Goran Miljan

The book by Goran Miljan and Ivica Šute „Revolutionaries and Murderers“ presents memories of Mijo Babić and Zvonimir Pospišil about the political developments and their own participation in them during the 1920s in Zagreb, with emphasis on the assassination of Toni Schlegel, a journalist from Zagreb, carried out by Babić and Pospišil. The major part of the book comprises the text from Babić “Why Today I Am in a Foreign Country”, an interesting and detailed, albeit subjective, chronology of social-political events in Zagreb during the 1920s, which Babić wrote in May 1930. Babić was profoundly disappointed by the Croats’ passivity regarding the regime of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (SHS), and he describes in great detail the demonstrations of the time, the death of Stjepan Radić, youth gatherings which he attended regularly, the organizing of terrorist attacks, the preparations and carrying out of the assassination of Toni Schlegel followed by Babić’s hiding in Zagreb and then escape to Italy where both he and Pospišil met Ante Pavelić and August Košutić. These documents – memoirs by Mijo Babić and the Italian police hearing records of Mijo Babić and Zvonimir Pospišil, besides describing their own personal transformation into “revolutionaries and murderers”, also present an invaluable historical source of memories of the two men, who during the 1930s became prominent members of the Ustasha movement. Furthermore, this book is interesting not only in light of radicalization of Mijo Babić during the late 1920s and his transformation into a significant figure of the Ustasha movement but also for the beginning of the Ustasha regime, when Babić actively participated in the establishment of the Danica Camp and later, in June 1941, becoming the commander of the Ustashas system of Gospić-Velebit-Pag Island concentration camps.

During World War II, Croatia became a fascist state under the control of the Ustasha movement - allied with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Here, Goran Miljan examines and analyzes for the first time the ideology, practices, and international connections of the Ustasha Youth organization. The Ustasha Youth was an all-embracing fascist youth organization, established in July 1941 by the `Independent State of Croatia' with the goal of reeducating young people in the model of an ideal `new' Croat. This youth organization attempted to set in motion an all-embracing, totalitarian national revolution which in reality consisted of specific interconnected, mutually dependent practices: prosecution, oppression, mass murder, and the Holocaust - all of which were officially legalized within a month of the regime's accession to power. This also included youth regimentation and reeducation for the purpose of creating a "pure" and "new" Croatian nation.
In order to justify their radical policies of youth reeducation, the Ustasha Youth, besides emphasizing national character and the importance of cultural and national purity, also engaged in transnational activities and exchanges, especially with the Hlinkova mládež (Hlinka Youth) of the Slovak Republic. Both youth organizations were closely modelled after the youth organizations in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. This is a little studied part of the history of World War II and of fascism, and will be essential reading for scholars of Central Europe and comparative fascism.

This chapter contributes to this field by focusing on comparative analysis of the two ‘peripheral’ fascist youth organizations - the Hlinka Youth and the Ustasha Youth. By focusing on their mutual relations and connections it examines and analyzes their practices, ideological background, mutual connections, and transfers among the officials and members of the two organizations during the Second World War.

In the contemporary literature on the Ustaša organization and its terror regime, the organization is often seen and described as a vague and peripheral case study. Neither the establishment of the Ustaša state, nor the very purpose for which the organization was established, can be understood without taking into consideration the context of its formation, organizational and ideological structure as well as the influences its members were exposed to during their formative period. Therefore the article focuses on the development of its organizational and ideological aspects. The aim is to analyze the basic features and aspects of the Ustaša organization which show that by the mid-1930s, and perhaps even earlier, the Ustaša organization fully evolved into a fascist organization.

In this text, the author deals with the question and image of the Ustasha Youth, its organization, and especially the relation to physical education and sports, as envisioned by the Ustashas leaders, ideologues, and officers within the youth organization. Based on the premise of contamination, degradation, and un-natural development of Croatian youth during the interwar period, the Ustashas set up a path of regenerating and re-building the Croatian youth according to their vision of past, present, and future.
The author argues, that due to the Ustashas apocalyptic vision of the past, in which the Croatian youth was neglected and contaminated by foreign elements, especially with regard to its physical education and training, they established a utopian path of re-molding and creating the ‘new’, stronger, physically and intellectually superior Croatian youth. This was to be accomplished through an all embracing Ustasha Youth organization, within which physical education and sports were given a primary role. The author argues that two sports were given a crucial role. These were athletics, especially track and field sports, which were given the role of creating and molding the all-embracing, physically healthy new Croat, and chess, which was to provide intellectual upgrading and development of youth.
The main driving force behind all this was the Ustashas utopian socio-antropological vision of creating a new Croatian man and woman. The Ustashas aspired towards creating and molding the new generation which was suppose to be a healthy one, powerful, uncompromising, superior to its enemies and belligerent, and which would without any hesitation accept the role of guardians of the Ustashas achievements under any cost. Despite the fact that the Ustashas utopian vision remained unfulfilled, it nevertheless shows the Ustashas aim for a complete, total transformation of Croatian society. Their main pillar in this attempt was youth which was regarded as an element most susceptible, flexible and responsive to certain ideas, in this case the Ustashas utopian idea of creating something ‘new’, ‘better’, and long-lasting.

