142 | 
DESTRUCTION OF MONUMENTS COMMEMORATING THE 
NATIONAL LIBERATION WAR AFTER THE DISINTEGRATION 
OF THE SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA
dr. Božidar Flajšman, dr. Božo Repe
ABSTRACT
The article deals with reasons that led to a change in the attitude 
towards the partisan movement in Yugoslavia and, consequently, the 
destruction of partisan memorials. 
By evaluating World War II, political elites in respective republics 
aimed to strengthen their position and vision of a restructured Yugoslav 
society. Anything associated with evaluating the past became subject 
to polemic. Therefore the line between professional historiography 
and more popular genres was blurred and historiography became 
increasingly politicized, confining itself within the borders of its own 
republic. Following the first multi-party elections in respective republics 
(1990), history was still an important, in some places even the central 
factor in political battles within the newly established states. New states, 
and particularly the local authorities, thus decided to rewrite history, 
inter alia, also by demolishing memorials. Historical facts, quality, 
artistic value and top-quality authorship were not regarded as factors 
speaking in favour of their preservation. 
Keywords: history, politics, culture, art, erasing remembrance, 
destruction of memorials commemorating the National Liberation War.
THE POLITICS OF ERASING 
REMEMBRANCE AND THE PATH TO IT 
UDK: 7.025(497.1)''1990''
Razprave | 143
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
IZVLEČEK
Članek obravnava razloge, ki so v Jugoslaviji pripeljali do spremembe 
odnosa do partizanstva in posledično do uničevanja partizanskih 
spomenikov. 
Politične elite v posameznih republikah so po Titovi smrti skozi 
vrednotenje druge svetovne vojne skušale utrditi svojo pozicijo in 
vizijo preureditve jugoslovanske družbe. Vse, kar je bilo povezano z 
vrednotenjem preteklosti, je postalo predmet polemik, zaradi česar 
se je meja med strokovnim zgodovinopisjem in bolj poljudnimi žanri 
zabrisala, zgodovinopisna stroka pa vedno bolj politizirala in zapirala 
v republiške meje. Po prvih večstrankarskih volitvah po posameznih 
republikah (1990) je zgodovina ostala pomemben, ponekod tudi osrednji 
dejavnik v političnih bojih znotraj novonastalih držav. Na tej podlagi so 
se nove državne, še večkrat pa lokalne oblasti, odločale za retuširanje 
zgodovine, med drugim tudi z rušenjem spomenikov. Zgodovinska 
dejstva, kakovost, umetniška vrednost in avtorstvo najboljših umetnikov 
seveda niso bili faktorji, ki bi odločali o njihovi ohranitvi.
Ključne besede: zgodovina, politika, kultura, umetnost, brisanje 
spomina, uničevanje spomenikov NOB.
144 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
The Second or AVNOJ Yugoslavia (named after the Anti-Fascist Council 
for the People’s Liberation of Yugoslavia, which restored the country 
on federal foundations at a session held in the Bosnian town of Jajce) 
was built on the national liberation struggle and the contemporaneous 
revolution.1 The League of Communists of Yugoslavia (Komunistična 
partija Jugoslavije, which was in the 1950s renamed Zveza komunistov 
Jugoslavije) also based its authority on this premise. The political 
leadership that controlled Yugoslavia at the time had its origins in the 
national liberation war; it was gradually replaced by a new, younger 
generation only after Tito’s death in 1980. The majority of artists active 
in all realms of art (sculpture, painting, film, literature, poetry, etc.) 
stemmed from the national liberation war and the revolution, with the 
war being the focal point of their artistic creativity. Nevertheless, with 
this in mind, two factors should be taken into consideration; namely, 
Yugoslavia’s national diversity, wherefore when discussing World 
War II, we can speak about common Yugoslav art only on the most 
general level, and Yugoslavia’s specificity in a world divided into blocs. 
Following the conflict with the Soviet Union and the Informbiro in 1948, 
Yugoslavia sought to steer a middle course between the blocs and was 
one of the most important members of the Non-Allied Movement. From 
the mid-1950s onwards, when border-related questions were resolved, 
Yugoslavia opened its borders to the West. Consequently, a specific 
cultural environment and lifestyle came into being, where Western type 
of consumerism intertwined with socialist egalitarianism. Barring the 
first post-war years, when the Soviet influence and the socialist-realism 
type of culture prevailed, very diverse artistic movements were typical 
of Yugoslavia, including the most avant-garde ones, to which politics 
in respective environments were not always favourably disposed. 
Essentially, the motifs of World War II remained traditional, black and 
white, as well as, naturally, distinctly politically engaged. This does not 
hold universally true; different styles or approaches are noticeable in 
the discussion of this topic as well. The concept of revolutionary art, as 
developed during World War II within the resistance movement, was 
1 More on the subject: Pirjevec, Jože. Partizani. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2020; Repe, Božo. S 
puško in knjigo. Narodnoosvobodilni boj slovenskega naroda 1941-1945. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 
2015.
Razprave | 145
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
preserved in the post-war decades, but merely as one of artistic (many 
times favoured) movements, particularly in the realm of memorials. 
Culture and art were in the service of political goals, i. e. glorification 
of the resistance or revolution and of the central slogan of the national 
liberation movement, namely brotherhood and unity of the peoples of 
Yugoslavia. Taboo topics, which were unwelcome or banned in art, were 
associated with interethnic conflicts during World War II, nationalist texts 
about specific nations, and problematizing the revolution or its leaders. 
The political borderline between the allowed and the forbidden was 
not particularly clear; consequently, artists that walked the line were 
always at risk of falling into disgrace or being prosecuted if that line 
was crossed. Literature and film were most exposed to that out of all 
artistic genres.
Memories and, particularly, historiography are said to support 
artistic topics.2 There were a few ambitious joint projects in Yugoslav 
historiography; however, they were either done by halves or fell through. 
World War II and the partisan movement constituted the central or, at 
least, a significant part of all projects. Published in the Serbo-Croatian 
language, the first edition of Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, whose final 
volume was published in 1971, is one of successful projects materialized by 
entire Yugoslav science, with a significant historiographical contribution. 
The project was led by Miroslav Krleža, whose authority played a great 
part in the project’s realization. An extended edition in languages of 
peoples and nationalities of Yugoslavia, whose preparation began in 
1980 and was marked by disagreements concerning historiographical 
subjects, was in Serbo-Croatian published in six volumes, fewer in other 
languages, with the number of volumes differing in different republics. 
In the last published volume Yugoslav historians managed to write the 
entry Yugoslavia. The National Liberation War and art associated with it 
still held a prominent position in the encyclopedia despite the ongoing 
crisis in the country.   
2 Additionally on the subject: Repe, Božo. Jugoslovanska historiografija po drugi svetovni vojni. In: 
Tokovi Istorije 1-4 1999. Belgrade: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 312-325.
146 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
The largest and the most ambitious project of Yugoslav historiography 
was Zgodovina narodov Jugoslavije, a history of peoples of Yugoslavia, 
whose preparation began in 1949 on the initiative of the Science 
and Culture Council of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. 
Originally, this was to be a secondary-school textbook.3 In the period 
when Yugoslavia was still centralized, this project was led by a special 
government commission; Volume I was published in 1953 and Volume II 
in 1959. The first two volumes covered the period up to the end of the 
18th century. The project was discontinued due to major disagreements 
between historians working on Volume III, particularly between Croatian 
and Serbian historians. The efforts to continue working on Zgodovina 
narodov Jugoslavije (with »nationalities« being added to the title) were 
revived in 1985 and received political support (a decision stipulating 
that work must be completed was adopted at the 13th Congress of 
the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in 1986). A self-managing 
agreement about financing the project was signed. Ambitions were 
great, work on this project was expected to »revolutionize the scientific 
organization and scientific work.«4 However, the project came to a halt 
in its initial stage because disagreements between historians became 
even more deeper. In the past, controversial topics ranged from the 
emergence of nations to the Kingdom, while at this point World War II, 
particularly the question of the civil war, revolution, interethnic conflicts, 
post-war killings (with regard to these also interethnic relations in new 
Yugoslavia, etc.) came to the forefront. 
A single-volume overview of the history of the League of Communists 
entitled Pregled zgodovine zveze komunistov Jugoslavije was published 
in 1963 with an ambition to produce a multi-volume history of the League 
in the following years. The work on this new book began on the initiative 
of the Presidency of the Central Committee of the League of Communists 
of Yugoslavia (CK ZKJ) in the late 1970s. This was a large-scale project, 
scientific groups for different periods and networks of associates were 
3 Additionally on the subject: Koren, Snježana. Politika povijesti u Jugoslaviji (1945-1960). Komunistička 
partija Jugoslavije, nastava povijesti, historiografija. Zagreb 2012.
4 Josip Hrvatin, Aktuelni problemi istorijske nauke, Rasprava na predsedništvu Savezne konferencije 
SSRNJ (II), JIČ, XXII, No. 3, Belgrade 1987, 195
Razprave | 147
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
established in each Yugoslav republic. Their work was coordinated by 
special commissions for history with republics’ Central Committees and 
by a History Commission at the Central Committee of the League of 
Communists. Eventually, only one book was published in 1986 and was 
not that extensive (the Slovene edition had 416 pages). It was entitled 
Zgodovina zveze komunistiov Jugoslavije (A History of the League of 
Communists of Yugoslavia) and published in languages spoken by the 
peoples of Yugoslavia. The preparation of this book was marked by 
ideological and interethnic disputes, which were even greater than those 
occurring in the preparation of a history of Yugoslavia; additionally, 
politics exerted a strong impact on the book’s contents. Regarded as 
the »official« history of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and its 
victorious role during World War II by the public, this book was barely 
able to be published because views of history differed to the extent that 
severe political pressure and content-related »trading« were required 
to reach a consensus. Consequently, a few historians referred to it as 
»the League’s reference book«.5 A planned multi-volume history of the 
League of Communists of Yugoslavia was never published and neither 
were histories of the League of Communists in respective republics. 
In the 1980s the history of the National Liberation War was 
systematically researched only by the Military History Institute of the 
Yugoslav People’s Army, which had branch offices in each republic 
or whose associates (as was the case in Slovenia) operated within 
national institutes. The Military History Institute was established in the 
period of the Informbiro to demonstrate the truth about the Yugoslav 
National Liberation War; in the following decades this institute published 
upwards of 140 volumes of documents. The military encyclopedia 
Vojna enciklopedija should be mentioned in this context as well; it was 
published twice, in 1958 and 1970, and reprinted in 1985. It focuses 
primarily on the national liberation struggle of Yugoslav peoples. 
5 Čepo, Zlatko. »Opake besjede gospode akademika.« Danas, 14 October 1986, p. 25
148 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Collections of sources, particularly the publication of collected works 
of Josip Broz Tito, which were published in 30 volumes in Serbo-Croatian 
and covered the period up to August 1946, are also believed to have 
formed the historical memory. (FIG. 1:  The collected works of Josip Broz 
Tito spanning up to 8 August 1946.) Much like the history of the League 
of Communists of Yugoslavia, the publication of collected works was 
initiated by politics.6 The only similar project that was realized was a 
series of collected works by Boris Kidrič; the preparation of collected 
works by Edvard Kardelj was discontinued in its initial stage. 
To understand why throughout Yugoslavia the attitude towards the 
partisan movement changed to the extent that it became a basis for the 
destruction of memorials, one must turn to the 1980s. In the 1980s, the 
discussion about World War II (as well as the Yugoslav peoples’ common 
past) was almost completely transferred to the realm of politics. 
By evaluating World War II (and history in general), political elites in 
respective republics strove to solidify their position and vision of re-
organizing the Yugoslav society. Anything associated with evaluating the 
past, i. e. works of art, memoirs, feuilletons or »proper« historiographical 
works, became subject to polemic. Consequently, the line between 
professional historiography and more popular genres was blurred and 
historiography became increasingly politicized, limiting itself to the the 
6 A decision to publish Tito’s collected works was passed by the Presidency of the League of 
Communists in May 1972, on the occasion of Tito’s 70th birthday.
Razprave | 149
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
borders of its own republic.7 »When one wants to write history from 
opposite positions, this becomes part of political struggle in Yugoslavia,« 
argued the author of Istorija SFRJ Dr Dušan Bilandžić in 1985.8 On the 
other hand, he himself »rewrote« his Istorija of SFRJ as a history of 
Croatia after the break-up of Yugoslavia. A similar thing happened with 
a few other eminent Yugoslav historians; they explored the history of 
World War II and then submitted their research to the nationalist politics 
and attempted to relativise their previous findings. In Serbia this holds 
good, for instance, in the case of Dr Branko Petranović. Following the 
end of socialism and Slovenia’s independence, a few historians tailored 
their findings to the current political situation also in spheres where no 
new findings were discovered either regarding specific events and 
processes or individual figures, particularly in the case of Boris Kidrič and 
Edvard Kardelj. A turn of this kind can be observed, for instance, in the 
case of Dr Janko Prunk9. However, the main revisionist wave was made 
primarily by politics, for the first time in 1991 and for the second time in 
the years 2004-2008, in the period of Janša’s first government, when 
this wave was much greater. Contrary to previous liberal governments, 
the governing coalition ascribed great significance to remembrance of 
the past and use of history for current political purposes, attempting to 
shape the historical awareness according to its own image. ( Janša’s 
current government is acting in a similar manner, e.g. with its arbitrary 
decision about the museum of independence, which is reminiscent 
of the former museums of revolution). Much like everything else, this 
was done distinctly non-dialogically and from the position of power. 
7 Merely a few Yugoslav historians explored histories of other Yugoslav peoples. This holds true 
particularly in the case of Serbian historians, who had no command of languages of non-Serbian 
nations, which was an obstacle. Naturally, one should not make generalizations, as the Serbian historian 
Dr Momčilo Zečević made a name for himself also by researching Slovene history, as did a few others. 
Serbian historians were undoubtedly surprised by the advance of young Albanian historiography in 
the 1970s, which (often with a national and romantic orientation, also by concealing some facts and 
highlighting others) began to de-construct the Serbian perception of Kosovo both in general terms 
and with regard to World War II and its end. In doing so, Albanian historians sought to substantiate the 
Albanians’ right to self-determination in Kosovo, including the right to secede.
8  Bilandžić, Dušan. »Predrasude povijesti.« Vjesnik, 9 November 1985, 6
9 Additionally on the subject: Repe, Božo. »Mit in resničnost komunizma.« In: Mitsko in stereotipno 
v slovenskem pogledu na zgodovino: zbornik 33. zborovanja Zveze zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, 
Kranj, 19 − 21 October 2006, ed. Mitja Ferenc, Branka Petkovšek. Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovisnkih društev 
Slovenije, 2006, 285−302.
150 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Two state secretaries (Dr Andrej Rahten and Aleksander Zorn) in the 
Prime Minister’s cabinet were in the period of Janša’s first government 
responsible (also) for history; much energy was devoted to this subject 
also by Dr Milan Zver, Minister of Education. Dr Lovro Šturm, Minister of 
Justice, established a special sector within the Ministry that was to “take 
care of” the “national reconciliation”, i.e. the authorities’ interpretation of 
recent history. By way of example of Eastern European states, he sought 
to stretch the post-war violence (totalitarianism) up to the year 1990. 
Stemming from this sector within the Ministry of Justice, the Study Centre 
for National Reconciliation was established shortly before the end of his 
term. The Centre operates to this day and, being a political institution, 
received budgetary funds from all governments. By means of a targeted 
interpretation of Slovenia’s independence, select documentaries and 
selectively chosen current political daily segments produced by a new 
set of journalists, the Slovene national television actively helped to co-
create an undifferentiated dark image of World War II and socialism. 
