Historiografija Drugog svjetskog rata u Sloveniji između nauke i politike

Author(s): Bojan Godeša / Language(s): Bosnian Publication Year: 0

This work presents different perspectives on events that occurred in Slovenia during the Second World War in light of the newest historiographical works. In particular, the author comments on various interpretations and reinterpretations present in the scholarly and political life of Slovene society. The author underscores the interpretation that the war was both a war of liberation and a civil war, which is in line with the results of the newest works.

Antifašistička borba u Drugom svjetskom ratu u političkim interpretacijama hrvatskih predsjednika 1991-2006.

Author(s): Nikica Barić / Language(s): Croatian Publication Year: 0

The author illustrates how Croatian Presidents Franjo Tuđman and Stjepan Mesić have interpreted the anti-fascist struggle during the Second World War. Especially interesting are the author’s comments on the use of particular historical events in the political context. Additionally, the author reviews different perspectives about antifascism in Croatia in the post-Yugoslav era.

O jednoj desnoj reviziji pogleda na antifašističku borbu u Srbiji

Author(s): Srđan Milošević / Language(s): Serbian Publication Year: 0

In this work, Milošević analyzes the writings of Serbia’s clerical right, a group that sought to portray the Serbian anti-fascist struggle as harmful and useless to the Serbian nation. He shows how these writers uncritically rehabilitated individuals who collaborated with the fascist occupation during the Second World War. This revisionist approach uses the ideology of Dimitrije Ljotić and Vladika Nikolaj Velimirović as its foundation. Milošević contextualizes this revisionist approach in contemporary Serbian society and argues that it is no doubt a part of Serbia’s pursuit for a new tradition-based national identity.

Platforma Narodnooslobodilačkog pokreta od 1941. do 1945. godine – ciljevi i realizacija

Author(s): Muharem Kreso / Language(s): Bosnian Publication Year: 0

This work examines the National Liberation Struggle in Yugoslavia, which Kreso argues can be reduced to two basic problems: the libration from fascist occupation and resolution of the national question within the occupied territory. For the first, scholars concentrate on the total forces of the National Liberation Movement for the second, they examine the participation of all of the nationalities in the Movement (which was seen as the necessary condition to solve the national question). Kreso seeks to connect these two problems by analyzing the relationship between efforts to realize the foundational goals of the Movement and efforts to resolve the national question. He describes these issues as they relate to the decision for a federal organization – in which the national minorities were guaranteed rights, and the Declaration of AVNOJ, in which the national minorities were generally ignored. He also addresses later documents of the Movement, such as the Declaration of the foundational rights of nations and citizens in 1944, in which Vojvodina and Sandžak were mentioned but Kosovo was not. Kreso describes the opposition that existed within the Movement, which created obstacles to the establishment of a foundational platform. He especially emphasizes the acts of a few representatives within the Movement who compromised the original platform (such as a lecture by Vaso Cubrilovic on the problems of national minorities).

Stanje arhivske građe o Drugom svjetskom ratu u Bosni i Hercegovini

Author(s): Mina Kujović / Language(s): Bosnian Publication Year: 0

This work provides an overview of archival materials on the Second World War in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kujović notes that although many documents were produced in Bosnia during the war, not all of them are located in the country. A large portion of the material (especially that dealing with the military sphere) can be found in archives in Belgrade and Zagreb. Unfortunately, sixty years since the end of the war, most of the wartime collections remain uncatalogued, and the largest collection – ZAVNOHBiH – is divided between two archives in Sarajevo – the State Archives of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the archives of the Historical Museum. These issues make it difficult for scholars to adequately research this important period.