In this article the author analyses the applicability of the concept of charisma and „charismatic community“ on the case study of Poglavnik, Ante Pavelić, and his closest followers, the core members of the Ustasha movement during 1930s. By examining this concept, its development, and various scientific explanations and usage from Max Weber to recent scholars’ interpretations, such as that of Aristotle, A. Kallis for the first time places the established relations among the Ustashas within the concept of charisma and „charismatic community“. By analyzing and reconstructing the relations created between the leader and its followers, he examines whether their relations can be seen and described as those which led to the creation of „charismatic community“ whose members gathered around one idea, the „mobilizing myth“, embodied in one man, their Poglavnik. Within his text, the author argues that such analysis is important from two aspects. On the one hand it provides an innovative and until now completely neglected scholarly way of analysing and examining the relations created among the core members of the Ustasha movement, while on the other hand, it questions the commonly accepted perspective and explanation of these relations as those between a leader and his subjects based on an artificially constructed leader cult.

An interview for Globus, Croatian weekly magazine, where I discuss my book Croatia and the Rise of Fascism: The Youth Movement and the Ustasha during WWII and reflect on the negative aspects of the ongoing process of ´instiutionalized revisionism` with regards to interpretations of the Ustashas and their regime in contemporary Croatia.

Posljednjih dana ova tri koncepta postala su sveprisutna u diskursu naših brojnih političara i znanstvenika, ponajviše povjesničara. I dok se političari razbacuju tim pojmovima, pritom ne razumijevajući njihovo značenje ni u onoj osnovnoj formi, pa se tako razbacuju i pojmovima poput filoustaštva, filokomunista i dr., povjesničari su ipak malo oprezniji. Rijetko se ovih dana moglo naići na trezveno pojašnjenje vezano uz ova tri koncepta, njihova povijesnoga i suvremenoga značaja. Osim pitanja i prepucavanja oko antifašizma i njegova značenja, o fašizmu, komunizmu i totalitarizmu gotovo da i nismo čuli niti jedne riječi. I to je ono što zabrinjava. A nismo čuli ništa, jer se većina povjesničara u nas rijetko ili gotovo nikada ne bave istraživanjem ili propitkivanjem tih koncepata i njihova utjecaja na hrvatsku povijest u 20. stoljeću. Štoviše, stječe se dojam da se ovi koncepti vade iz ormara samo kada su u pitanju neki 'ideološki' sukobi i potreba da se zauzmu jasne pozicije unutar historiografske zajednice. Nema sumnje, ovako je jednostavnije, a i intelektualno manje zamornije i zahtjevnije. Pa se onda bavimo pitanjima da je netko nekad negdje nešto nekome rekao i napisao. Zašto je tome tako? Zašto imamo autoritete koji se u svojim znanstvenim istraživanjima ne bave ovim pitanjima, ali su uvijek prisutni i uvijek pozvani komentirati? Odgovor je u naravi veoma jednostavan i u jednu ruku žalostan. Štoviše, malo detaljniji uvid u suvremenu literaturu bilo o ustaškom, bilo o komunističkom režimu obaju totalitarnih u svojoj naravi i modalitetu djelovanja, ukazat će na nepodnošljivu lakoću negiranja, zanemarivanja i izbjegavanja korištenja, a posljedično i definiranja ovih koncepata u znanstvenim istraživanjima. Uzmimo primjerice fašizam. On kao takav gotovo da i ne postoji u istraživanjima vezanima uz ustašku organizaciju/pokret ili Nezavisnu Državu Hrvatsku. Štoviše, ustaše i njihova organizacija/pokret i režim najčešće se karakteriziraju kao nacionalistički, a da se pritom jasno ne objasni što je to točno nacionalistički pokret, što čini nacionalistički pokret, kako definiramo nacionalistički pokret, koje su njegove karakteristike, koji su njegovi osnovni programski postulati i dr. S druge strane, veoma izričito i bez puno sustezanja negira se bilo kakva prisutnost, ideološki utjecaj, ili ideološki/simbolički transfer fašizma, tj. fašizacija ustaškog pokreta, a koji je jasno vidljiv usmjerimo li istraživanja u jedan širi, europski kontekst. Štoviše, s fašizmom kao takvim, kao dominantnom međuratnom ideologijom koja je snažno utjecala na Pavelića i ustaše, koja je odredila njihov organizacijski i ideološki razvoj i u konačnici snažno utjecala na njihov režim, rijetko ćete se susresti čitate li suvremenu hrvatsku historiografiju o tim pitanjima. Zašto je tome tako, to znaju samo oni koji svjesno, najčešće zbog svojih subjektivnih i osobnih razloga, zaobilaze ovakva istraživanja i ne hvataju se u koštac s osnovnim znanstvenim postulatima historiografije kao znanosti; objektivno sagledavanje, kontekstualiziranje i konceptualno poimanje povijesnih procesa, njihova utjecaja i transfera. Pa stoga ni ne čudi da imamo 'znanstvene' studije koje u potpunosti ignoriraju takav pristup i drže se podalje od suvremenih znanstvenih pristupa. Čak i ako stoje čvrsto na stavu da ustaše nisu fašisti, zar nije njihova dužnost da te stavove prezentiraju, ne uskom krugu istomišljenika, već međunarodnoj znanstvenoj zajednici. Naime, postavlja se jedno logično pitanje: Ako su ustaše nacionalisti i ništa drugo, zašto povjesničari koji to tvrde te svoje stavove ne iznose u međunarodnim časopisima i recenziranim znanstvenim knjigama? Zašto ih nema na međunarodnim konferencijama koje se bave problematikom fašizma u Europi, a pogotovo problematikom fašizma u Srednjoj i Jugoistočnoj Europi? Ne bi li njihova saznanja o tome da ustaše nisu fašisti, ako su točna i znanstveno utemeljena i uvjerljiva, možda promijenila naše poimanje fašizma u tim regijama, pa i u međuratnoj i ratnoj Europi? Ne bi li time znatno pridonijeli razumijevanju fašizma u jednom širem kontekstu? A što je s totalitarizmom? Nažalost, ovdje je situacija još gora.