Overall, the intensity of dealing with history was too great a bite for the 
authorities to chew. The idea expressed by Dr Jerca Vodušek Starič, who 
helmed the Institute of Contemporary History at the time, according to 
which this institute would become a »national« institute modelled after 
the former socialist states and would thus concentrate means, human 
resources, and bases of documents, thus gaining control of the field 
of history, was shut down by pro-government historians themselves 
because her proposal interfered with their interests. A group of historians 
protested against the ideologization and division of historians into 
»ours« and »theirs« a few months into the term. Historians that could 
be reached easily by the authorities’ voice were swiftly warned not to 
address the subject in public, to conduct research »in the new spirit« 
and obey. Fearing for their jobs or positions within their respective 
institutions, individual historians made public statements, maintaining 
that the protest had been a mistake and their reactions made in haste. 
The government’s favoured historians, who became heads of museums, 
institutions, members of various councils, commissions or other bodies, 
provided the government with a professional framework and support 
for various renamings, new memorials, etc.
Razprave | 151
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Let us turn back to the 1980s once again, a decade marked by the 
struggle to interpret the past in Yugoslavia; the controversial Serbian 
journalist Aleksandar Tijanić remarked ironically that we shall see 
what will happen in the past. No previous decade, perhaps not even 
all decades combined, saw this many books published, discussions, 
treatises, newspaper articles, round tables, debates broadcast by radio 
or television stations.10  The past was almost forgotten in this fervency.
The curve of dealing with historical subjects began to rise a year or 
two after Tito’s death. The period prior to his death was still marked by a 
reverent calm, gathering of forces, which was followed by a downpour 
and the »historiographical storm« turned into persistent and constant 
rain, which did not stop falling until the early 1990s. The polemics were 
most intense from the mid-1980s to the year 1988, when the individual 
nations’ attitude towards Yugoslavia’s future was established and 
national programmes were in the making (the memorandum of the 
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in 1986, the Slovene national 
programme was penned in 1987 and published in Nova revija.) Following 
the first multi-party elections in respective republics (1990), history lost 
its political function as far as Yugoslavia was concerned; however, it 
remained an important, in some places the central factor in political 
battles within the newly established states. This new basis induced 
the new state or, and even more often local authorities, to demolish 
memorials, rename streets and schools or re-write history.  Although the 
polemics featured many controversial and diverse topics in the 1980s, 
concerning different historical periods (and focusing on more recent 
10 Due to the disintegration of Yugoslavia and lacking documents it is impossible to have a 
comprehensive overview of the entire Yugoslav journalistic or historiographical production of the 1980s, 
when hundreds of articles were produced. About 150 articles published in periodicals were taken into 
account when writing this paper. They address subjects that were prominently featured in polemics, 
with an emphasis on World War II.
152 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
history), two points are clearly identifiable.11 Firstly, the question of the 
(socialist) social order, which was problematized through a critique of 
the revolution in the period of World War II. Secondly, the question of 
interethnic relations in Yugoslavia, which was problematized through a 
critique of Yugoslav (con)federalism, i. e. AVNOJ Yugoslavia, which was 
established during World War II, at the Second Assembly of the Anti-
Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ) held in 
the Bosnian town of Jajce in November 1943.  
As the leader of the revolution and main creator of Yugoslavia’s 
post-war social order, Josip Broz Tito was the subject of discussions in 
both points in the initial stage of the conflicts. The deconstruction of 
Tito’s myth was initiated by his official biographer Vladimir Dedijer; in 
Part III of Prispevki za biografijo Josipa Broza - Tita he published a mix 
of documents, memoirs and unconfirmed stories, which were related to 
both Tito’s private life and the question of revolutionary measures and 
interethnic relations.12 Dedijer, who was more concerned for his own 
promotion than for any political concept, was still not consistent in his 
address of both controversial questions in this book (he was in a few of 
his books that were published later). 
The book that caused cracks in the Yugoslav authorities’ ideological 
structure was penned by two Belgrade-based sociologists, i. e. Vojislav 
Koštunica and Kosta Čavoški, and entitled Stranački pluralizam ili 
monizam (1983). In this book the authors described the League of 
Communist’s rise to power after World War II, whereby they took into 
11 Subject matters that caused dispute included, e.g. existence of specific nations (Montenegrins, 
Macedonians, Muslims); the liberating or oppressing nature of Balkan Wars, the so-called Bujan 
Conference in late 1943 (where Albanian delegates were in favour of integrating Kosovo and Metohija 
into Albania); the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, the question of the 
armed rebellion, the civil war, the formation of a federal state; subject matters associated with the 
post-war history included the conflict with the Informbiro, settling acounts with Djilas, the 1966 Brijuni 
Plenum (settling accounts with Aleksander Ranković as the main figure of Yugoslav centralism), national 
and “liberal” mass movements in 1971, as well as a wide range of other topics.
12 Critical texts about Tito prompted the authorities to adopt the Protection of the Name and Work 
of Josip Broz Tito Act and to form a committee that would protect Tito’s work and name (and that of 
other late revolutionaries). The Slovene historian Dr Dušan Biber made an ironic proposal to form a 
committee for the protection of the revolution.
Razprave | 153
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
consideration merely the Serbian view of the problem.13 (FIG. 2: The 
cover of Stranački pluralizam ili monizam, 1983, by Vojislav Koštunica 
and Kosta Čavoški.)
The other question, i.e. the 
problem of interethnic relations in 
Yugoslavia, was raised after the 
publication of Veselin Djuretić’s book 
entitled Zavezniki in jugoslovanska 
vojna drama (The Allied and the 
Yugoslav Wartime Drama). This book, 
which was regarded as a »first-class 
historiographical provocation«, was 
aimed at rehabilitating the Chetniks. In 
this book Đuretić problematized also 
the question of the revolution and that 
of the civil war. A part of his book aims 
to prove that the second Assembly of 
AVNOJ, which was held on 29 November 
1943 in Jajce and where the Second 
(federal) Yugoslavia was established, 
failed to find a proper solution to the 
Serbian question. He argues that false interpretations of these decisions 
led to the process of Yugoslavia’s disintegration at a later point. It was 
no coincidence that the call for the so-called third Yugoslavia (the 
restoration of the former centralist order) was first mentioned during 
13 The »bourgeois« interpretation of relations in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the evaluation of the 
National Liberation War and the revolution was addressed in a few books in the 1970s; prior to that 
point it was typical of emigrant authors, whose works were brought to Yugoslavia illegally. Bourgeois 
writers negated the revolution’s »noble« goals, presenting the National Liberation War as a civil war 
and the operation of the League of Communists as blind obeyance of the Comintern and struggle to 
rise to power. They labelled the League as a Stalinist party, claiming that it was due to a turn of events 
and Machiavellianism that the League won this fight and that the revolution drove the Yugoslav society 
back to the eighteenth-century absolutism (this thesis was developed, for instance, by Ljubomir Tadić 
in his book entitled Tradicija i revolucija, which was published in the early 1970s. The rehabilitation 
of quislings and counter-revolutionary forces constituted another important element of their writings, 
which somewhat impacted Marxist historiography that partly began to address a few problematic 
topics, including the post-war killings of quislings or the so-called “left movements” (settling accounts 
with putative class enemies) in Montenegro in 1942 or elsewhere.
154 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
the promotion of Đuretić’s book in the Serbian Academy of Sciences 
and Arts.14
While a certain harmony can be observed in criticism (and defence) 
of the revolution in each centre up to the late 1980s, in the mid-1980s 
the opposing positions of national historiographies became completely 
clear. Garnering a lot of attention, three historiographical works were 
published in 1985 and received very different responses in different 
centres, in line with the motto »whatever statement you make today, 
related to history or anything else, you know that you will be greeted 
with an applause or boos and hisses.«15 These were Istorija SFRJ by 
Dušan Bilandžić, Nacije, Jugoslavija, revolucija by Janko Pleterski, and 
Jugoslavija 1918-1984 (a collection of documents) by Branko Petranović 
and Momčilo Zečević. Bilandžić was accused of ascribing tendencies 
to redefine Yugoslavia to Serbs; Petranović and Zečević were accused 
of attempting to demonstrate the Serbian view on the formation and 
development of Yugoslavia with their selection and abbreviation 
of documents; and Pleterski was criticized for his thesis about the 
“multinational revolution” (each Yugoslav nation won the fundamental 
political battle by itself, in its own way, with its strengths and its own 
specific problems during the Liberation War under the leadership of 
the working class as a leading political power). Petranović took a firm 
stand against this thesis, which resulted in polemics between these 
two historians; their first polemic took place two years earlier, in 1983, 
when Peranović’s book Revolucija i kontrarevolucija u Jugoslaviji was 
published. Dr Dušan Biber got involved in a polemic with Petranović at 
a round table held at the Institute of Contemporary History in Belgrade, 
as well as in periodicals in late 1985. Being a severe critic of attempts 
to rehabilitate the Chetnicks and the Greater Serbian agenda, Biber 
objected to Petranović’s thesis that the Chetniks were anti-fascists as 
well.16
14 Dr Zlatko Čepo: Opake besjede gospoda akademika, Danas, 14 October 1986, 25-28.
15 Bilandžić, Dušan. »Predrasude povijesti.« Vjesnik, 9 November 1985, 6
16 Arsić, Mirko. »Ambicije in interesi.« Komunist, 27 December 1995, and other articles.
Razprave | 155
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
At that time Serbian and Montenegrin historians (e.g. Velimir Terzić 
in his book Slom kraljevine Jugoslavije) launched a thesis claiming that 
the Croatian nation betrayed Yugoslavia in 1941. The Croatian historian 
Dr Ljubo Boban objected publicly to this thesis. Theses of this kind 
prompted some historians to demand that historiography explore and 
prove »the existence of continuity between nationalist and separatist 
movements and organizations, which strove to break up Yugoslavia 
in the interwar period, and modern-day nationalisms.«17 They were 
referring to Ustashism, which was prominently featured during the war 
in Croatia. 
Elsewhere (an article by Vasilije Krestić entitled O genezi genocida 
nad Srbima, which was published in Književne novine, 15 September 
1986) a thesis about the Croats’ genocidal nature was presented, 
maintaining that it stems from the 16th and 17th century, not »only« form 
the period of Pavelić’s Independent State of Croatia (NDH). This marked 
an escalation of the historiographical war between Croatian and 
Serbian historians, whose articles were published in their respective 
national media.
However, historiography began to lose its 
position as the primary battlefield. Art, 
particularly literature, was brought into the 
limelight. Written by Jovan Radulović in 1980, 
Golubnjača, a play depicting the relations 
between Serbs and Croats in Dalmatian 
Zagora during the war, was one of the first 
among many literary works dealing with the 
Serbian issues or the problems stemming 
from interethnic relations from the same 
starting point as Serbian historiography. The 
play had a strong anti-Croatian note. (FIG. 3: 
The cover of Jovan Radulović’s Golubnjača, 
1980.)  The author addressed crimes 
17 »Agonija učiteljice življenja, a conversation with Prof Miomir Dašić, President of the Historians’ 
Association of Yugoslavia.« Published in Duga, reprinted in Naši razgledi, 21 November 1986, 651.
156 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
committed by the Ustasha during the war and ignored those perpetrated 
by the Chetniks in the same area. Initially, the play was severely criticized, 
whereupon it received the prestigious award Seven Secretaries of SKOJ. 
In early 1989 Radulović accused the Croatian authorities of having 
stolen Serbs’ identity, language, script, and even history in Dalmatia 
(and in Croatia in general). Danko Popović’s book entitled Knjiga o 
Milutinu, which was published in 1985, is the most notable literary work 
of the 1980s; the author proclaimed that not only Croats were enemies 
of Serbs, which was a commonplace thesis, but also Slovenes. Serbs 
liberated Croats and Slovenes and got Yugoslavia in return, where they 
ended up scattered and economically exploited. This book about a 
Serbian peasant and his fate was sold out within a week and reprinted 
thirteen times (FIG. 4: The cover of Danko Popović’s Knjiga o Milutinu, 
1985.).
When a sentence was imposed on the Serbian poet Gojko Đogo due 
to his collection of poems entitled Vunena vremena, where he insulted 
Josip Broz Tito, a Committee for the 
Protection of Artistic Freedom was 
formed under the auspices of the 
Writers’ Association in Belgrade in May 
1982 (FIG. 5: The cover of Gojko Đogo’s 
Vunena vremena, 1982.). 
Razprave | 157
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Yugoslav intellectuals, including Slovenes and Serbians, demonstrated 
mutual solidarity in the defence of artistic freedom despite the 
disagreements caused by the book Stvarno i moguće, which was 
penned by the most famous Serbian author Dobrica Čosić in 1983. The 
authorities in different centres reached differently to such texts, with a 
greater or lesser degree of repression; the publication of such texts was 
prohibited, personnel was replaced, arrests and convictions occurred.
The crossfire with historiographical topics was a double-edged 
sword for the politics. On the one hand, politics encouraged it because 
it was suitable, particularly in the case of disputes between republics, 
and on the other hand it got out of hand because it began to eat away 
its legitimacy, which had its foundations in the revolution. Politics thus 
sought to make historians-communists »chase the dog.« However, this 
action proved futile because Marxist historians had different nationalities 
and held different political and ideological convictions despite their 
membership in the League of Communists of Yugoslavia; additionally, 
they were involved in mutual quarrels. Out of numerous attempts to 
ideologically discipline the historiographical community (and those 
writing about the past in general) on different levels in the 1980s these 
three attempts were the most notable: the Congress Historiography, 
Production of Memoirs and Feuilletons in Light of Current Ideational 
Controversies was held on 7 and 8 October in Zagreb; Week of Marxist 
Discussions was held between 4 and 8 February 1983 in the coastal town 
of Neum, Bosnia; and a session of the Presidency of the CK ZKJ was 
held on 17 December 1986 in Belgrade and attended by around sixty 
historians from all over Yugoslavia. This session was a preparation for a 
session of the CK ZKJ regarding ideological questions. The first congress 
was organized by the Centre for Ideational and Theoretical Operation 
with the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Croatia, 
under the leadership of Dr Stipe Šuvar. Šuvar prepared the so-called 
»White Book« of controversial texts about the past, where works penned 
by a portion of mostly Serbian historians (as many as 168 authors were 
mentioned in a negative context) were criticized under a cloak of 
defence of the revolution, Tito, and the socialist system. The congress 
(to which the accused were not invited) provoked strong reactions of 
158 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
the public, particularly in Serbia. The publication of treatises from the 
congress (Historija i suvremenost, Zagreb 1984) did not appease the 
polemic; if anything, it aggravated them.
The Week of Marxist Discussions in Neum was alongside the 
previously mentioned disputes marked also by proponents of »pure« 
historiography and their conflicts with those who argued that Yugoslav 
historiography »cannot be pure science devoid of political content.«18
The Session of the CK ZKJ compromisable in terms of ideationally 
controversial texts and phenomena. The attendees believed that the 
politics reacts to such phenomena too hastily and historiography too 
slowly, that the League of Communists should not be merely an observer 
in domestic historiography and journalism. However, it would not be 
good if the League took on the role of an on-call arbitrator.19
The aforementioned assemblies (including those taking place in 
republics or municipalities) did not contribute to an improvement of 
the situation in »newfangled historiography« (as it was referred to in 
periodicals); in the late 1980s politics could not come up with any new 
attempts to discipline historians even on a symbolic level. 
The destructive epilogue of processes in historiography, journalism, 
and art was transferred to the realm of politics, and eventually to that 
of the army. In each post-war decade Yugoslav authorities banked on 
the Yugoslav socialist patriotism, which was based on World War II. 
