the question arises seriously: how can we prevent this cultural theft that has persisted from the formation of Yugoslavia in 1918 to the present day? Whether the proportionality in the foreign service currently being discussed in that country will be a remedy will only be revealed once equality in diplomatic representation is achieved. But to achieve this proportionality and a remedy against this shameful theft, it is necessary to demand it forcefully and not merely to formulate impotent dismays, stylized in a very polite tone in the articles that Croatian communists are writing on the matter.

Milan Blazekovic

George J. Prpic: A Century of World Communism - A selective chronological outline

Barron's Educational Series, Inc., Woodbury, New York, 1970, p. X 292.

The fact that communist governments currently rule the lives of more than one billion people in fourteen states (among them Soviet Russia and communist China, encompassing thirteen million five hundred thousand square kilometers) and that the same communist regimes were imposed, from 1939 onward, on more than 130 million people in Central and Eastern Europe, sufficiently awakens and justifies interest in the history of international communism and its ongoing updating in light of the most recent political events, changes, and ideological currents.

This work by G. J. Prpic, professor of history at John Carroll University, Cleveland, USA, is a revised edition—chronological in its broader scope—of his earlier work, Fifty Years of World Communism: 1917–1967, A Selective Chronology (Cleveland 1967, p. 180). Because the author intended to offer students and teachers a practical, one-volume handbook on the subject containing only the essential facts without delving into a comprehensive explanation of communist ideology and doctrine, this chronology includes brief interpretations of the basic theories and ideas of socialism and communism from the beginning of the 19th century to the present day. Therefore, this is not a chronology in the strict sense, but rather a historical sketch, provided by the quotations taken from the works listed in the same author's 1966 publication, Eastern Europe and World Communism - A Selective Annotated Bibliography in English, Cleveland, 1966 (p. 147).

"The Century of World Communism" is divided by the author into four parts, as is the chronology in "Fifty Years of World Communism." The first part covers the period from Karl Marx to the Bolshevik Revolution: 1818–1917, that is, the early stages of socialism and communism; the second part presents epochal ideas from Lenin to the Second World War: 1918–1939; The third part covers the period from this war to Stalin's death: 1939-1953, while the fourth is devoted to the post-Tallinian period, 1953-1968, although the last date of importance in the book is May 28, 1970.

Among the six appendices, the first contains a list of the communist states in the world; the second, the communist parties—some 85 in total, with the corresponding number of their members—their legal status (banned or in power), and their stance on the Sino-Soviet conflict (whether pro-Soviet, pro-Maoist, independent, or neutral); the third lists the Soviet republics, indicating their area, population, and the names of their capital cities. According to Annex 49, regarding United States aid to countries worldwide from 1945 to 1966, of the approximately 120 countries that received a total of $122,358,500,000, only thirteen received more aid than Yugoslavia.

This country had received $2,863,900,000 up to that date, that is, almost three billion dollars. The fifth annex informs us about the New Left in America and Europe, while the sixth contains six geographical maps: the first refers to the civil war in Russia; the second presents the People's Republic of China with its Southeast Asian neighbors; the third and fourth indicate the earlier spread of communism in Europe and Asia; while the fifth and sixth refer to the current objectives of Soviet Russia.

Unlike the first chronology, the current one contains twelve pages of two columns, where names and concepts appear, sometimes with subdivisions, which greatly facilitates its use.

The graphic material also differs from the previous version. It consists of photographs that are often full-page or half-page spreads. Photographs of prominent figures generally occupy a quarter of a page. The case of Tito is particularly unjustified; he is presented in three two-column photographs (pp. 165, 184, and 190), of which only one—the 1955 photograph with Khrushchev and Bulganin—has any historical significance, while the other two are purely propagandistic.

It is beyond question that this technically, graphically, and historically-politically well-prepared chronology will achieve its objective not only with regard to American students enrolled in political science departments at various universities, but also within American and non-American circles that consider the United States to be the protagonist in the fight against international communism. The impression of objectivity and absence of propaganda would be the virtues of this historical-chronological review, especially for readers—nationally disinterested or marginalized—who are interested in the development of the economic and political influence of communism throughout the world over an entire century.

For us, naturally, the present work by Professor Prpic is of primary interest in its exposition of the events in Croatia. The author did well to dedicate considerable space to the actions of the Croatian peasants in the revolutionary year of 1848, who enthusiastically suppressed the civil revolution in Vienna from the ranks of General Joseph Jelacic's army. Marx placed great hopes in the liberal revolution of 1848, which failed precisely because of the intervention of the Croatians and the other Slavs, for which reason he "angrily lashed out at them in his writings" from England, where he had to go as "his last and longest exile."