Problemi diskontinuiteta vlasti i Hrvatska 1945

Author(s): Marijan Maticka / Language(s): Croatian Publication Year: 0

The author explains that the government established in Croatia in 1945, under the domination of the KPJ/KPH (The Communist Party of Yugoslavia/The Communist Party of Croatia), was entirely discontinuous from the previous forms of govenment on Croatian territory. It was a direct negation of the government of the NDH (The Independent State of Croatia), but also of the government in the period of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, or the Banovina of Croatia. The negation of the government of the NDH was tied to the defeat of the Axis, while the negation of the government of the Banovina of Croatia was the result of the development of the government which the KPJ/KPH established during the war for National Liberation. From the beginning of the armed struggle against the occupiers and their collaborators, the question of holding and wielding power was important to the KPJ/KPH. The development of a political basis for the network of a new goverment occurred simultaneously with armed struggle. National Liberation councils initiated and controlled by the KPJ/KPH became the real organs of power. Gradually, it also developed the structures of the higher organs of government. It was characteristic for these to grow from politically representative bodies into the chief legislative and executive organs of government. First of all, they take shape at the all-Yugoslav level (AVNOJ), subsequently on the level of its individual lands, thus also in Croatia (ZAVNOH). The discontinuity in the shape and form of government was obvious in terms of ideas, politics, organization and personnel. The KPJ/KPH in the form of ≪popular democracy≫ rejected the principles of parliamentary democracy; federalism was proclaimed, but in reality a state and party centralism was put into place. A multiparty political system was replaced by national front unity under the leadership of the KPJ/KPH, and all key political and state functions were carried out by the members of the KPJ/KPH.

Temelji ideologije i tehnologije preuzimanja vlasti u Jugoslaviji 1944.-1945. godine

Author(s): Jera Vodušek Starič / Language(s): Croatian Publication Year: 0

The author contends that it is necessary to have a good understanding of the ideological basis on which the construction of a socialist state was then taking place in order to understand all the complicated levels on which the takeover of government by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ) occurred during the war and in the years 1945-1946. This basis in the widest sense was the theoretical work whose aim was to delineate a new proletarian state, and that was Lenin’s State and Revolution of 1917. Stalin, as Lenin’s «sole rightful» heir, praised and awarded that work with great authority in the 1930s. In this context, the author analyzes the phases by which Yugoslavia became a one-party state during 1945 in which all the levers of power and society was in the hands of the KPJ. Special attention is paid to developments in Slovenia and Croatia. In this sense the author draws attention to the fact the the communists did not only settle accounts with all those who did not belong to their political party, but that in an effort to create a centralized and unified Yugoslavia many leaders of the party from these two federal states suffered. Following the creation of AVNOJ as the apex of federalization, the attempt at centralization that followed led to conflict with the concepts that were winning over Slovenia and Croatia under the aegis of SNOS and ZAVNOH already in 1944. That is why the party leadership of Slovenia and Croatia was disciplined in the fall of 1944. At the end of this process, in December 1945, the Central Committee of the KPJ called the Central Committees of the Communist Parties of Slovenia and Croatia to talks in Belgrade. In settling accounts with poltical opponents the OZN (Odjeljenje za zaštitu naroda – Department of National Defense) and the judiciary (especially the extraordinary courts and the military courts) played a key role. Indeed, the OZN was by decree of the party the main executor of the party in the process of taking power. The manner in which government was taken ensured a monopoly of power to the party, while the methods used were very similar to those used in the Soviet Union.

Pamćenje i kultura povijesnog mišljenja – baština hrvatskog antifašizma 1945.-2005.

Author(s): Drago Roksandić / Language(s): Croatian Publication Year: 0

In recent decades, with the development of ≪new cultural history≫, issues around ≪memory≫, ≪remberance≫, but also ≪forgetting≫, have become central to understanding the human experience of the past, present, and future. The Second World War is the turning point with which issues of human and civil rights and international law step by step begin to attain global civil rights. Thus the relations to the heritage of the Second World War can become more personalized, on the side of the war≫s ≪winners≫ as on the side of its ≪losers≫. Since fascism was not a Croatian ≪invention≫, the articulation of Croatian antifascism was above all reactive, regardless of whether its Italian or any other European influences are considered in the period prior to 1941. Croatian antifascism had to confront quite a large number of challenges; it had to address quite a large number of outstanding issues, which in and of itself multiplied the preconditions for an exclusive antifascist alternative that would ultimately, independently of the variety of ≪tactical≫ accomodations to other antifascist tendencies, whether they be radical, that is communist. Only a scholarly coming to terms with the reality of fascist practice, that is, antifascism in its concrete historical circumstances, therefore, with the appropriate attention paid to context, is qualified to answer the questions posed, and that means presenting interpretive distinctions.