They paid particular attention to young generations; socialist patriotism 
founded on the national liberation struggle was a common thread in 
the curricula, particularly in subjects that included along with history, 
also literature, art and related topics.
A the same time, World War II was present in each artistic genre, 
even in comics. A comic about Mirko and Slavko, two young partisans, 
was iconic in Yugoslavia. (FIG. 6: A detail from the comic Mirko and 
Slavko.) However, the main part in glorifying the national liberation 
18 Rajković, Žarko. »Naše zgodovinopisje ne more biti brez politične vsebine.« Delo, 5 February 1985.
19 »Iz politike v zgodovinopisje.« Delo, 18 December 1986.
Razprave | 159
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
struggle and the revolution was played by sculpture and painting; 
hundreds of memorials commemorating events taking place in World 
War II were produced. The film industry that conveyed a black-and-
white image of the good (partisans) and the evil (enemies) most 
effectively, ran somewhat parallel to them. Evil was logical as far as the 
oppressor was concerned because the peoples of Yugoslavia were 
subjected to brutal terror. The question of »domestic evil«, i. e. 
collaboration, was a more problematic one 
because contemporaneously with the 
National Liberation War an inland conflict 
took place. The Yugoslav art of the 1980s 
rarely problematized this type of evil or 
individuals’ personal dilemmas when faced 
with decisions. 
The most important or glorified works of 
art were those associated with the leader of 
the national liberation movement and of the 
revolution Josip Broz Tito, as well as with 
two famous and mythologized battles 
fought by Yugoslav partisans: the battles of 
Neretva and Sutjeska (FIG. 7: The DVD 
sleeve of Battle of Neretva.). Partisans 
160 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
managed to defeat Chetnik troops in the Battle of Neretva, in Bosnia, in 
the spring of 1943 and advance to Herzegovina, Montenegro, Sandžak, 
and eastern Bosnia. 120,000 soldiers, 150 aeroplanes, tank units and 
artillery were involved in the offensive on the river Neretva. Partisans 
demolished the bridge across the river, which made Germans believe 
that they would advance in the opposite direction. However, partisans 
did a makeshift repair on the bridge, dropped heavy weapons, crossed 
the bridge and penetrated the enemy’s defence. Partisans took 4,000 
wounded soldiers with them, the majority of whom were captured and 
killed by Germans during the offensive on the river Sutjeska (June 1943). 
Fierce battles, unspeakable strains, exhaustion, shortage of food and 
medicine, contagious diseases, particularly 
typhoid fever, and retaliative measures in the 
period of both battles claimed the lives of many 
civilians and partisans. One-third of 
approximately 20,000 partisans (mostly Serbs, 
Montenegrins, Croats, Muslims, and other 
nationalities) died in the Battle of Sutjeska. Films 
depicting these two battles were the most 
famous partisan 
films of socialist 
Yugoslavia. In 
Battle of Sutjeska 
the leads were 
played by Sergei 
Bondarchuk, Yul 
Brynner, Anthony 
Dawson, Milena 
Dravić, Boris 
Dvornik, and Orson 
Welles. The poster 
for the film was 
made by Pablo Picasso for a symbolic fee 
of 15 bottles of wine made by various 
Razprave | 161
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Yugoslav wine producers.20 (FIG. 8: Pablo Picasso’s poster for Battle of 
Neretva.21) In Battle of Sutjeska Tito was portrayed by Richard Burton, 
one of the most prominent Western actors at the time. (FIG. 9: The DVD 
sleeve of Sutjeska.)
Dozens of films and serials about the partisan movement were 
produced, the bulk of which were the so-called »partisan westerns«. 
There were exceptions as well; namely, films highlighting the absurdity 
of war and doubts or distress of people who did not have a choice 
or any influence on their fate. Directed by Aleksandar Petrović, Three 
(1965) was nominated, inter alia, for the Academy Award in the category 
foreign-language film. The film depicts three wartime experiences of 
an ordinary partisan, whereby each experience draws the viewers’ 
attention to moral dilemmas. Lordan Zafranović’s film Occupation in 26 
Pictures (1978) is a demonstration of harrowing brutality, when the logic 
of blood-stained nationalism prevails in Dubrovnik, a symbol of urban 
cultivation.
Art dealing with World War II, which was supposed to be in service of 
equality of Yugoslav peoples, strengthen brotherhood and unity, and 
constitute one of the main foundations of Yugoslav patriotism, lost its 
charge in the 1980s, as did historiography. To a great extent, it acquired 
the opposite, i. e. destructive meaning. That was not always the authors’ 
intention, perhaps not in the majority of cases. Many of them used the 
gradual relaxation of the political situation to address previously 
forbidden topics. However, the artistic production was once again used 
as an instrument for political purposes, this time not for Yugoslav 
patriotism or glorification of the national liberation struggle, it was used 
for the growing nationalism and consolidating the role of national 
politics and politicians in respective republics. By evaluating the past, 
20 »Kinoteka BiH proudly preserves Picasso’s poster for Battle of Neretva.« https://visitbih.ba/kinoteka-
bih-proudly-preserves-picassos-poster-for-battle-of-neretva/ (Retrieved in December 2020). 
»Don't Watch That, Watch This: Geek Cinema Selfie Party.« https://www.riverfronttimes.
com/stlouis/dont-watch-that-watch-this-geek-cinema-selfie-party/Content?oid=2506803 
(Retrieved in December 2020).
21 Source: https://www.google.si/search?source=univ&tbm=isch&q=picasso+neretva&sa=X&ved=
2ahUKEwiIicCkvrXtAhVmxYUKHXBvDA4QjJkEegQIAhAC&biw=1536&bih=722 (Retrieved in December 
2020).
162 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
political elites in individual republics strove to strengthen their position 
and vision of restructuring the Yugoslav society. The national and 
ideological conflict between intellectuals of different nations (Croats 
and Serbs, Slovenes and Serbs, Serbs and Albanians) intensified. 
Consequently, associations of Yugoslav historians were discontinued, as 
were those of writers. The first pan-Yugoslav association to be 
discontinued was the Writers’ Association of Yugoslavia, the most 
important joint organization of Yugoslav literary authors. The public 
fall-out of the Croatian actor Boris Dvornik, who played the lead in the 
serial Kapelski kresovi, and his Serbian colleague Bata Živojinović was 
perhaps the most symbolic one. These iconic actors appeared in the 
most famous partisan films, including Battle of Sutjeska. (FIG. 10: A 
poster for the film Sutjeska. Bottom left: the actors Bata Živojinović and 
Boris Dvornik) They fell out after the break-up of Yugoslavia, not 
exchanging a single word for the rest of their lives. Following the first 
multi-party elections in individual republics (1990), the history of World 
War II lost its political function with regard to Yugoslavia. All artistic 
production, i. e. literature, film and other productions associated the 
common national liberation struggle, the creation of a federal state and 
Yugoslavia’s socialist patriotism, were rendered irrelevant and 
Razprave | 163
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
unwelcome. Actually, more or less anything related to Yugoslavia was 
considered undesirable and even hostile, at least as far as right-wing 
and nationalist political options were concerned, while left-wing options 
kept tactically and carefully mum. 
However, looking at former Yugoslavia – which was transformed 
into a bunch of undemocratic, nationalist, small states that either in 
part or entirely revised the remembrance of World War II – after its 
disintegration and from a 30-year distance, it is paradoxical that it 
was precisely the artistic production that transcended the break-up of 
the former state.  Films such as Sutjeska and Neretva were succeeded 
by No Man’s Land, Pretty Village, Pretty Flame, etc. that garnered the 
same degree of international attention and Yugoslav socialist art and 
architecture were exhibited in the most prestigious galleries the world 
over. 
The partisan art built on the standpoint that the partisan struggle 
was not merely a struggle against the, it was also a struggle for a more 
just, humane and sympathetic world. In Yugoslavia, this idea united 
and expressed itself with a progressive artistic form. The most eminent 
artists were asked to produce the most notable anti-fascist monuments. 
Unlike the Soviet Union, where socialist realism based on nineteenth-
century style prevailed, the Yugoslav socialism supported a progressive 
artistic form. Following the conflict with the Soviet Union, modernism 
became the official art in Yugoslavia, not socialist realism, as was the 
case in the Soviet Union and throughout the Eastern Bloc. 
The singer Tomaž Pengov recorded a single entitled Napisi padajo 
(Inscriptions are falling down) in 1978, in protest against the destruction 
of Slovene-language inscriptions in Carinthia, Austria.22 Namely, politics 
installed and removed inscriptions and memorials at all times and in all 
places.
22 Pengov, Tomaž. »Napisi Padajo.« https://youtu.be/avXvAPqyvLo (Retrieved in December 2020).; 
Klobučar, Teja. »Tomaž Pengov. Sedem desetletij od rojstva samospevca.« http://www.sigic.si/tomaz-
pengov-sedem-desetletij-od-rojstva-samospevca.html (Retrieved in December 2020).
164 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Many memorials from the period of the National Liberation War 
were demolished in a large part of former Yugoslavia. Consequently, 
its blood-stained disintegration brought about the erection of new 
ones. In Slovenia these were memorials commemorating the war of 
independence,23 memorial plaques commemorating members of the 
Home Guard,24 and a memorial commemorating the »reconciliation«.25 
Croatia has commemorated its war of independence and its first 
president Dr Franjo Tuđman;26 Bosnians in Bosnia and Herzegovina set 
up memorials commemorating victims.27 Memorials commemorating 
Draža Mihajlović were erected in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina 
and streets were named after him,28 a memorial depicting the film 
character Rocky, who was portrayed by Sylvester Stallone,29 was put 
up, as was that commemorating the Jamaican singer Bob Marley,30 a 
statue of Tito was re-erected in Podgorica, Montenegro, in 2018,31 and in 
Macedonia the nationalist government was obsessed with the ancient 
past, which is evident from two huge memorials commemorating Philip 
23 »Kenotaf žrtvam vojne za Slovenijo razglasili za kulturni spomenik.« https://www.rtvslo.si/kultura/
drugo/kenotaf-zrtvam-vojne-za-slovenijo-razglasili-za-kulturni-spomenik/395307 (Retrieved in 
December 2020).
24 »Foto: V Grahovem odkritje spomenika domobrancem in poklon žrtvam nacizma.« https://
www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/foto-v-grahovem-odkritje-spomenika-domobrancem-in-poklon-
zrtvam-nacizma.html (Retrieved in December 2020).
25 »Jutrišnja slovesnost na Kongresnem trgu: spomenik sprave ali spomenik razdora.« https://www.
dnevnik.si/1042777875 (Retrieved in December 2020).
26 »Spomen-obilježja žrtvama Domovinskog rata na mjestima masovnih grobnica.«  https://
braniteljski.hr/spomen-obiljezja-zrtvama-domovinskog-rata-na-mjestima-masovnih-grobnica/ 
(Retrieved in December 2020).
27 »Clinton ob spomeniku žrtvam v Srebrenici.« https://www.rtvslo.si/svet/clinton-ob-spomeniku-
zrtvam-v-srebrenici/9841 (Retrieved in December 2020).
28 »Ulico Draže Mihailovića bomo branili s svojimi telesi.« https://www.delo.si/novice/svet/ulico-
draze-mihailovica-bomo-branili-s-svojimi-telesi/ (Retrieved in December 2020).
29 »Otkriven spomenik Rokiju u Žitištu.«  https://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.
php?yyyy=2007&mm=08&dd=19&nav_category=15&nav_id=259816 (Retrieved).
30 Bob Marley je ujedinio Srbe i Hrvate.« https://www.index.hr/magazin/clanak/bob-marley-je-
ujedinio-srbe-i-hrvate/399630.aspx  (Retrieved in December 2020).
31 »Naval jugonostalgije: Titov kip spet sredi Podgorice, nekoč Titograda.« https://www.rtvslo.
si/kultura/drugo/naval-jugonostalgije-titov-kip-spet-sredi-podgorice-nekoc-titograda/476014 
(Retrieved in October 2020).
Razprave | 165
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
II and his son Alexander the Great.32 A statue of the former U.S. president 
Bill Clinton was erected in Kosovo, etc.33 These memorials were mostly 
devoid of artistic value, in many instances mere kitsch. The year 2020 
saw a mass destruction of memorials associated with the colonial past 
and imperialism in Europe and in the USA.34
Sentiments of people whose suffering was caused by someone or 
something are understandable; however, by destroying memorials, we 
will not change the past. Where does the erasure of collective memory 
thorough destruction of memorials lead? Is a complete break with the 
past possible in the first place? Are we in for a better future by bending 
the past? Barring a few exceptions, memorials commemorating the 
National Liberation War in Slovenia were not destroyed after the break-
up of Yugoslavia.
One of more significant interventions occurred on the Trail of 
Remembrance and Comradeship (Pot spomina in tovarištva, i. e. PST or 
POT), a 32.5-km long path around Ljubljana, along the route of barbed 
wire that surrounded the city during World War II. It was set up by the 
Italian army to isolate the city’s resistance movement and hinder its 
contacts with the city’s surroundings. Ljubljana holds a special place in 
the history of World War II because only a small fraction of occupied 
cities were turned into mass prisons. Additionally, a heavily fortified 
occupation border between fascist Italy and Nazi Germany ran 
immediately next to it. Nevertheless, partisans and activists of the 
Liberation Front used secrets channels to get illegally in and out of this 
guarded ring. This trail running along the former barbed wire is a 
memorial commemorating the rebellion against the oppressor and the 
desire for freedom. In 1985, seven steel masts were erected along the 
trail as part of its overall layout. The architect Janez Koželj and his 
associates designed and marked the trail. In his opinion these seven 
32  »Makedonski Disneyland ali sejem baročnega kiča.« https://old.delo.si/druzba/panorama/
makedonski-disneyland-ali-sejem-barocnega-kica.html (Retrieved in December 2020).
33 »Foto: Clinton v Prištini na odkritju svojega kipa.« https://www.rtvslo.si/svet/foto-clinton-v-pristini-
na-odkritju-svojega-kipa/215920 (Retrieved in December 2020).
34 »Bomo z odstranitvijo kipov lahko odstranili tudi zgodovino?« https://www.rtvslo.si/kultura/drugo/
bomo-z-odstranitvijo-kipov-lahko-odstranili-tudi-zgodovino/527496 (Retrieved in December 2020).
166 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
masts, which served as signposts, were one its most prominent features. 
Their design echoed Russian constructivism and they were known as an 
installation of neo-constructivism in professional circles. Led by the 
mayor Jože Strgar, the city’s right-wing authorities removed these masts 
after Slovenia’s independence. In the Trail, and particularly in the masts 
with a red star, the authorities saw ideological connotation or a 
memorial to communism. The city’s secretary of utility services Janez 
Lesar had all seven masts removed under pretence that rust would be 
removed, masts repainted and put back in place. However, cut-down 
masts could not be restored; damaged masts were found at a waste 
dump along the street Zaloška cesta and kept in the Museum of 
Contemporary History for a few years. Helmed by the mayor Zoran 
Janković, the new municipal authorities put up new steel masts with red 
stars in 2018. These masts are identical to those that used to stand at 
intersections of the Trail and the city’s arteries (FIG. 11: One of seven 
masts along the Trail of Remembrance and Comradeship in Ljubljana. 
The municipal authorities removed them, damaging them beyond 
repair. In 2018 the new municipal authorities set up new masts. Ljubljana, 
3 November 2020.). As masts were part of a protected cultural 
Razprave | 167
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
monument, the Ljubljana-based Regional Institute for the Protection of 
Cultural Heritage filed a criminal complaint against unknown persons 
for having committed a suspected criminal offence of defiling a 
monument; however, this action did not have an epilogue. On the other 
hand, the State Prosecutor’s Office filed a criminal complaint against 
the periodical Mladina for having disclosed Lesar’s illegal act. These 
masts were not the only victim of post-independence lustration. 