This circumstance explains the scant sympathy for Croats among leftists worldwide, for whom Marx's aberrations are also dogma. It is also sufficiently emphasized that at one of the most important Comintern congresses, from June 17 to July 8, 1924, the chauvinism of the Serbs in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, led by Simo Markovic, was condemned, and that Stalin himself opportunely declared that Macedonia, Slovenia, and Croatia had the right to secede from the Yugoslav state (p. 80).

Along with the dates of events related to our national sphere and the development of socialism and communism, such as the South Slavic conference in Ljubljana on November 23, 1909, the author also notes the dates of events with little direct significance for the history of communism, but which are relevant to world politics or our own. As for the latter, they would be the Pan-Slavic Congress of Prague in July 1908, the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 5/10/1908, the attack against Esteban Radic in the Parliament of Belgrade on 20/6/1928, the proclamation of the dictatorship in Yugoslavia on 6/1/1929, the attack and death of King Alexander in Marseille on 9/10/1934; the electoral victory of the united opposition on 5/5/1935, the Croatian-Serbian Compromise of 26/8/1939 and the accession of Yugoslavia to the Tripartite Pact of 25/3/1941.

The enumeration of these events completes the series of adventures in which the communists also participated in one way or another. Thus, for example, the author, reaching the date of June 20, 1928, correctly observes that the communists exploited Croatian "nationalist" sentiment for their cause, even though this term used by the author is not accurate. Similarly, the author's formulation regarding the imposition of the dictatorship is not sufficiently clear when he says: "Thousands of nationalists, including communists, suffer and endure tremendous police torture..." What kind of nationalists are we talking about?

Certainly not Yugoslav and Serbian nationalists! In any case, mentioning the case of Yugoslav communists in connection with these events unnecessarily diminishes the importance of other factors. Referring to September 18, 1946, Prpic says: "The Yugoslav authorities arrest, on the basis of fabricated accusations, the Archbishop of Zagreb, Metropolitan of Croatia, Monsignor Louis Stepinac. The Catholic Church is being persecuted. Many of its priests are imprisoned or killed." The West defends Stepinac, considering him an enemy of all forms of dictatorship and a friend of Jews and Orthodox Christians.

Although Stepinac's coat of arms and photograph are not included in this chronology, as was the case in the first, the account I just cited is better than the one found in his previous chronology. Also in relation to Katyn, this chronology is more complete than the previous one entitled "The Spring of 1940" and the dates April 13, 16, and 18, 1943. On the contrary, we will try in vain to find any information regarding the Croatian super-Katyn (Bleiburg). This omission by the author is all the more incomprehensible given that he dedicates the work to his brother, Juan Prpic, murdered at the age of 23 along with many of his compatriots, friends, and relatives in "the tragic spring of 1945" (p. VI).

We will also search in vain under the title of April 10. There is no mention of the proclamation of Croatian independence in 1941, unlike, for example, the proclamation of Armenian independence on May 28, 1919, Slovak independence on March 15, 1939, or Ukrainian independence, proclaimed on June 30, 1941, by Esteban Bandera. It is not sufficient, in any case, to simply state, under the date of April 16, 1941: "The Yugoslav army surrenders to the Germans. The government abandons the country. Italians, Germans, Bulgarians, and Hungarians occupy their respective parts of it." Croatia and Montenegro become Axis-controlled states” (p. 123). We will not discuss whether it is historically accurate to say that the Yugoslav army capitulated precisely on April 16, 1941, or on April 17, 1941, when the capitulation was signed, or on April 18, 1941, when it came into effect. But what we can and must discuss is whether Croatia and Montenegro can be equated in terms of their respective statehood acquired during the war. Indeed,

Montenegro, after the proclamation of its independence on July 12, 1941, never progressed beyond the status of a state “in statu nascendi” because it was not recognized by anyone and never became a subject of public international law (for example, the agreement on boundaries between the Independent State of Croatia and Montenegro, signed by the Croatian government with representatives of the Italian government in Zagreb on October 27, 1941), while Croatia was a true international subject with all Statehood attributes in a part of the international community divided by war. Croatia's statehood can be recognized or not, and consequently, mentioned or not. But if it is mentioned, it is historically and legally inaccurate to compare it with that of any other occupied part of Yugoslavia and thus reduce Croatia to the status of an occupied region, justifying its corresponding "liberation" and liquidation.