Glasine o «Trećem svjetskom ratu » ili «novom preokretu» u Hrvatskoj 1945. godine

Author(s): Nikica Barić / Language(s): Croatian Publication Year: 0

On the basis of archival sources and literature, this article demonstrates how a variety of rumours spread widely in Croatia during 1945 about the supposed eruption of a new world war, the Third World War, which, it was believed, would lead to a new upheaval in the foundations of the existing political and military conditions. Supporters of the Independent State of Croatia, saw in these rumours the last chance to avoid total defeat. On the other hand Partisans and communists believed these rumours were an attempt to destabilize the regime they established to recreate the Yugoslav state.

Etiketa «ustaštva » kao izgovor za progon političkih protivnika u poslijeratnoj Hrvatskoj

Author(s): Mario Jareb / Language(s): Croatian Publication Year: 0

May 1945 brought the victory of the Partisan movement and the establishment of a new communist totalitarianism on Croatian territory. The new regime decided categorically to settle accounts with anyone who could possibly create difficulties with the implementation of their intended revolutionary changes. Following the example of Soviet practice, Yugoslavian communists turned all means at their disposal to a massive settling of accounts with all their enemies. To the public they justified this as a necessary punishment of war crimes. Consequently they wanted to portray all their opponents in the worst possible way, without regard to their actual responsibility for events that transpired during the war. Communist propaganda aimed at fomenting hatred of designated enemies. Special attention was paid to those individuals and groups who could by no criteria be labelled Ustaša or Ustaša collaborators. In many cases this was the public tarnishing of potential opponents (The Croat Peasant Party and the Catholic Church). This was a rather widespread occurence, which for certain individuals and groups ordinarily had drastic consequences. If these types of practices were predominant in the immediate postwar period, they did not disappear altogether later on. Thus, in the case of the Franciscans of Široki Brijeg, there was an attempt to hide one≫s own crimes in accusations directed at others.

Versöhnung mit den Völkern der Sowjetunion. Ein Expertengespräch

Author(s): / Language(s): German

contributions to a conference held on 22nd and 23rd of June 1987 in the Academy of the Protestant Church in Mülheim/Ruhr. The paper has been published by the Academy under the ISBN 3-926188-02-2 Main contributions by: Dieter Bach, Karl-Heinz Ruffmann, Günther von Norden, Alexander Fischer, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Herbert Straeten

Behind the Iron Curtain (4)

Author(s): / Language(s): English

This magazine is the English version of selected articles published in the pages of the review Paměť a dějiny (Memory and History) ISSN 1802-8241, which is issued by the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes.This magazine is the English version of selected articles published in the pages of the review Paměť a dějiny (Memory and History) ISSN 1802-8241, which is issued by the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes. The original version of the journal Paměť a dějiny (Memory and History) is the part of CEEOL also.

Behind the Iron Curtain (1)

Author(s): / Language(s): English

This magazine is the English version of selected articles published in the pages of the review Paměť a dějiny (Memory and History), which is issued by the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes.This magazine is the English version of selected articles published in the pages of the review Paměť a dějiny (Memory and History) ISSN 1802-8241, which is issued by the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes. The original version of the journal Paměť a dějiny (Memory and History) is the part of CEEOL also.