Memorial stones that used to stand in 102 spots along the Trail were 
removed as well; they had stood in the former locations of World War II 
bunkers; moreover, machinery needed for obliterating the Trail was on 
standby. The complete wipe-out did not take place because the Civil 
Committee for the Preservation of the Trail took a firm stand against the 
destruction. Later on, this committee was renamed the Green Ring 
Association.35
Similarly, one of Demos’ parties sought to wipe out the Trebče 
Memorial Park, arguing that the park is a remnant of the former regime. 
At a later stage, this memorial park developed into Kozjansko Park. Rich 
in history, memorials, and nature, it provides its inhabitants with new 
possibilities for development. It is only thanks to a few individuals that 
this did not happen.36
Under pretence of reconciliation and under the auspices of Borut 
Pahor, President of the Republic of Slovenia, attempts have been 
made to bend history by means of new memorials.37 Namely, Pahor 
advocates for joint memorials, for names of partisans and oppressor’s 
collaborationists to appear on the same memorial plaque, as was the 
case at Karlovica near Velike Lašče.38 To reduce the National Liberation 
War to a fratricidal war is to defy historical facts. As if the oppressor, 
35 Marn, Urša. »V Ljubljano se vračajo jambori z rdečimi zvezdami.« https://www.mladina.si/185293/
vrnitev-odpisanih/ (Retrieved in December 2020).
36 Flajšman, Božidar. Podsreda, zgodbe z razglednic. Podsreda: Kozjanski park, 2017, 78−79. The 
book contains a letter written by Stane Peterlin, who described the story of Kozjansko Park in detail.
37 The philosopher Dr Boris Vezjak wrote several articles on Pahor’s false image as a reconciler 
of Slovenes: Vezjak, Boris. »Pahorjeva zlagana podoba spravitelja Slovencev.« https://vezjak.
com/2015/07/17/pahorjeva-zlagana-podoba-spravitelja-slovencev/ (Retrieved in December 2020).
38 Ibid.
168 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
whose aim was to destroy the Slovene nation, had not existed. On 
the other hand, it is impossible to imagine and accept that a single 
memorial plaque would feature the names of the Allied pilots, partisans, 
oppressors and collaborationists. This would imply equating victims 
with their executioners. A path to new divisions and acts of horror is 
paved by way of distorting history and under pretence of nobility.
According to Geopedia, there have been 5,120 partisan memorials 
recorded in Slovenia thus far, of which about 2,700 to 2,900 were 
entered into the Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage.39
A few memorials, mostly those depicting Tito, were not destroyed, 
they were transferred to museums. Or in words of the historian Peter 
Mikša: »Not to destroy, but to keep and to show in the context of 
history.«40
Anti-fascist memorials in 
former Yugoslavia did not convey 
solely ideological messages. 
Many of them were and still are 
of high artistic value. This fact was 
recognized also by the Museum 
of Modern Art (MoMA) in New 
York, which hosted the exhibition 
Toward a Concrete Utopia: 
Architecture in Yugoslavia 1948-
1980 in 2018. The exhibition was 
accompanied by an extensive 
catalogue showcasing a series of 
memorials in Ilirska Bistrica, on 
Petrova Gora, Kozara, in Sutjeska, 
39 »Partizanski spomenik.« https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partizanski_spomenik#cite_note-1 
(Retrieved in December 2020).
40 Štok, Katja. »Bomo z odstranitvijo kipov lahko odstranili tudi zgodovino?«  https://www.rtvslo.si/
kultura/drugo/bomo-z-odstranitvijo-kipov-lahko-odstranili-tudi-zgodovino/527496  (Retrieved in 
December 2020).
Razprave | 169
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Kamensko, Mostar, etc.41 The time frame spans from the period of the 
Informbiro to the House of Flowers, i. e. from Tito’s conflict with Stalin, 
which was followed by a gradual opening of the state and the policies 
of the Non-Aligned, to Tito’s death, when a new period began. The 
former state, which was built on brotherhood and unity, began to break 
up. Historical revisionism and the madness of nationalism grew wings. 
The ideology of hatred prevailed. Bloody wars were brought about.
In each Yugoslav republic and in both autonomous provinces a town 
or city was named after Tito (FIG. 12: During Tito’s lifetime and after his 
death in 1980 several towns or cities in Yugoslavia were named after 
him. These were situated in each republic and province. After the break-
up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s their original names were restored. 
Postcards from the 1980s depicting: 1.Titovo Velenje - Velenje (Slovenia); 
2. Titova Korenica - Korenica (Croatia); 3. Titov Drvar - Drvar (Bosnia 
and Herzegovina); 4. Titovo Užice - Užice (Serbia); 5. Titov Vrbas - Vrbas 
(Vojvodina); 6. Titova Mitrovica - Kosovska Mitrovica (Kosovo); 7. 
Titograd - Podgorica (Montenegro); 8. Titov Veles - Veles (Macedonia).). 
None of these names survived Yugoslavia’s disintegration. At the present 
these locations are situated in seven different states. The imposing 
bridge to the island of Krk was renamed as well; Tito Bridge became 
the Krk Bridge (FIG. 13: Tito Bridge, connecting the mainland with the 
island of Krk was opened in 1980; it was renamed the Krk Bridge 
(Croatian: Krčki most) 
after the disintegration of 
the Socialist Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia. A 
postcard sent in 1984.). In 
some places statues of 
Tito remained in place 
even after his death and a 
few streets or squares 
were named after him. 
New ones cannot bear his 
41 Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia 1948−1980. Edited by Stephanie Emerson. 
New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2018.
170 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
names, at least not in Slovenia, where the Constitutional Court of the 
Republic of Slovenia evaluated Josip Broz Tito’s historical role in 2001 
and issued a decision that prohibited naming streets after the former 
president of Yugoslavia.42 The negative aspect of Tito’s symbolic value 
was regarded as key. The court decided that if something symbolizes 
both the good and the bad at the same time, it is unacceptable in its 
entirety because it stands also for something bad. Another decision 
issued by the same court stipulated that if the Roman Catholic Church 
and other religious communities appear as denationalization claimants, 
it is not admissible to equate them with large feudal estates or property 
relations stemming from historically attested feudal relations. The court 
stated the Church’s role as a public benefit institution as a foundation 
for admissible distinction.43 Despite having a dark, even criminal history, 
in the case of the Roman Catholic Church its positive side prevailed, 
from which the Church benefited materially, while in the case of Tito, the 
negative prevailed.44 Does the Constitutional Court really think that such 
arbitrary, black-and-white decision-making would protect people’s 
dignity? Antifascist memorials received a similar treatment after 
Yugoslavia’s disintegration. Partisans were declared criminals and 
collaborationists heroes or victims. Anti-fascist memorials were 
interpreted as symbols of the communist regime and of the socialist 
past, with which accounts should be settled once and for all. The 
destruction of memorials began, often on the initiative of or due to the 
indifference of state bodies. Quality, artistic value and top-quality 
authorship were not regarded as deciding factors in favour of their 
preservation. 
According to the data compiled thus far, the most memorials were 
destroyed in Croatia. Juraj Hrženjak collected extensive materials on the 
subject and published it in Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 
42  Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No.: U-I-109/10-11, 26 September 
2011.
43 Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No.: U-I-107/96, 5 December 1996.
44 Flajšman, Božidar. »Pogumna vsebinska presoja.« Delo, 6. October 2011, p. 5.; Repe, Božo. »Kdo 
piše zgodovino?« Mladina, 21. October 2011.
Razprave | 171
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
1990 – 2000; Irena Škorić made a telling and convincing documentary 
entitled Neželena dediščina (Unwanted Heritage).45
Political reasons for demolishing anti-fascist memorials in Croatia 
are probably best illustrated by a graffiti written in honour of head of 
the former Independent State of Croatia (NDH). It is situated on the 
island of Vis, near Komiža, in one of the abandoned buildings of the 
former Yugoslav People’s Army rocket base Stupišće. Painters doing the 
military service were frequently asked to paint the barracks with military 
motifs and political slogans. The inscriptions TITO, NATION, PARTY, 
ARMY can be found in this rocket base alongside paintings of ships and 
Yugoslav flags. This base was demolished to a considerable degree 
after the break-up of Yugoslavia, the red star was dug out and the 
inscription »LONG LIVE ANTE PAVELIĆ NDH« was carved into the wall. 
Somebody else added »FUCK YOU ANTE, SLO« to the bottom right-
hand corner. (FIG. 14: An unknown graffiti artist added LONG LIVE ANTE 
PAVELIĆ, NDH to the inscription TITO, NATION, PARTY, ARMY. The 
Yugoslav People’s Army rocket base Stupišće (Vis), 26 June 2004.).
45 »Regioskop: Neželjena baština« https://youtu.be/byKpQ4QcAwo (Retrieved in December 2020).
172 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Theft of bronze sculptures, which are melted and sold by vandals, is 
also a form of destruction of memorials. This causes great cultural and 
historical damage; in the majority of cases moulds produced by great 
Yugoslav artists are not preserved and these sculptures cannot be re-
cast. 
Some people destroy memorials out of sheer vandalism. By 
destroying memorials of the National Liberation War, political vandals 
seek to erase the remembrance of the anti-fascist struggle, on which 
modern Europe is founded. Such destruction thus this stands for the 
demolition of foundations, on which modern Europe was built.
A few examples:
Petrova gora 
Unveiled in 1981, the memorial commemorating the rebellion of 
people in Banija and Kordun preserves the memory of civilians and 
combatants who fell fighting fascism. Made of reinforced concrete 
and designed by the sculptor Vojin Bakić, the memorial is covered 
with stainless-steel sheets (FIG. 15: The memorial on Petrova Gora, 
a postcard from around 1981.). After the disintegration of Yugoslavia 
commemorative ceremonies next to the memorial were discontinued; 
in the following years vandals demolished parts of the building, as well 
as museum pieces or archival objects. The destruction continues to this 
day — people still remove stainless-steel sheets (FIG. 16: The destruction 
of the memorial on Petrova Gora continues to this day. Petrova Gora, 
4 March 2016.).
Razprave | 173
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
174 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Razprave | 175
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
A partisan hospital and Dr Marija Schlesinger operated on Petrova 
Gora. Her grave, which originally featured her relief portrait and an 
inscription in Croatian, is located next to one of underground bunkers 
(dug-outs). The inscription read:
SCHLESINGER Dr MARIJA 
1895 - 1943 
ZA VRIJEME 4. NEPRIJATELJSKE 
OFANZIVE OVDJE JE SAHRANJENA 
PARTIZANSKA DOKTORICA MARIJA 
SCHLESINGER 
MRTVA PARTIZANKA GROBOM JE 
MASKIRALA I ŠTITILA RANJENE 
DRUGOVE
(The partisan physician Schlesinger Dr Marija, 1895-1943 was buried 
here during the Fourth Enemy offensive. With her grave this deceased 
partisan hid and protected her wounded comrades) (FIG. 17: The grave 
of the partisan physician Dr Marija Schlesinger and the entrance to an 
underground bunker. The partisan hospital on Petrova Gora, a postcard 
from around 1980.).
Only a few letters remained on a concrete plate, her bronze portrait 
was broken and thrown in a bunker in three pieces.46 (FIG. 18: The 
demolished plate on the grave of the partisan physician Dr Marija 
Schlesinger. The partisan hospital on Petrova Gora, 4 March 2016.) 
On 28 June 1991 Sabor, the Croatian Parliament, adopted an order by 
means of which the Act Repealing the Dr Marija Schlesinger Award Act 
was passed. This award was presented to health professionals.47
46 Kresojević, Željko. »Zapisi iz gore (4): Doktorica Marija.« https://banija.rs/obicaji/20035-zapisi-iz-
gore-4-doktorica-marija.html (Retrieved in December 2020).
47 Zakon o prestanku važenja Zakona o "Nagradi dr. Marija Schlesinger".« https://narodne-novine.
nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1991_07_34_947.html (Retrieved in December 2020).
176 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Makljen
A partisan memorial commemorating the Battle of Neretva (also 
known as the Fourth Enemy Offensive or the Battle for the Wounded) 
was erected on Mt. Makljen, Bosnia and Herzegovina. (FIG. 19: A 
postcard depicting the memorial dedicated to the Battle of Neretva on 
Makljen; the other two photographs depict the Museum of the National 
Liberation War in Jablanica, 1984.). Designed by the sculptor Boško 
Kućanski, the memorial was blasted in 2000; at the present, its uncanny 
structure consisting of reinforced-concrete columns protrudes from the 
ground (FIG. 20:  The blasted memorial on Makljen. Makljen, 24 April 
2004.). Evidently, nationalists interpreted this memorial as a symbol of 
the communist regime and the socialist past, with which accounts must 
be settled.48
48 Monumenti, promenljivo lice sećanja, eds. Daniel Bromund, Christian Pfeifer. Belgrade: Forum 
Ziviler Friedensdienst, 2013, 58−59.
Razprave | 177
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Makljen
A partisan memorial commemorating the Battle of Neretva (also 
known as the Fourth Enemy Offensive or the Battle for the Wounded) 
was erected on Mt. Makljen, Bosnia and Herzegovina. (FIG. 19: A 
postcard depicting the memorial dedicated to the Battle of Neretva on 
Makljen; the other two photographs depict the Museum of the National 
Liberation War in Jablanica, 1984.). Designed by the sculptor Boško 
Kućanski, the memorial was blasted in 2000; at the present, its uncanny 
structure consisting of reinforced-concrete columns protrudes from the 
ground (FIG. 20:  The blasted memorial on Makljen. Makljen, 24 April 
2004.). Evidently, nationalists interpreted this memorial as a symbol of 
the communist regime and the socialist past, with which accounts must 
be settled.48
48 Monumenti, promenljivo lice sećanja, eds. Daniel Bromund, Christian Pfeifer. Belgrade: Forum 
Ziviler Friedensdienst, 2013, 58−59.
178 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Tjentište 
Designed by the sculptor Miodrag Živković, this exceptional 
memorial stands in the Sutjeska National Park. It was erected in Tjentište 
in 1971 to commemorate combatants who fell in the Battle of Sutjeska, 
where in 1943, during the Fifth German Offensive, partisans pierced 
the oppressor’s ring, suffering great losses (7,366 fallen combatants). 
An ossuary with mortal remains of 3,301 combatants stands next to 
it. The central memorial has been in good condition since 2019. A few 
other buildings were added in its immediate proximity, a memorial 
building, a few hotels, and additional memorials. The bulk of these 
buildings were damaged in the most recent war. Its interior boasts 13 
exceptional frescoes produced by the painter Krsto Hegedušić, which 
were vandalized (FIGS. 21: The oppressors depicted on Hegedušić’s 
fresco in the Battle of Sutjeska Commemorative Centre, a postcard 
from around 1975. and 22: A vandalized fresco in the Battle of Sutjeska 
Commemorative Centre. Tjentište, 6 August 2011). Dates and individuals’ 
signatures were carved in these frescoes, gunshot-damage is present 
as well, which indicates that these acts of vandalism were not based 
on ideology. A few years ago the memorial building was somewhat 
mended to prevent further ruin. Many Croats, mostly Dalmatians, 
were killed on the river Sutjeska. The Croatian Sabor declined to grant 
patronage to the ceremony; however, the Croatian Parliament provides 
constant support to meetings of the Ustasha sympathizers in Bleiburg, 
Austria.49 
49 Gall, Zlatko. »Kako se Hrvatska odrekla svojih mrtvih sa Sutjeske.« https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/
kolumne/kako-se-hrvatska-odrekla-svojih-mrtvih-sa-sutjeske-525772 (Retrieved in December 2020).