Milan Blazekovic

Ivan Degrel: The fatal year 1918 - The disintegration of the thousand-year-old Croatian kingdom (Kobna 1918).- Rasap tisucljetnog hrvatskog kraljevstva)

Buenos Aires 1970, "El Hogar" Edition, San Martín 160, José Ingenieros, Province of Buenos Aires, pp. 187 (in Croatian).

The history of the creation of the State Community of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in 1918 belongs to those events in the life of the Croatian nation that remain politically relevant to this day. This State Community, from its very beginnings, was never, nor did it subsequently become, a state whose constituent peoples enjoyed equal political rights. When, therefore, a sociopolitical organism such as the state does not, from its inception, function to the satisfaction of all its constituent peoples, who, for this very reason, are not equally invested in its existence and preservation, the question naturally arises: why and how was such an organism created, and whether, after all, it should have been created at all?

With the aim of explaining to Croatian youth in Buenos Aires how and why the first Yugoslav state community was created (the second was created after the Second World War) and, consequently, how and why the thousand-year-old Croatian kingdom disappeared in 1918, the author delivered a series of lectures on the subject at the "Croatian Catholic Youth Society" in Buenos Aires.

At the urging of these same young people, the author published these lectures, now somewhat expanded and expanded, in pocket-sized book form. Thus was conceived and written this work on the recent and much-debated Croatian history, to which the author added a chapter (pp. 171-185) entitled "Throughout a Thousand Years." This, in addition to reproductions of the most important examples of the Croatian historical lapidary, contains two chapters on the arrival and Christianization of the Croats, extracted from the work De administrando imperio of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, the genealogy of the Croatian national dynasty of the Trpimir, the photocopy of the appendix to the Tragurian (of Trogir) manuscript of Archdeacon Thomas, concerning the pact of 1102 between the Croats and the Hungarian King Kolomano, and the brief account of Croatian history under the dynasties of the Arpad, the Angevins and other foreign dynasties and, finally, the Habsburgs. In doing so, the author managed to summarize Croatian history in a relatively small book, the main part of which covers the period between the Hungarian-Croatian Compromise of 1868 and the constitution of June 28, 1921, with the First World War as its central focus.

Although this historical book owes its existence to the need to educate Croatian youth about a crucial period in Croatian history and is therefore written more in the form of intrinsically linked essays, dispensing with strict scientific methodology, the work is rigorously documented in the literature listed on page 187. Among these sources, "Memoirs of Men and Political Events"—the memoirs of the sculptor Ivan Mestrovic—is particularly noteworthy. Mestrovic, along with Dr. Ante Trumbic and Francisco Supilo, was one of the key figures in the unification of the South Slavs during the First World War.

The author does not limit himself to merely enumerating and explaining the complex political facts and events during the First World War that led to the creation of the first Yugoslav state, but rather evaluates the actions of various political figures in relation to their political and national implications. Therefore, this work is simultaneously a critical assessment of this period in Croatian history, including the author's own judgments about certain individuals and their actions, despite any potential overlap or similarity with previously published opinions.

Indeed, the author challenges the persistently held thesis between the two world wars that only in union with the Serbs could the Croats be saved from the disastrous application of the secret London Pact (April 26, 1915), by which the Allies ceded vast Croatian regions in Dalmatia to Italy in exchange for its entry into the war against the Central Powers.

On the contrary, the author argues that the Allies had initially envisioned a Croatian state in the event of the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (p. 62); that the Italians were willing to make do with those Croats who did not desire union with the Serbs, as evidenced by Sonnino's suggestion to Supilo (p. 94); and that during the Congress of Oppressed Nations of Austria-Hungary in Rome in April 1918, Bissolati begged Trumbic to accept the ethnic principle for Trieste and Western Istria, with the Italians doing the same regarding Dalmatia, thus undermining the London Pact (p. 114).

Unfortunately, faced with the great dilemma that plagued Croatian émigrés at the beginning of the war—whether to work for the creation of Yugoslavia or to try to secure the most favorable conditions and borders for postwar Croatia—the Yugoslav committee, headed by Dr. Ante Trumbic, advocated for the former, dismissing the possibilities of the latter. They recognized their error too late, although they had ample evidence of the double-dealing by Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pašić, for example, when Pašić demanded compensation in Croatia should Bulgaria switch sides, an attitude that also prompted Francisco Supilo's departure from the Yugoslav committee.