Betriebs-Echo Jahrgang 4 Folge 12

Author(s): Author Not Specified / Language(s): German

Potisnuta istina – Kolaboracija u Srbiji 1941-1944

Author(s): Olivera Milosavljević / Language(s): Serbian

Upravo doneti Zakon kojim se rehabilituju svi “ideološki” protivnici komunizma, počinje sa datumom od 6. aprila 1941. što je istovremeno i njegov najzanimljiviji deo. Imali smo priliku da slušamo predlagače i zagovornike zakona1 koji su svojom srčanom odbranom ratnih “ideoloških” protivnika komunizma, nedvosmisleno potvrdili da je čitava stvar i smišljena isključivo zbog njih, a da ih oni posle 1945. ustvari i ne zanimaju, odnosno, da su samo “kolateralna šteta” pokušaja rehabilitacije kvislinga iz vremena Drugog svetskog rata. Saopštili su nam i da bi čitav komunistički period trebalo jednostavno proglasiti zločinačkim čime bi, misle oni, po automatizmu bili rehabilitovani svi njegovi “ideološki” protivnici, a oni ratni proglašeni borcima za pravednu stvar. Zato možemo očekivati da će (kao što se već desilo sa četnicima) ovog puta “demokratama” biti proglašeni nedićevci i ljotićevci, pa će po automatizmu “demokrate” postati i balisti, hortijevci, ustaše, i na kraju, sam nemački Rajh. Svi oni zaista jesu bili “ideološki” protivnici komunizma, ali je, sasvim sigurno, Hitler bio najveći. Zato nije slučajno danas, njihov “ideološki” antikomunizam i početak i kraj svake argumentacije, uz prećutkivanje da su kao protivnici komunizma bili i aktivni protivnici celokupne antihitlerovske koalicije čiji je komunizam bio sastavni deo. Prećutkuje se i da je njihov “ideološki” antikomunizam u tadašnjem shvatanju pojma podrazumevao veličanje nacizma, antidemokratiju, i na prvom mestu, antisemitizam, “slučajno”, baš u vreme kada su milioni Jevreja ubijani u “Velikom Nemačkom Rajhu”.

ВАРШАВСКИ УСТАНАК

Author(s): Branimir Žulavski / Language(s): Serbian

Published in 1947 by the NATIONAL ARMY EDITION, BELGRADE [ ИЗДАЊЕ НАРОДНЕ АРМИЈЕ, БЕОГРАД ]

ЧЕТВРТА НЕПРИЈАТЕЉСНА ОФАНЗИВА, 1943 Г.