Svastika, fašizam, ustaše, NDH, Za Dom Spremni, mjerenje visine kukuruza ispruženom desnom rukom, Jure i Boban, mise za poglavnika, totalitarizam, te mnogi drugi atributi i simbolički izražaji dio su svakodnevnog političkog i društvenog intelektualnog folklora suvremene Hrvatske. Nažalost takve pojave, umjesto da budu upozorenje i pozivaju na oprez, najčešće se komentiraju ili 'znanstveno' obrađuju na veoma površan i populistički način. Time ne samo da stvaraju podjele koje služe apologetici fašizma i totalitarizma općenito u nas, već stvaraju i veoma pojednostavljenu sliku prošlosti i povijesnih procesa. I dok se brojni međunarodni političari, intelektualci i znanstvenici zgražaju nad pojavom svastike na Poljudu, naši povjesničari i intelektualci šute. Prema mišljenju ovoga autora svastika na Poljudu nije izraz prisutnosti i veličanja fašizma u hrvatskome društvu, već primitivan način na koji određena grupa iskazuje nezadovoljstvo spram vodstva Hrvatskoga nogometnog saveza (HNS). Međutim, simptomatično je da ti isti povjesničari šute i kada je u pitanju uzvikivanje pozdrava Za Dom Spremni, pozdrava koji je kao politički pozdrav ušao u upotrebu u fašističkom ustaškom pokretu i režimu i kao takav ostao u sjećanju. Sve to ukazuje na svu pogibeljnost provincijalnosti jednog djela hrvatske historiografije, dominantnog djela, koja nije kadra razlučiti osobno od javnog, znanstveno od ideološkog. Stoga nas ne trebaju čuditi znanstvene monografije koje veoma površno negiraju postojanje fašizma ili bilo kakvog oblika totalitarizma u suvremenoj hrvatskoj povijesti. Kao nekome tko se bavi transnacionalnim fašizmom u Srednjoj i Jugoistočnoj Europi tijekom prve polovice dvadesetoga stoljeća, zapanjujuća je lakoća postojanja i prihvaćanja ustaštva, tj. fašizma u hrvatskome društvu i njegova negacija unutar određenih krugova, prvenstveno povjesničarskih, a zatim i širih slojeva stanovništva.