Razprave | 179
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
180 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Drvar
On 25 May 1944 the German oppressor conducted an airdrop raid 
on Drvar, which was a failed attempt to capture Josip Broz Tito, the 
Supreme Commander of the National Liberation Army and the Partisan 
Detachments of Yugoslavia. A postcard of Drvar from around 1985 
depicts a memorial complex arranged as a park on the hillock Šobića 
Glavica above the town. Its central part is represented by by a memorial 
with four slanting, 20-m high columns. These columns point skywards in 
all cardinal directions and feature relief depictions from the period of 
World War II50 (FIG. 23: The memorial commemorating the National 
Liberation War in Drvar, a postcard from around 1985.). The monument 
commemorating fallen combatants and victims of fascist terror, which 
was designed by Lujo Šverer and Marijan Kocković is now completely 
ruined (FIG. 24: The demolished memorial commemorating the National 
Liberation War in Drvar. Drvar, 26 April 2011.).
50 Niebyl, Donald. Spomenik, Monument database. London: Fuel, 2018, 42−43.
Razprave | 181
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Vis
Soon after the airdrop raid on Drvar on 25 May 1944, the political 
and military leadership of the partisan movement, led by Josip Broz 
Tito, arrived at the island of Vis via Italy. To commemorate this event an 
inscribed monument was erected at the port of Komiža. The inscription 
on the monument read: »Od 7. 6. – 15. 9. 1944 Tito je s Visa usmeravao 
borbu za oslobođenje zemlje i medjunarodno priznanje nove 
Jugoslavije« (From 7 June to 15 September 1944 Tito led the struggle for 
liberation and international recognition of Yugoslavia from the island of 
Vis), (FIG. 25: Top photographs depict the partisan memorial at the port 
of Komiža. It commemorates the arrival of Tito and leaders of the 
partisan movement on the Island of Vis on 7 June 1944.  A postcard from 
around 1985.). The memorial was removed after the break-up of 
Yugoslavia; its fate is unknown 
(FIG. 26: A view of the port in 
Komiža after the removal of the 
memorial depicted at no. 14. 
Komiža, 26 June 2004.).
On 12 September 1944, at a 
ceremony marking the second 
anniversary of the establishment 
of the First Dalmatian Shock 
Brigade, which was held on Vis, 
Josip Broz Tito addressed the 
question of future state borders. 
It was on this occasion that he 
spoke his famous words: »Theirs 
we do not want, ours we do not 
give.«51 To commemorate this 
occasion, a white-marble 
monument produced by Antun 
Augustinčić was unveiled at the 
port in the town of Vis on 27 July 
51 Josip Broz Tito, Borba za osvoboditev Jugoslavije, članki in govori iz narodno osvobodilne borbe 
1941-1945. Belgrade: Državna založba Jugoslavije, 1945, 217−223.
182 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
1964. The above-mentioned sentence was engraved in the memorial, 
the remaining three sides featured a text about the First Dalmatian 
Brigade52 (FIG. 27: The memorial with the inscription that reads: »Theirs 
we do not want, ours we do not give.«53). The memorial was removed 
and transferred to the Samogor barracks in 1994, where it was 
completely destroyed in the following years.54 The memorial was 
removed in line with a decree issued by the Vis municipal authority, 
which was at the time at the hands of the Croatian Democratic Union.55 
In 2002, when the memorial lay heavily damaged in the abandoned 
barracks, the locals maintained that the authority could not blast it 
because it was lying too close 
to the inhabited area. A few 
members of the Croatian 
Democratic Union were 
concerned that the new 
authorities might want to set it 
up once again. To prevent this 
from happening, they used 
mallets to destroy all 
inscriptions on the memorial 
(FIG. 28: The demolished 
memorial »Theirs we do not 
want, ours we do not give.« 
The former Samogor barracks 
on the island of Vis. Vis, 27 June 
2002.).
52 Spomenik v pristanišču na Visu: “Mi tujega nočemo, a svojega ne damo.” V: Vis, eds. Drago Zdunić, 
Darivoj Žilić. Rijeka: Otokar Kerševani; Zagreb: Spektar, 1974, 77, 123.
53 Source: Vis, eds. Drago Zdunić, Darivoj Žilić. Rijeka: Otokar Kerševani Rijeka; Zagreb: Spektar, 1974.
54 »Vis –“Tuđe nećemo – svoje ne damo”.« https://www.sebenico.com/our-works/vis-tude-necemo-
svoje-ne-damo/  (Retrieved in December 2020).
55 Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, 235.
Razprave | 183
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
A memorial commemorating British pilots was put up on the hill 
Čunkovica, about 5 km from the town of Vis. The inscription on the 
memorial said: »Na slavnu uspomenu avijatičara Royal Air Force, koji su 
dali svoje živote u operacijama nad Jugoslavijom.« (In proud memory of 
the men of the Royal Air Force who lost their lives whilst operating over 
Yugoslavia), (FIG. 29: The memorial 
dedicated to RAF pilots on the 
island of Vis before Yugoslavia was 
replaced with Croatia.56). In the early 
1990s, during the period of political 
changes and radical nationalist 
tendencies, the memorial was left in 
place, but Yugoslavia was replaced 
by Croatia in the inscription. The 
memorial’s other side features an 
inscription in English and Yugoslavia 
was replaced by Croatia here 
as well (FIGS. 30: The memorial 
dedicated to RAF pilots on the island 
of Vis after Yugoslavia was replaced 
with Croatia.Vis, 26 June 2001. and 
31: The memorial commemorating 
British pilots on the island of Vis. In 
the English-language inscription 
Yugoslavia was replaced by Croatia 
as well. Vis, 26 June 2001.).
56 Source: Vis, eds. Drago Zdunić, Darivoj Žilić. Rijeka: Otokar Kerševani Rijeka; Zagreb: Spektar, 1974.
184 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Other memorials dedicated to pilots were completely destroyed, 
including a memorial at the former Allied airfield operating on the field 
Plisko Polje after Italy’s capitulation in 1943 (FIG. 32: The demolished 
memorial at Plisko Polje, the location of an Allied airfield, Vis, 27 June 
2002.).
At the intersection of roads Vis-Komiža-Podstražje a rough-hewn 
stone memorial was erected in 1951 (FIG. 33: The memorial situated 
at the intersection of roads Vis-Komiža-Podstražje and dedicated to 
fallen pilots and officers.57). The memorial dedicated to the memory 
of fallen pilots and officers was completely destroyed after the break-
up of Yugoslavia (FIG. 34: The demolished memorial at the intersection 
of the roads Vis-Komiža-Podstražje and dedicated to fallen pilots and 
officers. Vis, 27 June 2002.).
57 Source: Vis, eds. Drago Zdunić, Darivoj Žilić. Rijeka: Otokar Kerševani Rijeka; Zagreb: Spektar, 1974.
Razprave | 185
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
186 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Podgora
The memorial commemorating the Yugoslav Navy – Seagull Wings. 
The first detachment of the Yugoslav Navy was established in the 
hamlet of Podgora in September 1942. Unveiled by President Tito two 
decades later, the memorial was dedicated to he Navy’s role. It was 
designed by the sculptor Rajko Radović between 1960 and 1961. 
Measuring 23 m in height, it was made of white concrete and rises from 
a black granite platform measuring 12 by 30 m. Situated between the 
shore and the steep mountain range Biokovo, it creates a powerful 
visual accent in the landscape (FIG. 35: The memorial commemorating 
the Yugoslav Navy – Seagull Wings in Podgora. A postcard from around 
1975.). After the disintegration of Yugoslavia the monument was blasted 
on several occasions; later on, the importance of events unfolding 
during the anti-fascist resistance was 
purposefully marginalized. Revisionism 
is indicated in the new description 
featured on the memorial plaque, which 
says that the memorial is dedicated to 
all »Croatian sailors«, with no reference 
to the partisan resistance.58 An anectode 
is associated with the repeated attempts 
to destroy the memorial, when Dr Franjo 
Tuđman, President of the Republic of 
Croatia, visited Podgora in 1997. In his 
speech he addressed the audience: 
»Thank you, villagers of Podgora, for 
having preserved this wonderful 
memorial.« A woman from the crowd 
replied: »We did not preserve it. The 
monument’s tenacity makes it stronger 
than your demolishers or blasters are.«59
58 Bugarič, Boštjan {et al.}. Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin, Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945-
1991. Ljubljana: Društvo arhitektov, 2020, 108−109.
59 Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000. Zagreb: Savez 
antifašističnih boraca Hrvatske, 2002, 217.
Razprave | 187
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Kamensko
The memorial commemorating the victorious population of Slavonija 
(referred to also as the memorial to the people-heroes of Slavonija) 
was a stainless-steel monument, built on the hillside of Papuk, near the 
village of Kamensko, in the present-day Požega-Slavonija County. It 
was designed by the sculptor Vojin Bakić. Unveiled in 1968, this was the 
largest post-modernist sculpture in the world in the period of its erection 
(FIG. 36: The memorial dedicated to the victory of the population of 
Slavonija in Kamensko. A postcard from around 1980.). The memorial 
was completely destroyed in 1992 (FIG. 37: Demolishing the memorial in 
Kamensko, 1992.60). The Croatian army is suspected of having blasted 
60 Source: https://www.spomenikdatabase.org/kamenska (Retrieved in December 2020).
188 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
the memorial.61 Due to the fact that it was made of stainless steel it was 
turned into pots and pans in Slavonski Brod.62
Mostar
In 1993 the Croatian army demolished the famous bridge, which was 
built by Mimar Hayruddin in 1566. The bridge was rebuilt and opened 
ceremoniously in 2004.63 However, the exceptional partisan cemetery 
designed by Bogdan Bogdanović, which was vandalized on several 
occasions and thus heavily damaged, was not restored. It was designed 
as terraces cut into the hillside. The city of the dead replicated the city 
of the living, with its streets, squares, bridges, towers, and city gates. 
Massively built stone-clad support walls feature engraved ornamental 
symbols and names of approximately 800 fallen partisans. A few 
hundred unidentified bodies were laid to rest in a shared tomb (FIG. 38: 
The partisan cemetery in Mostar, a postcard from around 1980.). Miha 
Dešman wrote that he was stunned by the contrast between the 
61 »Spomenik pobjedi naroda Slavonije.« https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spomenik_pobjedi_naroda_
Slavonije (Retrieved in December 2020).
62 Juraj Hrženjak, Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, 8.
63 »Odprli most v Mostarju.« https://www.rtvslo.si/svet/odprli-most-v-mostarju/21337 (Retrieved in 
December 2020).
Razprave | 189
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
memorial’s neglect, silent beauty, and unbridled tourist crowds 
occupying the nearby city with the bridge, where the memorial’s beauty 
was degraded into a mercantile backdrop.64 The author of the memorial 
Bogdan Bogdanović said: 
This is a memorial to Yugoslav solidarity. It is dedicated to the Mostar 
Battalion. I was touched by the fact that the combatants were practically still 
children. They bore Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian names. They reminded 
me of a children’s crusade. The majority of them were killed. Cenotaphs, 
symbolic graves, are dedicated to them. A few of them are buried here, 
not very many. The memorial is severely damaged; however, it cannot be 
demolished because it is carved into a hill and thus rendered indestructible.65
64 Bugarič, Boštjan {et al.}. Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin, Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945-
1991. Ljubljana: Društvo arhitektov, 2020, 114−115.
65 Bogdanović, Bogdan. Bogdanović by Bogdanović, Yugoslav Memorials through the Eyes of Their 
Architect. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2018, 28–35.
190 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Karlovac
In the local Liberty Park a memorial dedicated to the fallen 
combatants and victims of fascism was unveiled in 1955; it was designed 
by Vanja Radauš (FIG. 39: The bottom photograph depicts the memorial 
commemorating the National Liberation War in Karlovac, a postcard 
from around 1975.). The memorial was completely destroyed in 1991, 
as was the majority of anti-fascist memorials in the city of Karlovac 
(FIG. 40: The completely demolished memorial commemorating the 
National Liberation War in Karlovac. Karlovac, 4 March 2016.). A statue 
produced by Franjo Pucak was blasted as well. In the same location 
the association Croatian Home Defenders (Udruga Hrvatski domobran) 
erected a memorial dedicated to the Ustasha and home defenders. 
It features an inscription that reads: »Dedicated to Croatian soldiers 
who died for Croatia 1941 – 1945 and 1991 – 1995. Erected by the 
Veterans’ Association Croatian Home Defenders Karlovac 1991 – 1995.«66 
(Hrvatskim vojnicima palim za Hrvatsku 1941 – 1945. Podiže Udruga 
veterana Hrvatski domobran Karlovac).
66  Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, 69.
Razprave | 191
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
 
192 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Opuzen
A memorial commemorating the national hero Stjepan Filipović, 
who was born in Opuzen in 1919 and courageously, with his hands thrust 
in the air, called for freedom and appealed to people to stand up to the 
oppressor and their servants while standing under the Nazi-Chetnik 
gallows, was unveiled in October 1978 and blasted in July 199167 (FIG. 41: 
The hanging of Stjepan Filipović on 22 May 1942 in Valjevo.68). The statue 
produced by the sculptors Miro Vuco and Stjepan Gračan was 
demolished by a group led by the Ustasha emigrant Daiđa, a future 
general of the Croatian army.69 
Prior to its demolition, this 
memorial commemorating Stjepan 
Filipović was along with the 
eponymous memorial in Valjevo, 
Serbia, which was produced by the 
sculptor Vojin Bakić, one of two 
monumental paraphrases of the 
famous photograph of Filipović 
standing with a noose around his 
neck in 1942 (FIGS. 42: The memorial 
commemorating Stjepan Filipović in 
Opuzen.70 and 43: The memorial 
commemorating Stjepan Filipović 
completely demolished by 
blasting.71). The dismay and protests 
of antifascists from Opuzen and 
67 The story of the memorial to Stjepan Filipović was presented in detail in a documentary by Irena 
Škorić; entitled Unwanted Legacy, this documentary is dedicated to demolished anti-fascist memorials 
in Croatia. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byKpQ4QcAwo&t=1s
68 Source: https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stjepan_Filipovi%C4%87#/media/Slika:Stjepan_Stevo_
Filipovi%C4%87.jpg (Retrieved in December 2020).
69 Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, 51.
70 Source: Putovima revolucije (ed. Dr. Zdravko Krnić), Zagreb, Turitkomerc and Republički odbor 
Saveza udruženja boraca NOR SR Hrvatske, 1979.
71 Source: https://radiosarajevo.ba/vijesti/regija/spomenik-slavnog-partizana-miniran-na-
njegovom-mjestu-industrijska-zona/366878 (Retrieved in December 2020).
Razprave | 193
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Opuzen
A memorial commemorating the national hero Stjepan Filipović, 
who was born in Opuzen in 1919 and courageously, with his hands thrust 
in the air, called for freedom and appealed to people to stand up to the 
oppressor and their servants while standing under the Nazi-Chetnik 
gallows, was unveiled in October 1978 and blasted in July 199167 (FIG. 41: 
The hanging of Stjepan Filipović on 22 May 1942 in Valjevo.68). The statue 
produced by the sculptors Miro Vuco and Stjepan Gračan was 
demolished by a group led by the Ustasha emigrant Daiđa, a future 
general of the Croatian army.69 
Prior to its demolition, this 
memorial commemorating Stjepan 
Filipović was along with the 
eponymous memorial in Valjevo, 
Serbia, which was produced by the 
sculptor Vojin Bakić, one of two 
monumental paraphrases of the 
famous photograph of Filipović 
standing with a noose around his 
neck in 1942 (FIGS. 42: The memorial 
commemorating Stjepan Filipović in 
Opuzen.70 and 43: The memorial 
commemorating Stjepan Filipović 
completely demolished by 
blasting.71). The dismay and protests 
of antifascists from Opuzen and 
67 The story of the memorial to Stjepan Filipović was presented in detail in a documentary by Irena 
Škorić; entitled Unwanted Legacy, this documentary is dedicated to demolished anti-fascist memorials 
in Croatia. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byKpQ4QcAwo&t=1s
68 Source: https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stjepan_Filipovi%C4%87#/media/Slika:Stjepan_Stevo_
Filipovi%C4%87.jpg (Retrieved in December 2020).