Author(s): Velimir Terzić / Language(s): Serbian

Working on Dealing with the Past - A Handbook for Civil Society Organizations

Author(s): / Language(s): English

This handbook offers only some of the possible answers to the question how to deepen the discussion on the past in polarized societies where denial and/or relativization of crimes is an everyday practice and where one can hear exclamations such as "There is only one truth!" more often than questions "What has happened to you and your family?" The pages you are reading have been written for all those who have doubts and question a black-and-white picture of a 'better past', subject to adjustments and polishing in order to makes 'us' look more positive and 'them' negative. The handbook deals with some of the possible ways in which facts can be documented, suffering of every victim and survivor acknowledged and dignity of every person respected. The idea for publishing this handbook was born on my way to Canada where I was supposed to present the process of dealing with the past in Croatia and the neighbouring countries, from my own perspective, to colleagues from both North and South America and other continents. Interest into our experiences, expressed by ancestors of children who were taken from Indigenous peoples’ villages near Vancouver, with "the best intentions of better education", as well as by artists from Colombia who work with traumatized families of the killed and missing and by priests who are preparing a truth commission in Burundi, but also positive reactions from Bjelovar, Pakrac, Osijek and Sarajevo, encouraged us to write this handbook. National Foundation for the Development of Civil Society also recognized the importance of learning through exchange of experiences and supported this handbook. Texts in the handbook describe experiences of people who have, for decades, been trying to find ways in which to talk about hidden, unpleasant facts and crimes committed in their neighbourhood. The authors have gathered in initiatives such as that for the return of the name of the Victims of fascism square in Zagreb or Antiwar campaign Croatia and started organizations such as Centre for peace studies, Delfin, Pravda and MIRamiDA Centre. In an attempt to initiate the process of dealing with the past and to establish a fact-based truth about the war and contribute to shifting public discussion from the level of dispute about facts towards a dialogue on interpretations, these organizations founded Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past (hereafter Documenta). It was established in order to systematically deal with violence inherited in the period since the beginning of the Second World War until today. The key reason for making this effort was experience in silencing and forging war crimes and other war events in the period from 1941 until 2000, which has affected the recent history of Yugoslavia, but also of post-Yugoslav states and societies. During their work, the authors have opened questions which are, at the same time, difficult and important for everyone. Experiences which they have documented cannot be implemented universally, but can perhaps serve as an inspiration for opening up the dialogue about the past and about the adequate ways of remembering those killed in different locations. Since they are aware that there are no uniform recipes for thinking about the past and selecting the way in which to discuss difficult issues, they sometimes start from their own position and position of their own family, and sometimes point to global problems. The order in which you choose to read the text is not important. Regardless of whether you choose to first read about personal, family, institutional or social sphere, the texts will lead you to taking a stand towards violence in all spheres. Considering the fact that we still live in exclusive societies in which security is often based on closing oneself in a group of people of the same nationality and/ or those who think alike and who do not refrain from radical nationalism, ideological exclusiveness, degrading people of different nationality, making fun of ideological opponents or denying facts on committed war crimes, our starting point, in the work we do, was acknowledgement and emphasis of human dignity of those who were killed, suffered or were abused, regardless of the side on which they found themselves due to their belonging, geography, choice or political beliefs. The same values may also be your own starting point. Since respect of dignity and equal rights is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and their rights, as stipulated in the Preamble and Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted at the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948. While a struggle for recognition of rights which are stipulated in this declaration is still going on, we can ask ourselves how many more decades will need to pass in order for the ‘new’ rights to truth, just court proceedings, reparations and guarantee to non-repetition of crimes, which are being affirmed within the U.N. in the past ten years, to become a worldwide recognized standard? Even if we are talking about a century of advocacy, we should not be discouraged by the slowness of changes, because taking a stand to violence on an every-day basis means a lot to those who have been hurt. Even in times of dictatorships, the destiny of those who suffered becomes visible only when others, outside one’s family circle, recognize it as such. Building mutual trust after a war and conflicts is connected to the acknowledgement of victims’ past suffering, and in Croatia and other post-Yugoslav countries, contemporaries of three cycles of violence, the Second World War, post-war violence over political opponents and the 1990s wars, are still alive. The decision on how far in the past one should go when conducting research is not an easy one. In social processes of dealing with difficult past violence, it is not easy, and sometimes even impossible, to single out only one group of crimes, especially in disputes which touch upon traumatic experiences of participants themselves. Every initiative for deepening a dialogue about the past will decide what would be a relevant period in the context of its own country. In countries with the history of colonialism or slavery, it will, for example, be necessary to take into account more layers of history. In this handbook, the authors primarily use examples from Croatia regarding three layers of the past, the contemporaries of which are still alive. In other countries, it will perhaps be possible to focus only on the last cycle of violence or it will be necessary to look back a couple of centuries back, for example to the period when colonization started. In our work thus far, it has become clear that personal, family, institutional and social dealing with the past is not only important for the protection of rights of those groups which suffered during wars or political violence, but is also important for the process of civilizational development of a society as a whole. Open, inclusive societies in which horizontal communication about all, even unpleasant topics, is encouraged, are more successful in every respect. When working through a trauma, through dealing with the past, we affirm inclusiveness and openness of a society, as a general good which should be protected. However we engage in the process of dealing with the past, it will demand from us to condemn spreading of hatred. Regardless of whether we decide to have private conversations within our own homes or to critically examine the most important decisions adopted by government institutions, the first step we make could be to condemn violence. It is less important whether this condemnation will influence our relationship with ourselves and our closest family members or whether we find a way to express this condemnation by critically commenting on the world around us. What is important is this essential step of condemning all forms of violence. The scope of your intervention, research or action will depend on your ability to include and motivate others. It is not important whether the initiative will start from one person’s wish to document his/her memories for future generations1 , from a conversation between two worried individuals2 or from years-long preparations of experienced organizers for founding a researchdocumentation centre which would systematically monitor trials and document human losses. In moments of revolt caused by a general lack of respect for values that you find important, decisions on taking action will be made in a second, while decisions on starting new organizations may take several years. But before diving into an examination of methodology, the question that should first be asked is the one about the purpose of dealing with the past. One of the possible answers, which has emerged throughout the work of human rights organizations, is that dealing with the past lessens the burden of the past, which stalls complete development of societies affected by war and political violence. Only by revealing systematically hidden and silenced information on human suffering and by gradually accepting facts about committed crimes are we creating a chance for personal and social healing, as well as providing space for realizing the rights of young people on learning about fact-based history. Emina Bužinkić, Igor Roginek, Goran Božičević, Ana Bitoljanu and Vesna Teršelič are the editors of this handbook. It contains texts on factography of suffering, recoding of personal memories, preparation of public advocacy and war crimes trials monitoring. We believe the handbook to abound in different styles, approaches, language and experiences and hope you will find it helpful.