Ivan Degrel, born in 1909 in Zupanja, Pannonian Croatia, a jurist by training, a journalist by profession, and a musician and composer by natural inclination, imbued his work—whose subject had been of particular interest to him for decades—with his legal expertise, his journalistic knowledge and style of exposition, and his musician's sense of proportion and balance. Because of these qualities, a Spanish translation of this work would fulfill its purpose for young people, whose command of Croatian is insufficient for this type of reading, as well as for readers from the environment in which it was created. In that case, it would naturally be supplemented with certain notes and clarifications.

Dr. Estanislao Meciar - his death

On November 22, 1971, Professor Dr. Estanislao Meciar, a prominent Slovak intellectual and public figure, died in Buenos Aires. He was born on March 21, 1910, in Slovakia. He earned his doctorate in the history of comparative Slavic literature in Bratislava, the Slovak capital. As a young man, he served as secretary of "Matica Slovenska," the most important institution in that nation, later holding a professorship at the University of Bratislava. He was a fervent supporter of the Slovak people's right to self-determination, fighting tirelessly against Czech hegemony. In his native country, he published: Tatra in Slovak and Polish Poetry (1932); Poetry and Life (1936), as well as several monographs in his field. Among these, his work on Hviezdoslav, a prominent Slovak poet, is particularly noteworthy. In Argentina, he published two large volumes titled Kukucin zivy – Kukucin Who Lives. He was a Slovak physician and intellectual who carried out cultural, humanitarian, and social work within Slavic communities in Chile and Argentina. Dr. Meciar, after extensive documentary research, brought this illustrious figure back to life, publishing two volumes on his life and work, while the third remained in manuscript.

The death of this prominent Slovak intellectual represents a great loss for the Croatian community, as Professor Meciar was also president of the Slovak Liberation Council in Argentina.

Studia Croatica thus also loses one of its distinguished contributors, and the Croatian community loses a sincere friend who sympathized with its national struggle. The mortal remains of this unforgettable Slovak patriot rest in the Chacarita Cemetery. Among the many floral wreaths were also those from Studia Croatica and the Croatian Magazine - Hrvatska Revija, to show their support and sympathies as their editorial staff mourned the death of that distinguished man, Professor Meciar.

[1] Pontifical Encyclicals, Complete Collection, Volume I, Editorial Guadalupe, Buenos Aires, pp. 1282/3.

[2] Mr. Hanon, one of the English public men, designer of a Memorandum sent to the English government in 1947, protesting against the persecutions of the Croats by the Tito regime, said that the Croatian people are "the most Catholic in the world."

[3] The Protocol, signed between the Holy See and the Yugoslav communist government in 1966, establishing a guideline for the reestablishment of normal diplomatic relations.

[4] See page. 185/6 of this issue of SC the text of the note from the Croatian Latin American Institute of Culture.

[5] Here we reproduce the emperor's text regarding the matter: "The baptized Croats would not wage war outside their native country, because they received a kind of prophecy and the order of the Roman pope who, during the government of the emperor Heraclius, sent them to his priests who baptized them. These, then, after receiving baptism, made a pact, signed by their own hand, they swore with firm and constant faith to Saint Peter the Apostle that they would never bring war to lands foreigners and that they were going to live preferably in peace with all those who desire it. From the same pope they received the blessing in the sense that, if another pagan people penetrated into Croatian territory and war started there, the God of the Croats would fight for them and provide them with help, and Peter, a disciple of Christ, would give them victory. The translated text of the book: Dr. Dominik Mandic, Rasprave i Prilozi iz Starije Hrvatske Povijesti - Dissertations and Contributions to Ancient Croatian History, Rome 1966, pp. 135/6. The author also reproduces the original text in the classical Greek language.

[6] Renowned Croatian and foreign historians participated in the controversy. Among the Croatians we must mention Juan Lucic: De Regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae libri sex, Amsterdam, 1666, then D. Farlati, F. Racki, F. Sisic, M. Barada and D. Mandic, L. Duchenesne: Le provencial romain au XII siècle in Melange d'archeologie et d'histoire de I'ècole française de Rome, 1904 and, Finally, E. Dümler, a Frenchman and a German respectively, are the most prominent among foreign historians on this subject. All these data according to Mandic, op. cit., pp. 110/11.

[7] S. Frondizi, The Modern State, Ed. Losada, 1946, Buenos Aires, p. 87: "When the collapse of the Roman Empire occurred, Christianity replaced it in the direction of the West, with this a new era began, the Middle Ages, characterized by the predominance of the Church. It was faced with a first problem, that of incorporating the new populations into classical culture... The Church was able to carry out such a task because, among other things, if the Germanic populations were not in a position at that time to assimilate classical philosophy and art, they could feel touched by religious sentiment; This was the gateway through which Greco-Roman culture penetrated into the new towns."