69 Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, 51.
70 Source: Putovima revolucije (ed. Dr. Zdravko Krnić), Zagreb, Turitkomerc and Republički odbor 
Saveza udruženja boraca NOR SR Hrvatske, 1979.
71 Source: https://radiosarajevo.ba/vijesti/regija/spomenik-slavnog-partizana-miniran-na-
njegovom-mjestu-industrijska-zona/366878 (Retrieved in December 2020).
Dalmatia directed at the Republic of Croatia’s highest authority did not 
receive a response.72
Gregor Jazbec maintained that a photograph and an accompanying 
text are preserved in Gestapo archives, which says, inter alia, that 
Filipović marched bravely alongside the guard, making the stride of 
72 Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, 51.
194 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
those accompanying him look ridiculous. When he was placed under 
the gallows, he kept shouting, insulting the oppressor and the great 
leader of the Third Reich himself with the following words: »Long live the 
communists, long live the workers’ struggle, down with Hitler.« His last 
words were: »What are you waiting for, what are you suffering?! Grab 
guns and expel this vermin out of the country! Long live the League of 
Communists of Yugoslavia! Long live the Red Army!« When his Serbian 
executioners put a noose around his neck, Filipović, who was of Croatian 
descent, said: »Do not hang me, my Serbian brothers, let the Germans 
do it.«73
Another eyewitness, SS Sergeant Maletan, wrote that due to his 
»inciting behaviour that could provoke incidents with a section of the 
infected Serbian population« he was hanged before eleven o’clock, as 
originally planned. In fact, he should have been hanged two months 
earlier, but was unable to stand on his feet due to having been tortured. 
They waited with the execution until he got better.74 
A photograph depicting Stjepan Filipović’s execution hangs in the 
headquarters of the United Nations in New York, as a symbol of rebellion 
against tyranny.75
The late Islandic film composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, made his 
directorial debut (which premiered at the 2020 Berlinale), a minimalist 
sci-fi abstraction entitled First and Last Men, which showcases by 
means of monochrome photographs in an exceptionally aesthetic 
manner the most renowned Yugoslav memorials commemorating the 
National Liberation War (Tjentište, Petrova Gora, Jasenovac, Kadinjača, 
etc.) without reference to their authors or locations.76 Memorials and 
their details are depicted through mists, while Tilda Swinton narrates 
73 Jazbec, Gregor. Bitka na Sutjeski. Gornja Radgona: Gregor Jazbec s. p., 2020, 242, 243.
74 Ibid., 243.
75 Ibid.
76 »Last and First Men.« https://youtu.be/nqDBlBKlbDA (Retrieved in December 2020).; Kohn, 
Eric. »‘Last and First Men’ Review: Jóhann Jóhannsson’s Posthumous Film Is a Dazzling Vision of the 
Apocalypse.«  https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/last-and-first-men-review-johann-johannsson-
berlin-1202213596/ (Retrieved in December 2020).
Razprave | 195
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
the story of an apocalyptically destroyed world, where former 
advanced civilizations were survived only by memorials with typical 
brutalist characters of concrete buildings. Even without knowledge of 
the context of the National Liberation War these memorials and their 
high-quality artistic expression represent a convincing document about 
life of a specific era. These works of art are marked by the spirit of the 
period that symbolizes the rebellion against evil and efforts for a better 
future. They induce, invite and encourage us to contemplate on man’s 
past and future actions. At the same time, they convey that mankind 
is capable of doing good but also perpetrating the most despicable 
deeds. Without preserving the collective historical memory, also by way 
of memorials, despicable actions might soon be repeated.
196 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archival sources
Owner of postcards and the author of the photographs is Božidar Flajšman, except 
where the authorship or source is specifically stated.
Bibliography
Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin, Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945-1991, ab, 
arhitektov bilten, mednarodna revija za teorijo arhitekture (ed. Miha Dešman), March 
2020.
Bogdanović, Bogdan. Bogdanović by Bogdanović, Yugoslav Memorials through the 
Eyes of Their Architect. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2018.
Broz, Josip Tito. Borba za osvoboditev Jugoslavije, članki in govori iz narodno 
osvobodilne borbe 1941-1945. Belgrade: Državna založba Jugoslavije, 1945.
Flajšman, Božidar. Podsreda, Zgodbe z razglednic. Podsreda: Kozjanski park, 2017.
Hrvatin, Josip. Aktuelni problemi istorijske nauke, Rasprava na predsedništvu Savezne 
konferencije SSRNJ (II), JIČ, XXII, No. 3, Belgrade 1987.
Hrženjak, Juraj. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000. Zagreb: 
Savez antifašističnih boraca Hrvatske, 2002.
Jazbec, Gregor. Bitka na Sutjeski. Gornja Radgona: Gregor Jazbec s.p., 2020.
Monumenti, promenljivo lice sećanja, katalog, eds. Daniel Bromund and Christian 
Pfeifer. Belgrade: Forum Ziviler Friedensdienst, 2013.
Niebyl, Donald. Spomenik, Monument, Database. London: Thames&Hudson/D.A.P., 
2018.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No.: U-I-107/96, 5 
December 1996.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No.: U-I-109/10-11, 26 
September 2011.
Pirjevec, Jože. Partizani. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2020.
Repe, Božo. »Jugoslovanska historiografija po drugi svetovni vojni.« In: Tokovi Istorije : 
časopis Instituta za noviju istoriju Srbije, 1-4 (199), 312−325. 
Repe, Božo. S puško in knjigo. Narodnoosvobodilni boj slovenskega naroda 1941-1945. 
Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2015.
Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia 1948−1980, ed. Stephanie 
Emerson. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2018.
Vis, eds. Drago Zdunić, Darivoj Žilić. Rijeka: Otokar Kerševani; Zagreb: Spektar, 1974.
Razprave | 197
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Periodicals: 
»Agonija učiteljice življenja.« (a conversation with Prof Miomir Dašić, President of the 
Historians’ Association of Yugoslavia, published in Duga, reprinted in Naši razgledi, 21 
November 1986.
Arsić, Mirko. »Ambicije in interesi.«  Komunist, Ljubljana, 27 December 1995.
Bilandžić, Dušan. »Predrasude povijesti.« Vjesnik, 9 November 1985.
Čepo, Zlatko. »Opake besjede gospode akademika.« Danas, 14 October 1986.
Flajšman, Božidar. »Pogumna vsebinska presoja.« Delo, 6 October 2011.
»Iz politike v zgodovinopisje.« Delo, 18 December 1986.
Rajković, Žarko. »Naše zgodovinopisje ne more biti brez politične vsebine.« Delo, 5 
February 1985.
Repe, Božo. »Kdo piše zgodovino?« Mladina, 21 October 2011.
Online sources:
»Bob Marley je ujedinio Srbe i Hrvate.« https://www.index.hr/magazin/clanak/bob-
marley-je-ujedinio-srbe-i-hrvate/399630.aspx (Retrieved in December 2020).
»Bomo z odstranitvijo kipov lahko odstranili tudi zgodovino?« https://www.rtvslo.si/
kultura/drugo/bomo-z-odstranitvijo-kipov-lahko-odstranili-tudi-zgodovino/527496 
(Retrieved in December 2020).
»Clinton ob spomeniku žrtvam v Srebrenici.« https://www.rtvslo.si/svet/clinton-ob-
spomeniku-zrtvam-v-srebrenici/9841 (Retrieved in December 2020).
»Don't Watch That, Watch This: Geek Cinema Selfie Party.« https://www.
riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/dont-watch-that-watch-this-geek-cinema-selfie-party/
Content?oid=2506803  (Retrieved in December 2020).
»Foto: Clinton v Prištini na odkritju svojega kipa.« https://www.rtvslo.si/svet/foto-
clinton-v-pristini-na-odkritju-svojega-kipa/215920 (Retrieved in December 2020).
»Foto: V Grahovem odkritje spomenika domobrancem in poklon žrtvam nacizma.« 
https://www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/foto-v-grahovem-odkritje-spomenika-
domobrancem-in-poklon-zrtvam-nacizma.html (Retrieved in December 2020). 
»Jutrišnja slovesnost na Kongresnem trgu: spomenik sprave ali spomenik razdora.« 
https://www.dnevnik.si/1042777875 (Retrieved in December 2020).
»Kenotaf žrtvam vojne za Slovenijo razglasili za kulturni spomenik.« https://www.
rtvslo.si/kultura/drugo/kenotaf-zrtvam-vojne-za-slovenijo-razglasili-za-kulturni-
spomenik/395307 (Retrieved in December 2020).
198 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
»Kinoteka BiH proudly preserves Picasso’s poster for “Battle of Neretva.« https://
visitbih.ba/kinoteka-bih-proudly-preserves-picassos-poster-for-battle-of-neretva/ 
(Retrieved in December 2020).
»Last and First Men.« https://youtu.be/nqDBlBKlbDA (Retrieved in December 2020).
»Makedonski Disneyland ali sejem baročnega kiča.« https://old.delo.si/druzba/
panorama/makedonski-disneyland-ali-sejem-barocnega-kica.html (Retrieved in 
December 2020).
»Naval jugonostalgije: Titov kip spet sredi Podgorice, nekoč Titograda.« https://www.
rtvslo.si/kultura/drugo/naval-jugonostalgije-titov-kip-spet-sredi-podgorice-nekoc-
titograda/476014 (Retrieved in October 2020).
»Odprli most v Mostarju.« https://www.rtvslo.si/svet/odprli-most-v-mostarju/21337 
(Retrieved in December 2020).
»Otkriven spomenik Rokiju u Žitištu.«  https://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.
php?yyyy=2007&mm=08&dd=19&nav_category=15&nav_id=259816 (Retrieved in 
December 2020).
»Partizanski spomenik.« https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partizanski_spomenik#cite_
note-1 (Retrieved in December 2020).
»Regioskop: Neželjena baština« https://youtu.be/byKpQ4QcAwo (Retrieved in 
December 2020).
»Spomenik pobjedi naroda Slavonije.« https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spomenik_
pobjedi_naroda_Slavonije (Retrieved in December 2020).
»Spomen-obilježja žrtvama Domovinskog rata na mjestima masovnih grobnica.« 
https://braniteljski.hr/spomen-obiljezja-zrtvama-domovinskog-rata-na-mjestima-
masovnih-grobnica/  (Retrieved in December 2020).
»Ulico Draže Mihailovića bomo branili s svojimi telesi.« https://www.delo.si/novice/
svet/ulico-draze-mihailovica-bomo-branili-s-svojimi-telesi/ (Retrieved in December 
2020).
»Vis –“Tuđe nećemo – svoje ne damo”.« https://www.sebenico.com/our-works/vis-
tude-necemo-svoje-ne-damo/ (Retrieved in December 2020).
 »Zakon o prestanku važenja Zakona o "Nagradi dr. Marija Schlesinger".« https://
narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1991_07_34_947.html (Retrieved in December 
2020).
Gall, Zlatko. »Kako se Hrvatska odrekla svojih mrtvih sa Sutjeske.«  https://
slobodnadalmacija.hr/kolumne/kako-se-hrvatska-odrekla-svojih-mrtvih-sa-
sutjeske-525772 (Retrieved in December 2020).
Klobučar, Teja. »Tomaž Pengov. Sedem desetletij od rojstva samospevca.« http://
www.sigic.si/tomaz-pengov-sedem-desetletij-od-rojstva-samospevca.html 
(Retrieved in December 2020).
Razprave | 199
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Kohn, Eric. »‘Last and First Men’ Review: Jóhann Jóhannsson’s Posthumous Film Is a 
Dazzling Vision of the Apocalypse.« https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/last-and-
first-men-review-johann-johannsson-berlin-1202213596/ (Retrieved in December 
2020). 
Kresojević, Željko. »Zapisi iz gore (4): Doktorica Marija.« https://banija.rs/
obicaji/20035-zapisi-iz-gore-4-doktorica-marija.html (Retrieved in December 
2020). 
Marn, Urša. »V Ljubljano se vračajo jambori z rdečimi zvezdami.« https://www.
mladina.si/185293/vrnitev-odpisanih/ (Retrieved in December 2020).
Pengov, Tomaž. »Napisi Padajo.« https://youtu.be/avXvAPqyvLo (Retrieved in 
December 2020).
Štok, Katja. »Bomo z odstranitvijo kipov lahko odstranili tudi zgodovino?«  https://
www.rtvslo.si/kultura/drugo/bomo-z-odstranitvijo-kipov-lahko-odstranili-tudi-
zgodovino/527496 (Retrieved in December 2020).
Vezjak, Boris. »Pahorjeva zlagana podoba spravitelja Slovencev.« https://vezjak.
com/2015/07/17/pahorjeva-zlagana-podoba-spravitelja-slovencev/ (Retrieved in 
December 2020).
200 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
SUMMARY
To understand why throughout Yugoslavia the attitude towards the 
partisan movement changed to the extent that it became a basis for 
the destruction of memorials, one must turn to the 1980s. In the 1980s, 
soon after Tito’s death, the discussion about World War II was almost 
completely transferred to the realm of politics. By evaluating World War 
II (and history in general), political elites in respective republics strove to 
solidify their position and vision of re-organizing the Yugoslav society. 
Anything associated with evaluating the past, i.e. works of art, memoirs, 
feuilletons or »proper« historiographical works, became subject to 
polemic. Consequently, the line between professional historiography 
and more popular genres was blurred and historiography became 
increasingly politicized, limiting itself to the  borders of its own republic. 
Following the first multi-party elections in respective republics (1990), 
history lost its political function as far as Yugoslavia was concerned; 
however, it remained an important, in some places the central factor 
in political battles within the newly established states. This new basis 
induced the new state or, and even more often local authorities, to 
demolish memorials, rename streets and schools or re-write history. 
Anti-fascist memorials were interpreted as symbols of the communist 
regime and of the socialist past, with which accounts should be settled 
once and for all. Historical facts, quality, artistic value and top-quality 
authorship were not regarded as factors in favour of their preservation.
Razprave | 201
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Uničevanje spomenikov NOB po razpadu SFRJ
Druga ali »avnojska« Jugoslavija (kot se je imenovala po 
Protifašističnem svetu narodne osvoboditve Jugoslavije, ki jo je leta 
1943 na zasedanju v bosanskem mestecu Jajce obnovil na federativnih 
osnovah) je bila utemeljena na narodnoosvobodilnem boju in sočasni 
revoluciji.1 Na tem je svojo oblast utemeljevala tudi Komunistična partija 
Jugoslavije (v petdesetih letih preimenovana v Zvezo komunistov 
Jugoslavije). Politična garnitura, ki je obvladovala Jugoslavijo, je izšla 
iz narodnoosvobodilnega boja in šele po Titovi smrti leta 1980 jo 
je postopoma zamenjevala nova, mlajša generacija. Tudi večina 
ustvarjalcev na vseh umetniških področjih (kiparstvo, slikarstvo, 
film, literatura, poezija idr.) je izšla iz narodnoosvobodilnega boja in 
revolucije, posledično je bila vojna v ospredju njene ustvarjalnosti. 
