ДВА ПИСМА НАШИХ ИСТОРИЧАРА
TWO LETTERS OF OUR HISTORIANS

Summary/Abstract: There are two letters in the appendix. The first one, written by Professor Dr Dušan J. Popović in March, 1945 and addressed to Professor Dr Vasa Čubrilović, and the other one, written by Professor Dr Vaso Bogdanov in March, 1950 and addressed to academician Viktor Novak. Popović turned to Čubrilović pleading for an intervention in terminating the orchestrated assault against him. The aim of the assault was to remove Dr Popović from the University as inapt, due to his alleged collaboration with the occupants, and the aim was eventually fulfilled. The reason Bogdanov addressed academician Novak, who was managing the Historical Institute SAS at the time, was a rather harsh critique Bogdanov had published in Zagreb’s Historijski zbornik18on the study by academician Jovan Radonić which dealt with the Revolution of 1848/1849 and had been published by SAS. This letter testifies that after the Second World War and the change in social and political system of our country, there was a fierce conflict between two opposed currents in Yugoslav historical science. It is a conflict between “civil historical science” or “an absolutely idealistic comprehension of history”, as Bogdanov viewed Radonić’s study, and “historical – materialistic” or Marxist direction which Bogdanov was a representative of. With the intention to disqualify Radonić not only scientifically but ideologically and politically as well, Bogdanov presented him as an ignorant, a chauvinist, a Croat hater, a rerpresentative of Orthodox clericalism, a reactionary, a right wing supporter and left wing opponent. While criticizing and attacking Radonić, Bogdanov referred to SAS on various instances in negative context for publishing a study written on a less than scientific level, in outdated and surpassed scientific method. Both letters are interesting because they testify on the time they were written in, on their authors, but also on the ideology and policy which greatly influenced the state and development of our historiography at that time.

• Details
• Contents