[8] "In fact, as representative of God on earth, he first considered himself intermediary between divinity and man and then divinity himself and arrogated to himself absolute authority of both a temporal and spiritual nature." S. Frondizi, Op. cit., p. 89.

[9] "Duo quippe sunt, imperator Auguste, quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur, nuctoritas sacrata pontificum et regalis potestas. In quibus both gravius est pondus sacerdotum quanto etiam pro ipsis regibus Domino in divino redituri sut examine rationem" ("There are then two things, your majesty, by which this world is governed, namely, the sacred authority of the pontiffs and the royal power. In them the weight of priestly responsibility is all the more serious since they will have to be held accountable by the kings in the future divine examination"). Mansi, "Sacrorum Conciliorum Colectio - cited according to S. Frondizi, Op. cit., p. 49.

[10] André Maurois, Histoire d'Angleterre, p. 49.

[11] Luis Diez del Corral, El Rapto de Europa, p. 248: "And as for the French nation, did it create itself in the days of the great Revolution, was it perhaps shaped by Rousseau with strokes of his pen, or rather, was it slowly and methodically forged by the French kings before certain ideas arose within it that ultimately responded to a long past and suppressed certain previous social structures, habits, beliefs, and mentality?" To confirm his own opinion, the wise Spaniard adds the opinion of Renan: "Cette grande royauté française avait si hautement nationale, que, le lendemain de sa chute, la nation a su tenir sans elle."

[12] J. Kocijanic, Pope i Hrvati (The Popes and the Croats), Zagreb, 1925, p. 353.

[13] J. Kocijanic, Op. cit., p. 18.

[14] Dr. D. Mandic, Bogumilska Crkva Bosanskih Krstjana (The Bogumila Church of Bosnian Christians, Chicago, 1962, pp. 118/19/20.

[15] Friedrich Heer, Religious Terror, Political Terror, Barcelona 1965, p. 78.

[16] D. Mandic, Op. cit., p. 119. Mandic explains "in Dalmatia" as actually referring to Bosnia, because the French of that time used Latin-Roman terms for geographical designation. According to that terminology, Dalmatia encompassed all the lands between Istria and the Drina River on one side, and between the dividing mountains of the Pannonian Plain and Dalmatia in the strictest sense.

[17] D. Mandic, Op. cit., p. 133.

[18] D. Mandic, Op. cit., p. 141.

[19] D. Mandic, Op. cit., p. 143: "Hungrinus archiepiscopus... erat et ipse vir belicosus et ad pugnanum satis promptus et audax" (Archbishop Ugrin was thus a warlike man, quick-witted and bold enough to fight).

[20] D. Mandic, Op. cit., pp. 155/6.

[21] J. G. Reissmüller, Jugoslawien, Vielvölkerstaat zwischen Ost und West, Düsseldorf-Köln, 1971, p. 48: "Es kam hinzu, dass die Kroaten, welche die Hauptlast des Abwehrkampfes gegen die Türken zu tragen hatten..." (Thus, the Croats had to bear the main burden of the struggle against the Turks).

[22] The presentation was made at the plenary session of the Scientific Section of the Society of Economists in Zagreb, June 1970.

[23] Peter Boyl-Bowman: Geobiographical Index of Forty Thousand Spanish Settlers of America in the Sixteenth Century, 403, Mexico, 1968.

[24] Ricardo de Lafuente Machain: Conquistadores del Río de la Plata, 31, Buenos Aires, 1937.

[25] Enrique de Gandía: Chronicle of the Magnificent Governor Don Pedro de Mendoza, Buenos Aires, 1936.

[26] Alonso de Ercilla: La Araucana.

[27] Pedro Mariño de Lovera: Chronicle of the Kingdom of Chile.

[28] Alejandro Fuenzalida Grandón: The Social Evolution of Chile, 46, Santiago, 1906.

[29] Tomás Thayer Ojeda: Formation of Chilean Society, 102, I, Santiago, 1939.

[30] Carlos Leonhardt, S.J.: Introduction to the Annual Letters of the Province of Paraguay, Chile, and Tucumán, of the Society of Jesus, published in "Documents for Argentine History," XIX, p. LXV, Buenos Aires, 1927.