Rad na suočavanju s prošlošću. Priručnik za organizacije civilnog društva

Author(s): / Language(s): Croatian

Ovaj priručnik nudi samo neke od mogućih praktičnih odgovora na pitanje kako produbiti raspravu o prošlosti u polariziranim društvima gdje je poricanje i/ili relativizacija zločina svakodnevna praksa u kojim a se puno češće od pitanja drugom čovjeku "Što se dogodilo tebi i tvojim najbližima, kako vam je bilo?", čuje povik "Jedna je istina!". Stranice pred vama napisane su za sve koji sumnjaju i propituju jednostavnu crno bijelu sliku 'bolje prošlosti', eventualno podložnu dotjerivanju i prekrajanju kako bi 'nas' pokazala u što ljepšem svjetlu, a 'njih' ocrnila. Priručnik se bavi nekim mogućim putovima prema stvaranju podrške za dokumentiranje svih činjenica, priznavanju patnje svake žrtve i preživjelog te uvažavanju dostojanstva svakog čovjeka. Ideja za priručnik rodila se na putu u Kanadu gdje sam trebala predstaviti proces suočavanja s prošlošću u Hrvatskoj i susjednim zemljama kolegama iz obje Amerike i drugih kontinenata, iz svoje perspektive. Zanimanje za naša iskustva, kako nasljednika djece koja su "s najboljim namjeram a boljeg obrazovanja" otimana iz plemenskih rezervata u blizini Vancouvera, tako i umjetnika koji u Kolumbiji rade s traumatiziranim obiteljima ubijen ih i nestalih te svećenika koji u Burundiju priprema osnivanje Komisije za istinu, kao i pozitivne reakcije iz Bjelovara, Pakraca, Osijeka i Sarajeva, ohrabrilo nas je na pisanje. Tekstovi opisuju iskustva ljudi koji su desetljećima tražili načine progovaranja o skrivenim neugodnim činjenicama i zločinima iz susjedstva. Autori/ce su se okupljali u inicijativama poput prosvjeda za vraćanje imena Trgu žrtava fašizma u Zagrebu ili Antiratnoj kampanji Hrvatske i pokretali organizacije poput Centra za mirovne studije, Delfina, Pravde i MIRamiDA Centra. Neki od njih su u nastojanju da potaknu proces suočavanja s prošlošću i ustanovljenje činjenične istine o ratu te pridonesu pomicanju javne diskusije s razine prijepora o činjenicama prema dijalogu o interpretacijama, osnovali su Documentu - Centar za suočavanje s prošlošću (u daljnjem tekstu Documenta) kako bi se sustavno bavili nasilnim naslijeđem od početka Drugog svjetskog rata. Ključni je razlog ovoga nastojanja iskustvo prešućivanja i falsificiranja ratnih zločina i ostalih ratnih zbivanja od 1941. do 2000. koje je utjecalo na noviju prošlost, kako Jugoslavije tako i post-jugoslavenskih država/društava. U tijeku svoga rada otvarali su svima mučna i važna pitanja. Iskustva koja su zabilježili nisu univerzalno primjenjiva, ali možda mogu poslužiti kao inspiracija za otvaranje dijaloga o prošlosti i primjerenim načinima pamćenja ubijen ih u različitim sredinama. Svjesni da u razmišljanju o naslijeđu prošlosti i izboru načina otvaranja teških pitanja u javnosti nema recepata, ponekad su polazili od sebe i vlastite obitelji, a ponekad su upirali prstom na globalne probleme. U vašem izboru neće biti važan redoslijed. Bez obzira hoće li vaše prvo pitanje dotaknuti osobni, obiteljski, institucionalni ili društveni krug, vodit će vas k zauzimanju stava prema nasilju i to u svim sferama. Pošto još uvijek živimo u isključivim društvima u kojima se sigurnost prečesto gradi na zatvaranju u skupine sunarodnjaka i/ili sumišljenika kojima nije stran ni radikalni nacionalizam ni ideološka isključivost ni ponižavanje ljudi druge nacionalnosti, kao ni ismijavanje ideoloških oponenata ili negiranje činjenica o počinjenim zločinima, u svom smo radu kretali od priznavanja i isticanja ljudskog dostojanstva ubijenih, stradalih, zlostavljanih, bez obzira na kojoj su se strani podjela zatekli zbog svoje pripadnosti ili geografskog usuda ili pak zbog svoga izbora i političkih uvjerenja. Možda s te vrijednosne platforme krenete i vi. Budući da je priznanje urođenog dostojanstva te jednakih prava temelj slobode, pravde i mira, sva ljudska bića rađaju se slobodna i jednaka u dostojanstvu i pravima, stoji u Preambuli i Članku 1. Opće deklaracije o ljudskim pravima, usvojene i proglašene na Općoj skupštini Ujedinjenih naroda 10. prosinca 1948.. Dok je još uvijek u tijeku borba za priznavanje u nju zapisanih prava možemo se zapitati koliko će nam desetljeća trebati da ‘nova ’ prava na istinu, pravični sudski