Vendar je pri navedenem treba upoštevati dve stvari. Prva je 
nacionalna raznolikost Jugoslavije, zaradi katere je tudi pri obravnavi 
druge svetovne vojne o skupni jugoslovanski umetnosti mogoče govoriti 
le na najbolj posplošeni ravni. Druga pa je specifičnost Jugoslavije v 
blokovsko razdeljenem svetu. Jugoslavija je po sporu s Sovjetsko zvezo in 
Informbirojem leta 1948 iskala vmesno pot med obema blokoma in bila 
ena pomembnejših članic gibanja neuvrščenih. Od srede petdesetih let, 
ko je uredila mejna vprašanja, je odprla meje z Zahodom. Posledično 
je prišlo do nastanka posebnega kulturnega okolja in načina življenja, 
v katerem se je potrošništvo zahodnega tipa prepletlo s socialističnim 
egalitarizmom. Zato so za Jugoslavijo – razen v prvih povojnih letih, ko 
je prevladoval sovjetski vpliv in socrealistični tip kulture – značilne zelo 
različne umetniške smeri. Tudi najbolj avantgardne, čeprav jih politika 
v posameznih okoljih ni vedno sprejemala z naklonjenostjo. Motivika 
druge svetovne vojne pa je v osnovi ostajala tradicionalna, črno-bela 
in seveda zlasti politično angažirana. Tudi to seveda ne velja absolutno, 
saj so tudi v obravnavi te tematike vidni različni slogi in pristopi. Koncept 
revolucionarne umetnosti, kot se je razvil med drugo svetovno vojno 
1 Za več glej: Pirjevec, Jože. Partizani. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2020.; Repe, Božo. S puško in 
knjigo. Narodnoosvobodilni boj slovenskega naroda 1941-1945. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2015.
POLITIKA BRISANJA SPOMINA IN POT DO NJE
202 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
znotraj odporniškega gibanja, se je v osnovi ohranil tudi v povojnih 
desetletjih, vendar le kot ena od (sicer pogosto favoriziranih) smeri, 
še zlasti na področju postavljanja spomenikov. Kultura in umetnost 
sta služili političnim ciljem: poveličevanju odpora in revolucije ter 
glavni paroli narodnoosvobodilnega gibanja o bratstvu in enotnosti 
jugoslovanskih narodov. Obstajale so t. i. tabu teme, ki v umetnosti 
niso bile zaželene oz. so bile prepovedane, zadevale pa so zlasti 
mednacionalne obračune med drugo svetovno vojno, nacionalistično 
pisanje o posameznih narodih in problematiziranje revolucije in njenih 
voditeljev. Politična meja med dovoljenim in nedovoljenim ni bila 
prav jasna, zato so umetniki, ki so hodili po robu, vedno tvegali, da 
ga bodo prestopili in padli v nemilost ali da bodo administrativno in 
sodno preganjani. Od različnih zvrsti umetnosti sta bila temu najbolj 
izpostavljena film in literatura.
Umetniškim tematikam naj bi oporo poleg spominov dajalo zlasti 
zgodovinopisje.2 Jugoslovanska historiografija je sicer imela nekaj 
ambicioznih skupnih projektov, ki pa so bili izvedeni le napol ali pa 
so propadli. V vseh sta osrednji ali zelo pomemben del predstavljala 
druga svetovna vojna in partizansko gibanje. Med uspele projekte, ki 
jih je uresničila celotna jugoslovanska znanost z znatnim sodelovanjem 
historiografije, lahko štejemo prvo izdajo Enciklopedije Jugoslavije v 
srbohrvaškem jeziku (zadnji zvezek je izšel leta 1971). K realizaciji je veliko 
prispevala avtoriteta vodje projekta, hrvaškega pisatelja Miroslava 
Krleže. Ponovljena in razširjena izdaja v jezikih narodov in narodnosti 
Jugoslavije, ki se je začela pripravljati leta 1980, pa je ob razhajanjih 
prav glede zgodovinopisnih tem uspela izdati v srbohrvaški izdaji šest 
knjig, v jezikih narodov pa (različno po republikah) manj. V zadnjem 
izdanem zvezku pa je jugoslovanskim zgodovinarjem še uspelo napisati 
geslo Jugoslavija. NOB in z njo povezana umetnost sta imela v njej kljub 
krizi v državi še vedno pomembno mesto.   
Največji in najambicioznejši projekt jugoslovanske historiografije je 
bila sicer Zgodovina narodov Jugoslavije, ki so jo začeli pripravljati leta 
2 Za več glej: Repe, Božo. »Jugoslovanska historiografija po drugi svetovni vojni.« V: Tokovi Istorije : 
časopis Instituta za noviju istoriju Srbije,  1-4 (1999), 312−325.
Razprave | 203
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
1949 na pobudo Sveta za znanost in kulturo FLRJ s prvotno ambicijo, da 
bi napisali učbenik za srednje šole.3 Projekt je v času, ko je bila Jugoslavija 
še centralizirana, vodila posebna vladna komisija in leta 1953 je izšla 
prva, nato pa leta 1959 še druga knjiga. Knjigi sta zaobsegli čas do konca 
18. stoletja. Delo je bilo nato prekinjeno zaradi globokih nesoglasij med 
zgodovinarji, ki so delali na tretji knjigi, še posebej zaradi nesoglasij 
med hrvaškimi in srbskimi zgodovinarji. Leta 1985 so prizadevanja za 
nadaljevanje Zgodovine narodov Jugoslavije (v naslovu so dodali tudi 
»narodnosti«) oživela in doživela politično podporo (sklep, da je treba 
delo nadaljevati, je bil med drugim sprejet na 13. kongresu ZKJ leta 
1986). Podpisan je bil samoupravni sporazum o financiranju projekta. 
Ambicije so bile velike, pričakovali so celo, da naj bi delo pri projektu 
revolucioniralo znanstveno organizacijo in znanstveno delo.4 Projekt 
pa je zastal že v začetni fazi, saj so se razhajanja med zgodovinarji 
medtem še poglobila. Če so prejšnje sporne teme segale od nastanka 
narodov do kraljevine, je bila tu že v ospredju druga svetovna vojna, 
zlasti vprašanje državljanske vojne, revolucije, medsebojnih obračunov, 
povojnih pobojev (ob tem tudi glede mednacionalnih odnosov v novi 
Jugoslaviji ipd.).  
Leta 1963 je izšel Pregled zgodovine Zveze komunistov Jugoslavije 
v eni knjigi z ambicijo, da jugoslovanski zgodovinarji v prihodnjih 
letih pripravijo večdelno zgodovino ZKJ. Novo delo ja na pobudo 
predsedstva CK ZKJ začelo nastajati konec sedemdesetih let. Delo 
je bilo zastavljeno zelo široko, z ustanovitvijo znanstvenih skupin za 
posamezna obdobja in mrežo sodelavcev po vseh republikah. Delo so 
koordinirale posebne komisije za zgodovino pri republiških centralnih 
komitejih in zgodovinska komisija pri CK ZKJ. Na koncu je leta 1986 izšla 
le ena niti ne preveč obsežna knjiga (416 strani v slovenski izdaji) v jezikih 
vseh narodov Jugoslavije in z naslovom Zgodovina Zveze komunistov 
Jugoslavije. Pri pripravi knjige so še bolj kot pri jugoslovanski zgodovini 
do izraza prihajali ideološki in mednacionalni spori, močan je bil vpliv 
3  Za več glej: Koren, Snježana. Politika povijesti u Jugoslaviji (1945-1960). Komunistička partija 
Jugoslavije, nastava povijesti, historiografija. Zagreb: Srednja Europa, 2012.
4  Josip Hrvatin. Aktuelni problemi istorijske nauke, Rasprava na predsedništvu Savezne konferencije 
SSRNJ (II), JIČ, XXII, št. 3, Beograd 1987, 195.
204 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
politike na nastajanje in vsebino knjige. Knjiga, ki je bila v javnosti 
sprejeta kot »uradna« zgodovina jugoslovanske komunistične partije in 
tudi njene zmagovite vloge med drugo svetovno vojno, je komajda še 
lahko izšla, saj so bili pogledi na zgodovino že tako različni, da je bil za 
dosego konsenza potreben močan politični pritisk in tudi »kupčevanje« 
glede vsebine. Zato so jo nekateri zgodovinarji označevali za »partijski 
priročnik«.5 Načrtovana večdelna zgodovina ZKJ seveda potem ni nikoli 
izšla, prav tako pa ne monografije o zgodovini komunističnih partij po 
republikah.
V osemdesetih letih je tako zgodovino narodnoosvobodilne borbe 
sistematično raziskoval le še Vojno-historijski institut JNA, ki je imel 
izpostave po vseh republikah ali pa so njegovi sodelavci (kot npr. v 
Sloveniji) delovali pod okriljem nacionalnih inštitutov. Institut je nastal v 
času Informbiroja z ambicijo prikazati resnico o narodnoosvobodilnem 
boju v Jugoslaviji, v naslednjih desetletjih pa je izdal več kot 140 zvezkov 
dokumentov. V tem kontekstu je treba omeniti tudi Vojno enciklopedijo, 
ki je bila izdana dvakrat: leta 1958 in 1970 ter ponatisnjena leta 1985. 
Seveda ogromno prostora namenja narodnoosvobodilnemu boju 
jugoslovanskih narodov. 
K oblikovanju zgodovinskega spomina naj bi prispevale tudi nekatere 
zbirke virov, zlasti izdajanje zbranih del Josipa Broza - Tita, ki so v 
srbohrvaški izdaji izšla v tridesetih knjigah, časovno pa je zbirka segla do 
avgusta 1946. (SLIKA 1: Zbrana dela Josipa Broza - Tita, časovno zbirka 
sega do 8. avgusta 1946.) Tudi izdajanje zbranih del se je – podobno kot 
zgodovina ZKJ – začelo na politično pobudo.6 Od podobnih projektov je 
bila uresničena le zbirka zbranih del Borisa Kidriča, medtem ko je bila 
priprava zbranih del Edvarda Kardelja prekinjena v začetni fazi. 
Da bi razumeli, zakaj se je odnos do partizanstva po vsej Jugoslaviji 
tako spremenil, da je postal podlaga za uničevanje spomenikov, je treba 
poseči v osemdeseta leta. Obravnava druge svetovne vojne (tudi sicer 
skupne preteklosti jugoslovanskih narodov) se je v osemdesetih letih 
5 Čepo, Zlatko. »Opake besjede gospode akademika.« Danas, 14. oktober 1986, 25.
6  Sklep o izdajanju Titovih zbranih del je sprejelo predsedstvo ZKJ maja 1972 ob Titovi sedemdesetletnici.
Razprave | 205
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
preselili skorajda v čisto politiko. Politične elite v posameznih republikah 
so skozi vrednotenje druge svetovne vojne (in sicer zgodovine) skušale 
utrditi svojo pozicijo in svojo vizijo preureditve jugoslovanske družbe. 
Vse, kar je bilo povezano z vrednotenjem preteklosti: umetniška 
dela, spomini, feljtonistika ali »prava« zgodovinopisna dela, je 
postalo predmet polemik, zaradi česar se je meja med strokovnim 
zgodovinopisjem in bolj poljudnimi žanri zabrisala, zgodovinopisna 
stroka pa vedno bolj politizirala in zapirala v republiške meje.7 »Kadar 
se cela zgodovina hoče napisati z določenih, medsebojno nasprotnih 
pozicij, to postane del politične borbe v Jugoslaviji,« je leta 1985 zapisal 
avtor Istorije SFRJ dr. Dušan Bilandžić.8 Tudi sam je svojo Istorijo SFRJ 
po razpadu Jugoslavije »predelal« v zgodovino Hrvaške, podobno se 
je zgodilo še z nekaterimi eminentnimi jugoslovanskimi zgodovinarji, 
ki so obravnavali zgodovino druge svetovne vojne, potem pa so 
svoje dotedanje raziskave podredili nacionalistični politiki in skušali 
relativizirati svoje dotedanje ugotovitve. V Srbiji je tak primer dr. Branko 
Petranović. Tudi v Sloveniji so nekateri zgodovinarji po koncu socializma 
in po osamosvojitvi svoje ugotovitve prilagodili aktualnim političnim 
razmeram – tudi tam, kjer ni bilo nekih novih odkritij bodisi o posameznih 
dogodkih in procesih bodisi o posameznih osebnostih – tu sta najbolj v 
ospredju Boris Kidrič in Edvard Kardelj. Tak obrat opazimo pri dr. Janku 
Prunku.9 Vendar je glavni revizionistični val opravila predvsem politika, 
prvič leta 1991, drugič mnogo izraziteje pa v času prve Janševe vlade 
v letih 2004−2008. Vladajoča koalicija je tedaj v nasprotju s prejšnjimi 
liberalnimi vladami spominu na preteklost in uporabi zgodovine v 
7  Le redki jugoslovanski zgodovinarji so se raziskovalno ukvarjali z zgodovino drugih narodov. 
Še posebej to velja za srbske zgodovinarje, pri katerih je bila ovira tudi neznanje jezikov nesrbskih 
narodov (čeprav stanja seveda ne moremo v celoti posploševati, saj se je npr. srbski zgodovinar dr. 
Momčilo Zečević uveljavil tudi z raziskovanjem slovenske zgodovine, obstajajo pa še drugi primeri). 
Zagotovo pa je bil za srbske zgodovinarje veliko presenečenje prodor mlade albanske historiografije 
v sedemdesetih letih, ki je (sicer pogosto usmerjena nacionalno romantično in tudi z zamolčevanjem 
enih in poudarjanjem drugih dejstev) začela rušiti srbsko predstavo o Kosovu, tako na splošno kot 
tudi glede druge svetovne vojne in njenega konca, s čimer je hotela zgodovinsko utemeljiti pravico 
Albancev na Kosovu do samoodločbe vključno s pravico do odcepitve. 
8  Bilandžić, Dušan. »Predrasude povijesti.« Vjesnik, 9. november 1985, 6.
9  Za več glej: Repe, Božo.  »Mit in resničnost komunizma. « V: Mitsko in stereotipno v slovenskem 
pogledu na zgodovino: zbornik 33. zborovanja Zveze zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, Kranj, 19.-21. 
oktober 2006. Ur. Mitja Ferenc in Branka Petkovšek, 285−302. Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev 
Slovenije.