[31] Cited by Guillermo Furlong, S.J.: Ladislao Orosz and his "Nicolás del Techo" (1959), 40, Buenos Aires, 1966.

[32] Provided by Father Furlong.

[33] Furlong: History of the Colegio del Salvador and its cultural and spiritual influence in the city of Buenos Aires, 296, Buenos Aires, 1944.

[34] The work, consisting of some 300 handwritten pages, was found by Father Furlong. The author was unknown, and only by cleaning the dust covering the spine did the Jesuit researcher find the words "Plantich" and "Logic." In his opinion, it is a valuable work.

[35] Leonhardt, ibid. X.

[36] Supplementary censuses of the city of Buenos Aires (in "Documents for Argentine History", 132, 186, 222, 282 and 283, Buenos Aires, 1919.

[37] Indeed, after the submission of this article, I have found two other Croatians who came on Gaboto's expedition in 1527. These will be discussed in the next article I will prepare for the following issue.

[38] Milutin Nehajev, Rakovica, Zagreb 1932.

[39] Bogdan Radica, "Risorgimento and the Croatian Question, Tommaseo and Kvaternik", Journal of Croatian Studies, vol. V-VI, New York, 1964-65.

[40] Ante Smith Pavelic, "Zaboravljena knjiga Eugena Kvaternika", Hrvatska Revija, Buenos Aires 1960. pp. 193-203.

[41] October 13, 1970, pp. 17 and 19.

[42] May 27, 1969, p. 8.

[43] January 22, 1969, p. 5.

[44] October 11, 1970, p. 5.

[45] February 24, 1970, pp. 1 and 7.

[46] Ibid.

[47] August 7, 1969, p. 2.

[48] September 28 and 29, 1969, p. 7.

[49] February 18, 1971, p. 3.

[50] February 25, 1970, p. 9.

[51] March 25 1971, p. 3.

[52] Ibid.

[53] March 14, 1969, p. 4.

[54] Ibid. as under 13.

[55] Ibid.

[56] February 26, 1970, p. 8.

[57] Ibid. and September 9, 1971, p. 5.

[58] October 13, 1970, pp. 17 and 19.

[59] March 25, 1969, p. 3.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid.

[62] January 13, 1970, p. 6.

[63] January 13, 1970, p. 6.

[64] March 25, 1971, p. 3.

[65] March 25, 1971, p. 3, and April 9, 1970, p. 6.

[66] April 9, 1971, p. 4.

[67] March 14, 1969, p. 4.

[68] Given the scope of his ideas, they were of course not shared by everyone. At the time, the Serbian politician Elias Garasanin accused him of being "an agent in the pay of Austria" (V. Vuckovic, Politicka akcija Srbije od 1859-1874, Belgrade 1965, pp. 2-3). In the Enciklopedija Leksikografskog Zavoda (volume 7, Zagreb 1964), it is stated that Strossmayer pursued "an opportunistic policy." Vaso Bogdanov expressed the same judgment, repeatedly emphasizing that "the fundamental and permanent tendency of Strossmayer's policy was: to remain on good terms with the dynasty at all costs" (Historija politickih stranaka u Hrvatakoj, Zagreb 1998, p. 626).

The Croats, for their part, continue to criticize him for his utopianism, idealism, a certain delusion, megalomania, and neglect of Croatia's genuinely national interests. Ivan Muzic, in his recent historical considerations, characterizes him in the following terms: "Bishop Strossmayer, a man of noble ideas, who did much for the Croats in the cultural sphere, fell short in concrete political actions." of his ambitions, firstly because he failed to intuit and feel the existing reality in order to commit himself to the execution of certain conclusions, accurate and beneficial for the Croats" (Hrvatska politika i jugoslavenska ideja, Split 1969, p. 22). Although in 1876, in view of the desperate situation of the Croatian people in Austria, Strossmayer did not oppose the annexation of Bosnia by Serbia, and disagreed with the Franciscan Grga Martic, who, knowing the situation in Bosnia very well, held the opposite opinion and acted accordingly, after 1878 Strossmayer advocated for "the total independence of Bosnia" (Cf. R. W. Seton-Watson, The Southern Slav Question, London 1911, p. 127).

[69] Racki-Strossmayer Correspondence, arranged by Ferdo Sisic, published by the Academy of Arts and Zagreb Sciences, Book 3, Zagreb 1930, p. 199.

[70] Bojan Penev, Istoriia na novata bulgarska literature, volume 2, Sofia 1933, pp. 270-77.

[71] Jurdan Trifonov, Istoriia na novata bulgarska literature, t. 2, Sofia, pp. 270-77.