postupak, reparacije i garanciju neponavljanja zločina, koja se u tijeku posljednjih desetak godina postupno afirmiraju unutar Ujedinjenih naroda, postanu standard priznat od strane većine svjetskih država? Čak i ako je riječ o stoljeću zagovaranja, ne bi nas smjela obeshrabriti sporost pomaka, jer svakodnevno zauzimanje stava prema nasilju puno znači povrijeđenima. Čak i u vrijeme diktature sudbina stradalog postaje vidljiva kad je prepoznaju drugi, izvan neposrednog obiteljskog kruga. Izgradnja povjerenja poslije rata i sukoba neodvojivo je povezana s priznavanjem patnje žrtava iz prošlosti, a u Hrvatskoj i drugim post-jugoslavenskim zemljama još uvijek žive suvremenici tri vala nasilja, Drugog svjetskog rata, poslijeratnog vremena nasilja nad političkim neistomišljenicima i ratova devedesetih. Odluka koliko daleko u prošlost će vas odvesti propitivanja i istraživanja za koja se odlučite nije jednostavna. U društvenim procesima prorade teškog naslijeđa nasilja nije lako, a katkada ni moguće, izdvojiti samo jednu grupu zločina, posebno u prepirkama koje dotiču traumatična iskustva samih sudionika. Svaka će inicijativa za produbljivanje dijaloga o prošlosti odlučiti što bi bilo relevantno razdoblje rada u kontekstu svoje zemlje. U zemljama s naslijeđem kolonijalizma ili ropstva bit će primjerice neophodno voditi računa o još više slojeva prošlosti. U ovom priručniku autori/ce će pretežno koristiti primjere iz Hrvatske u vezi tri sloja prošlosti čiji su suvremenici još uvijek živi. U drugim će se zemljama možda biti moguće usredotočiti samo na zadnji val nasilja ili će pak biti neophodno pogledati i nekoliko stoljeća unatrag, primjerice u vrijeme početaka kolonizacije. U dosadašnjem radu pokazalo se da osobno, obiteljsko, institucionalno i društveno suočavanje s prošlošću nije važno samo zbog zaštite prava pripadnika skupina stradalih u ratovima ili političkom nasilju, već je značajno i u procesu civiliziranja društva u cjelini. Otvorena, ukljućiva društva u kojima se ohrabruje horizontalna komunikacija o svim pa i neugodnim temama su uspješnija u svim pogledima. Proradom traume kroz suočavanje s prošlošću afirmiramo ukljućivost i otvorenost društva kao opće dobro koje treba štititi. Kako god krenuli u proces suočavanja s prošlošću to će od nas iziskivati osudu raspirivanja mržnje. Hoćemo li odabrati kao svoj put unutarnje razgovore u tišini vlastitog doma ili kritično sagledavanja najvažnijih odluka vladinih institucija, prvi bi korak dakle mogla biti osuda nasilja. Hoće li ta osuda prije svega utjecati na naš odnos prema sebi i našim najbližima ili ćemo pronaći način da je izrazimo u kritičkom komentiranju funkcioniranja svijeta oko nas, manje je važno od bitnog koraka osude svakog nasilja. Doseg vaše željene intervencije, istraživanje ili akcija ovisit će o vašoj mogućnosti uključivanja i motiviranja drugih. Nije nevažno hoće li inicijativa krenuti od želje jedne osobe da zabilježi svoja sjećanja za buduće generacije, razgovora dvoje zabrinutih ili od dugogodišnjih priprema iskusnih organizatora na pokretanje istraživaćko-dokumentacijskog centra koji će moći sustavno pratiti suđenja i dokumentirati ljudske gubitke. U trenucima revolta zbog gaženja vama važnih vrijednosti odluke o nekim akcijama će biti donesene praktično u trenu, a za odluke o pokretanju novih organizacija možda će trebati više godina. No prije nego uronimo u propitivanje metoda, ipak je na mjestu pitanje svrhe, čemu uopće suočavanje s prošlošću? Jedan mogući odgovor, koji se iskristalizirao u radu organizacija za ljudska prava, je da bi smanjili teret prošlosti koji onemogućava pun razvoj stvaralaštva u ratom i političkim nasiljem obilježenim društvima. Tek otkivanjem sustavno sakrivanih i prešućivanih podataka o stradanju te postupnim prihvaćanjem činjenica o zločinima stvaramo priliku za osobno i društveno iscjeljenje, a i prostor za ostvarivanje prava mladih na učenje povijesti utemeljene na činjenicama. Priručnik su uredili Emina Bužinkić, Igor Roginek, Goran Božičević, Ana Bitoljanu i Vesna Teršelič. Sadrži tekstove o faktografiji stradanja, snimanju osobnih sjećanja, priprem i javnog zagovaranja, i praćenju suđenja. Priručnik smatramo bogatim u njegovoj različitosti stilova, pristupa, jezika i iskustava. Nadamo se da će vam biti od pomoći.