[72] Djela A. Kacica-Miosica, Stari pisci hrvatski, vol. 27 Zagreb, 1942, p.

[73] Ivan Kujcev, Il cattolicesimo in Bulgaria nel sec. XVII. Rome, 1937; the same author. "Bosanski franjevci u Bugarskoj do Ciprovackog ustanka", Franjevacki vjesnik, 1938, pp. 262-71.

[74] Danica llirska, 1837, No. 32, p. 130.

[75] Kolo, 1847, book IV, p. 37.

[76] Kolo, 1847, book V, p. 54.

[77] As an example, we will cite what Cepelic and Pavic write: "Neither the Illyrian movement, nor Gaj, took a serious interest in Bulgaria, in that southernmost Slavic branch, in those unfortunate serfs subjected to the Ottoman yoke by the sorrowful baptized souls of the merciless Phanarius. The first and very serious task in this regard, the first act of fraternal love, as if they had also awaited our bishops. He will become the indestructible and precious link that will forever unite the Bulgarians with the Croatian nation and its capital, Zagreb, in sincere gratitude" (Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Zagreb 1900-04, p. 770).

[78] A. Teodorov, "Miladinovsite pesni and Strossmayer", Periodicsko spisanje na Bulgarskoto knizovno druzestvo, Sredec (Sofia), 1885, book XVI, pp. 82-97; Pregled (1199), book 6, pp. 39-80; S. Jurinic, "Josif Juraj Strossmayer", Sbornik za narodni umotvorenia, book 22 and 23 (Sofia 1906-07), pp. 1-71; M. Arnaudov, Bratia Miladinovi, Sofia 1943, pp. 153-233; I. Konev, "K Miladinov i hrvatskiat episkop Strossmayer "Literaturna misl", V (1961), lib. 3, pp. 117-28.

[79] The rev. Ivan Markovic, who described this Bulgarian "union" movement in detail and translated some important documents into Italian, rightly concludes: "Fortunatamente, tutto questo movimento non fu che affare di politica" (Gli Slavi ed i Papi, part second, vol. 11, Zagreb 1897, p. 601).

[80] Cepelic-Pavic, J. J. Strossmayer, p. 448; Viktor Novak, Antologijajugoslovenske misli, Belgrade 1930, p. 287.

[81] Cepelic-Pavic, op. cit., p. 659.

[82] Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia, vol. 2, Zagreb 1956, p. 291.

[83] This collection of "Bulgarian Folk Poems" has had several editions to date: three in Sofia (1891, 1942, and 1961; the last with an insightful foreword by Peter Dinekov), and an edition was published in Skopje under the title Zbornik (without further indication in 1962 with a lengthy introduction by the critic Dimitar Mitrev).

[84] The original of this dedication is kept in the Archives of the Academy of Zagreb. The historian Smiciklas searched unsuccessfully through the bishop's correspondence for any letter from Constantine. When he finally organized (1898) Strossmayer's correspondence, he informed him, as well as Professor Sismanov of Sofia, that "there was no letter from Miladinov." Cf. on this matter the insightful studies by Vladimir Koglak in Historijski Zbornik, XIXII (1958-59), pp. 356 and XIV (1961, p. 338).

[85] It is interesting to read who the subscribers were among the Croats; in addition to a large number of Catholic and Greek Catholic priests, the names of some well-known Croatian writers and politicians appear: Count Medo Pucid and Pero Budmani of Dubrovnik; Miho Pavlinovic of Makarska; Juraj Dobrila of Porec; Colonel Petar Preradovic of Temisvar; Ante Mazuranic and Janko Jurkovic of Zagreb; August Senoa of Prague.

[86] These letters of Strossmayer were published in their entirety for the first time by Aleksa Ivic in Arhivska gradja o jug. knjizevnim i kulturnim radnicima, Belgrade 1932, pp. 334-44. The same correspondence was studied by numerous Bulgarian and Macedonian cultural scholars. I made use of the work of N. Traikov Bratia Milanovi, Prespiska. Sofia, 1964.

[87] It is a pity that to date this "wichtiger Documente" from Turkish sources has not been published.

[88] On the same day that the note to Rechberg was sent, a report from Djakovo appeared in the Zagreb newspaper Pozar, defending Constantine against the accusation of being in Russian service: "For anyone who knows Miladinov and who has spoken with him about the Bulgarian movement and its relationship with Russia will immediately realize that the accusation must have come from the mouth of the Phanariotes who denounce all Bulgarian patriots before the Porte as Pan-Slavists or Russophiles" (in Jurinic, "J. J. Strossmayer," Sbornik za narodni umotvorenia, 1906-07, p. 56).

[89] Colakov's article is transcribed by Jurinic. op. cit., pp. 57-58.

[90] The first to attack the bishop was Georgi Rakovski. In his article on the beginnings of the Catholic movement in Bulgaria (in Dunavski Lebed, Belgrade, August 1, 1861), he defined him as a Jesuit propagandist. He accused him of sowing religious schism in Macedonia and of aiding the publication of books with the sole aim of promoting Catholicism (cf. Rakovski, Socinenia, in a selection by Arnaudov, Sofia, 1922, pp. 458-59).

[91] Bratia Miladinovi, Prepiska, ed. N. Traikov, Sofia, 1964, p. 255.

[92] Op. cit., p. 259.

[93] K. Miladinov, Pesni, foreword by H. Polenakovic, Skopje, 1967, p. 24.

[94] Bratia Miladinovi, Prepiska, ed. Traikov, p. 138.

[95] For example, that of Professor Penev in his Istoriia na novata bulgarska literature, volume IV, Sofia 1936, 3154 ("The struggle for ecclesiastical freedom").

[96] Cf. Jurinic, "J. J. Strossmayer", Sbornik za narodni umotvorenia, vol. 22-23, p. 50.

[97] Op. cit., pp. 35-36.

[98] R. W. Seton-Watson, Disraeli, Gladstone and the Eastern Question, London 1962 (chap. III: The Bulgarian atrocities).

[99] Seton-Watson, op. cit., p. 85.

[100] The Southern Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy, London 1911, pp. 416-44.

[101] Seton-Watson, op. cit., p. 433.

[102] "Nunc autem vereor, ne in congrexssu future quaedam potentiae speciosis et egoistics rationibus seductae in id intendant, ut haec autonomia aut saltem ejus extensio diminuatur, quum potius in id incumbere debenet ut illa magis augeatur et extendatur, utque illud, quod unius solius potentiae opera, in ejusdem maxime commodum constitum est, communi omnium consensu ita constituatur et modificetur ut onmium commodis et honestis intentionibus responder" (Jurinic, "J. J. Strossmayer", in Sbornik za narodni umotvorenia, vol. 22-23, p. 61).

[103] Racki-Strossmayer Correspondence, vol. 2, Zagreb 1929, p. 269. Racki shares the bishop's opinion that Gladstone's triumph is a positive thing for the Slavs. "Let Gladstone try to make the East belong to the Eastern peoples and he will gain imperishable merit for humanity if he succeeds" (op. cit., p. 267).

[104] Seton-Watson, The Southern Slav Question, p. 422.

[105] Racki-Strossmayer Correspondence, vol. 2, Zagreb 1929, p. 298.

[106] Sisic explains that it was then a widespread opinion that King Milan entered the war at the urging of Austro-Hungarian diplomacy (Correspondence, vol. 3, p. 200, b. 3).

[107] Underlined in the original.

[108] Correspondence, Book 3, p. 199.

[109] Op. cit., p. 201.

[110] Jurinic, op. cit., p. 65. Racki informs Strossmayer (May 16, 1886) that P. Karavelov wrote to him that a closer bond needs to be established between the Bulgarians and the Croats. He doesn't know—Racki adds—that the Croats can do nothing at the moment (Correspondence, Book 4, p. 446).

[111] Cepelic-Pavic, Josip Juraj Strossmayer, p. 774; A. Teodorov, "Miladinovskite Pesmi i Strossmayer", Periodicesko spisanie na bulgaskoto knizovno druzestvo, book XVI (July-August, Sredec-Sofia, 185), pp. 82-85; Jurinic, op. cit., pp. 65-67.

[112] Teodorov, "Miladinoskite pesmi i Strossmayer", op. cit., pp. 82-97.

[113] Sismanov, "Vladika Josif Strossmayer", Bulgarski pregled, V (1899), book 6, p. 44.

[114] E. de Laveley, The Balkan Peninsula, London 1887, p. 30.

[115] Sismanov, "Vladika Strossmayer", Bugarski pregled, 1899, pp. 39, 59, 79-80.

[116] Cepelic-Pavic, J. J. Strossmayer, p. 949.

[117] Konev, "K. Miladinov i Strossmayer", Literaturna misl, 1961, book 5, pp. 117-128.

[118] Cepelic-Pavic, J. J. Strossmayer, pp. 810-811.