Український незалежний культурологічний журнал «Ї» — № 66/2011

Author(s): Milena Rudnytska,Andrei Sheptytsky,Gavriil Kostelnyk,Julian Dzerovich,Vladimir Blavatsky,Volodymyr Doroshenko,Ivan Bilyk,Kostya Levitsky,Elena Biter,Stepan Bilyak,Ivan Shvarko,Mikhail Roslyak,Maria Strutynska / Language(s): English,Ukrainian

In order to make the thorough mendacity of Putin's rethorics about "Ukraine as a State of Neo-Nazis" fully evident, CEEOL is offering the Ukrainian Jewish journal ”Ї“ as the strongerst possible proof of a habit of "modern Ukrainian and world intellectual thought". The NGO "Ї", an independent cultural organization founded in the late 1980's in L'viv, focuses on modern Ukrainian and world intellectual thought. It offers periodic forums for discussion of issues concerning Ukraine and, among others, Europe, Russia, post-Byzantium, the Muslim Renaissance. It analyzes the current situation in order to develop future socio-political strategies. The organization also publishes "Ї", a quarterly journal dealing with European and Ukrainian issues in politics, philosophy, and culture. It also examines the relationship of Ukrainians with Russians, Poles, Austrians, and Jews and places Ukraine in a modern geopolitical sphere that can further Ukraine's identity as a modern state.