206 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
aktualne politične namene pripisovala zelo velik pomen in skušala 
zgodovinsko zavest oblikovati po svoji podobi (podobno tudi v sedanji 
Janševi vladi, npr. z arbitrarno odločitvijo o muzeju osamosvojitve, kar 
spominja na nekdanje muzeje revolucije). To je, tako kot vse drugo, 
počela izrazito nedialoško in z oblastne pozicije. Kar dva državna 
sekretarja v kabinetu predsednika vlade (dr. Andrej Rahten, Aleksander 
Zorn) sta bila v mandatu prve Janševe vlade zadolžena (tudi) za 
zgodovino, precej energije je temu vprašanju namenjal še šolski 
minister dr. Milan Zver, minister za pravosodje dr. Lovro Šturm pa je 
ustanovil celo poseben sektor ministrstva, ki naj bi skrbel za »narodno 
spravo«, to je oblastno interpretacijo novejše zgodovine. Ta je skušala 
po vzoru vzhodnoevropskih držav povojno nasilje (totalitarizem) 
raztegniti vse do leta 1990. Iz sektorja pravosodnega ministrstva 
je tik pred koncem mandata nastal Študijski center za narodno 
spravo, ki deluje še danes in so ga vse vlade kot politično institucijo 
financirale neposredno iz proračuna. Nediferencirano črno podobo 
druge svetovne vojne in celotnega obdobja socializma ter usmerjeno 
interpretacijo osamosvojitve je s selektivno izbranimi dokumentarci in 
dnevnopolitičnimi prispevki nove garniture novinarjev aktivno pomagala 
soustvarjati tudi nacionalna televizija. Vzeto skupaj je bila intenzivnost 
ukvarjanja z zgodovino večja, kot jo je bila zmožna prebaviti celo 
oblast sama. Idejo tedanje direktorice Inštituta za novejšo zgodovino 
dr. Jerce Vodušek Starič, da bi inštitut po vzoru nekdanjih socialističnih 
držav postal »nacionalni« in na tak način koncentriral sredstva, kadre in 
dokumentacijske baze ter s tem dobil tudi nekakšen nadzor nad stroko, 
so uspeli ustaviti provladni zgodovinarji sami, saj je predlog posegal 
tudi v njihove interese. Po nekaj mesecih mandata je proti ideologizaciji 
in delitvam zgodovinarjev na »naše« in »vaše« protestirala skupina 
zgodovinarjev. Tisti, ki jih je oblastni glas lahko dosegel, so bili hitro 
opozorjeni, naj se javno ne oglašajo, naj raziskujejo »v novem duhu« in 
ubogajo. Posamezni zgodovinarji so v strahu za svoje službe ali položaj 
svojih institucij potem javno izjavljali, da je bil protest napaka ali da 
je šlo za prehitro reakcijo. Vladi všečni zgodovinarji, ki so po političnih 
kriterijih postali direktorji muzejev in inštitutov, člani raznih svetov, 
komisij in drugih teles, so tako dali tudi strokovni okvir in oporo za razna 
preimenovanja, postavljanje novih spomenikov in podobno.
Razprave | 207
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
A vrnimo se nazaj v osemdeseta, ki so bila v Jugoslaviji boj za 
interpretacijo preteklosti, kar je kontroverzni srbski novinar Aleksandar 
Tijanić ironično komentiral z mislijo, da bomo šele videli, kaj se bo 
zgodilo v preteklosti. Toliko knjig, strokovnih razprav, publicističnih del, 
časopisnih člankov, raznih okroglih miz, radijskih, televizijskih in drugih 
debat z zgodovinopisno vsebino ni izšlo oz. ni bilo v nobenem desetletju 
prej, morda celo v vseh skupaj.10 V tej ihti je bila prihodnost praktično 
pozabljena.
Krivulja obravnave zgodovinskih tem se je začela vzpenjati leto ali 
dve po Titovi smrti. Pred tem je še vladalo nekakšno pietetno zatišje, 
zbiranje sil, potem pa se je kar usulo in »zgodovinopisna nevihta« 
se je sprevrgla v vztrajen in nepretrgan dež, ki je ponehal šele v 
začetku devetdesetih. Najbolj intenzivne so bile polemike od srede 
osemdesetih let do leta 1988, ko se je oblikoval odnos posameznih 
narodov do bodočnosti Jugoslavije in so nastajali nacionalni programi 
(leta 1986 memorandum Srbske akademije znanosti in umetnosti, leta 
1987 slovenski nacionalni program, objavljen v Novi reviji). Po prvih 
večstrankarskih volitvah po posameznih republikah (1990) je zgodovina 
svojo politično funkcijo, kar zadeva Jugoslavijo, izgubila, še vedno pa 
je ostala pomemben, ponekod tudi osrednji dejavnik v političnih bojih 
znotraj novonastalih držav. Na tej podlagi so se nove državne, še večkrat 
pa lokalne oblasti tudi odločale za rušenje spomenikov, preimenovanje 
ulic in šol ter drugo retuširanje zgodovine na novi podlagi. Čeprav je 
bilo spornih tem v polemikah osemdesetih let ogromno in so bile zelo 
raznolike, zajemale pa so tudi različna zgodovinska obdobja (vendar 
s poudarkom na novejši zgodovini), pa sta povsem jasno prepoznavni 
10 Celovitega pregleda nad vso jugoslovansko časopisno in drugo historiografsko produkcijo, ki gre 
v osemdesetih letih v stotine člankov, si zaradi razpada države in pomanjkljivih dokumentacij niti ni 
mogoče ustvariti. V tukajšnji obravnavi je upoštevanih približno 150 časopisnih in revialnih člankov o 
tistih temah, ki so bile najbolj v ospredju polemik, s poudarkom na drugi svetovni vojni.
208 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
dve »ciljni« točki polemik.11 Vprašanje (socialistične) družbene ureditve 
je bilo problematizirano skozi kritiko revolucije v času druge svetovne 
vojne. Vprašanje mednacionalnih odnosov v Jugoslaviji pa je bilo 
problematizirano skozi kritiko jugoslovanskega (kon)federalizma, torej 
t. i. avnojske Jugoslavije, ki je prav tako nastala med drugo svetovno 
vojno na drugem zasedanju AVNOJ-a novembra 1943 v bosanskem 
mestecu Jajce.
V začetni fazi konfliktov je postal »objekt« obravnave zlasti Josip 
Broz - Tito, ki je bil kot vodja revolucije in glavni kreator povojne 
jugoslovanske ureditve simbol obeh spornih točk. Rušenje Titovega 
mita je začel njegov uradni biograf Vladimir Dedijer, ki je v tretjem 
delu »Prispevkov za biografijo Josipa Broza - Tita« objavil mešanico 
dokumentov, spominov in tudi nepreverjenih zgodb, ki so zadevale tako 
Titovo zasebno življenje kot tudi vprašanje revolucionarnih ukrepov in 
mednacionalnih odnosov.12 Dedijer (ki se mu je bolj kot za takšen ali 
drugačen politični koncept šlo za lastno promocijo) v tej knjigi še ni 
konsistentno načenjal obeh spornih vprašanj (je pa to storil v nekaterih 
kasnejših). 
Knjiga, ki je dejansko načela ideološko strukturo oblasti v Jugoslaviji, je 
bilo delo beograjskih sociologov Vojislava Koštunice in Koste Čavoškega 
Stranački pluralizam ili monizam (1983), v katerem sta avtorja opisala 
povojni prevzem oblasti s strani komunistične partije, pri čemer sta 
upoštevala zlasti srbsko videnje problema.13 (SLIKA 2: Naslovnica 
knjige Vojislava Koštunice in Koste Čavoškega Stranački pluralizam ili 
monizam, 1983.)
11  Med konkretnimi temami, ki so povzročale razhajanja, so npr. obstoj posameznih narodov 
(črnogorskega, makedonskega in muslimanskega), osvobodilni ali okupatorski značaj balkanskih vojn, 
t. i. bujanska konferenca konec leta 1943 (na kateri so se albanski delegati izrekli za priključitev Kosova 
in Metohije k Albaniji), nastanek Kraljevine SHS, vprašanje oborožene vstaje, državljanske vojne, 
ustanovitev federalne države, iz povojne zgodovine pa spor z Informbirojem, obračun z Djilasom, 
brionski plenum 1966 (obračun z Aleksandrom Rankovićem kot glavnim nosilcem jugoslovanskega 
centralizma), množična nacionalna in "liberalna" gibanja leta 1971 in še vrsta drugih tem.
12  Kritični zapisi o Titu so oblasti spodbudile, da so sprejele zakon o zaščiti imena in dela Josipa 
Broza - Tita, ustanovljen je bil tudi poseben odbor, ki naj bi se ukvarjal s tem (podobno tudi z zaščito 
drugih mrtvih revolucionarjev). Slovenski zgodovinar dr. Dušan Biber je nato ironično predlagal, da bi 
ustanovili kar odbor za zaščito revolucije.
Razprave | 209
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Drugo vprašanje, to je problem ureditve mednacionalnih odnosov 
v Jugoslaviji, se je odprlo ob objavi knjige Veselina Djuretića Zavezniki 
in jugoslovanska vojna drama. Knjiga (ki je bila proglašena za 
»prvorazredno historiografsko provokacijo«) je sicer imela za namen 
rehabilitacijo četništva. Đuretić je v njej problematiziral tudi vprašanje 
revolucije in državljanske vojne. Del knjige pa je bil namenjen tudi 
dokazovanju, da drugo zasedanje AVNOJ-a 29. novembra 1943 v 
Jajcu, na katerem je bila ustanovljena druga (federalna) Jugoslavija, 
ni ustrezno rešilo srbskega vprašanja. Z napačnim tolmačenjem teh 
sklepov naj bi se po pisateljevem mnenju kasneje začel tudi proces 
dezintegracije Jugoslavije. Seveda ni bilo naključje, da je bila ob svečani 
promociji Đuretićeve knjige v Srbski akademiji znanosti in umetnosti 
prvič omenjena tudi zahteva po t. i. tretji Jugoslaviji (povrnitvi na 
nekdanjo centralistično ureditev). 14
Medtem ko je pri kritiki (in obrambi) revolucije v vseh sredinah 
obstajalo določeno sozvočje praktično do konca osemdesetih let, pa so 
se sredi osemdesetih let nasprotujoče si pozicije nacionalnih historiografij 
že popolnoma izkristalizirale. Leta 1985 so izšla tri historiografska dela, 
ki so zbudila veliko pozornosti in so bila v različnih sredinah sprejeta 
zelo različno, pač v znamenju gesla »kakršno koli izjavo daste danes, 
bodisi o zgodovini, bodisi o čemerkoli, vnaprej veste, da bo vaša sodba 
v nekaterih sredinah dočakana z aplavzom, v drugih pa na nož«.15 Šlo 
je za knjige Dušana Bilandžića Istorija SFRJ, Janka Pleterskega Nacije, 
Jugoslavija, revolucija in Branka Petranovića ter Momčila Zečevića 
13    »Meščanska« interpretacija odnosov v Kraljevini Jugoslaviji ter vrednotenje narodnoosvobodilnega 
boja in revolucije se je sicer v posameznih delih pojavila že v sedemdesetih letih (prej je bila značilna le za 
pisanje emigrantskih piscev, katerih dela so ilegalno prihajal v Jugoslavijo). Meščanski pisci so v svojem 
pisanju negirali »plemenite« cilje revolucije, predstavljali narodnoosvobodilni boj kot državljansko 
vojno, dejavnost KPJ pa kot slepo poslušnost Kominterni in boj za oblast. Ta boj naj bi KPJ (označena 
za stalinistično partijo) dobila le zaradi spleta okoliščin in »makiavelizma«, z izvedbo revolucije pa 
naj bi jugoslovansko družbo vrnila v absolutizem 18. stoletja (to tezo je razvijal npr. Ljubomir Tadić 
v knjigi Tradicija i revolucija, ki je izšla na začetku sedemdesetih let). Pomemben element pisanja je 
bila tudi rehabilitacija kvizlinških in kontrarevolucionarnih sil. To pisanje je imelo določen vpliv tudi na 
marksistično zgodovinopisje, saj je le-to vsaj deloma načelo nekatere problematične teme (npr. poboj 
kvizlingov po drugi svetovni vojni ali t. i. »leva gibanja« (obračun z domnevnimi razrednimi nasprotniki) 
v Črni gori leta 1942 in tudi drugod). 
14  Čepo, Zlatko. »Opake besjede gospoda akademika.« Danas, 14. oktober 1986, 25−28.
15  Bilandžić, Dušan: »Predrasude povijesti.« Vjesnik, 9. november 1985, 6.
210 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Jugoslavija 1918-1984 (zbirka dokumentov). Bilandžić je bil obtožen, 
da Srbom pripisuje težnje po redefiniranju Jugoslavije, Petranović in 
Zečević, da sta z izborom in krajšavami dokumentov skušala prikazati 
srbski pogled na nastanek in razvoj Jugoslavije, Pleterski pa je bil 
kritiziran zaradi teze o »mnogonacionalni revoluciji« (vsak posamezen 
narod v Jugoslaviji je med osvobodilnim bojem med drugo svetovno 
vojno pod vodstvom delavskega razreda kot vodilne politične sile 
izbojeval temeljno politično bitko sam, na svoj način, s svojimi močmi in 
svojimi specifičnimi problemi). Tej tezi se je ostro uprl Petranović, zaradi 
česar je med obema zgodovinarjema prišlo do polemik (prvič sta sicer 
polemizirala že dve leti prej, leta 1983 ob izidu Petranovićeve knjige 
Revolucija i kontrarevolucija u Jugoslaviji). V polemiko s Petranovićem se 
je najprej na okrogli mizi v beograjskem Inštitutu za sodobno zgodovino 
nato pa tudi v časopisih konec leta 1985 spustil tudi dr. Dušan Biber. 
Slednji (sicer oster kritik poskusov rehabilitacije četništva in velikosrbstva) 
je nasprotoval Petranovićevi tezi, da so bili četniki tudi antifašisti.16
Srbski in črnogorski zgodovinarji (npr. Velimir Terzić v knjigi Slom 
kraljevine Jugoslavije) so v tem času lansirali tudi tezo, da je hrvaški narod 
leta 1941 izdal Jugoslavijo, čemur je javno nasprotoval predvsem hrvaški 
zgodovinar dr. Ljubo Boban. Na osnovi takih tez je del zgodovinarjev 
zahteval, da zgodovinopisje razišče in dokaže »obstajanje kontinuitete 
med nacionalističnimi in separatističnimi gibanji in organizacijami, 
ki so si prizadevale razbijati Jugoslavijo med svetovnima vojnama in 
današnjimi nacionalizmi«.17  V mislih so imeli seveda predvsem ustaštvo, 
ki je nato res prišlo močno do izraza med vojno na Hrvaškem. V 
nekaterih drugih delih (članek Vasilije Krestića O genezi genocida nad 
Srbima v Književnih novinah 15. septembra 1986) je bila postavljena 
teza o genocidnosti Hrvatov, ki naj bi izvirala še iz 16. in 17. stoletja, 
ne pa »samo« iz časov Pavelićeve NDH. To je pomenilo stopnjevanje 
historiografske vojne med hrvaškimi in srbskimi zgodovinarji (vsak je 
pisal seveda v svojih medijih).
16  Arsić, Mirko. »Ambicije in interesi.« Komunist, 27. december 1995.
17 »Agonija učiteljice življenja, pogovor s prof. dr. Miomirjem Dašićem, predsednikom Zveze 
zgodovinarjev Jugoslavije.« Naši razgledi, 21. november 1986.
Razprave | 211
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Vendar je zgodovinopisje izgubljalo pozicijo primarnega polja boja. 
V ospredje je stopila umetnost, zlasti literatura. V literaturi je bila ena 
prvih med številnimi literarnimi deli, ki so iz istega izhodišča kot srbsko 
zgodovinopisje obravnavala srbsko problematiko oz. problematiko 
mednacionalnih odnosov, drama Jovana Radulovića Golubnjača iz leta 
1980, ki je prikazovala odnose med Srbi in Hrvati v dalmatinski Zagori 
med vojno in je imela močno protihrvaško vsebino. (SLIKA 3: Naslovnica 
knjige Jovana Radulovića Golubnjača, 1980). Avtor je v njej obravnaval 
ustaške zločine med vojno, zamolčal pa četniške, ki so se dogajali na 
istem območju. Drama je bila sprva ostro kritizirana, potem pa celo 
nagrajena s tedaj prestižno mladinsko nagrado sedem sekretarjev 
Skoja. Radulović je čez nekaj let (v začetku leta 1989) hrvaške oblasti 
obtožil, da so Srbom v Dalmaciji (in na Hrvaškem sploh) vzele 
identiteto, jezik, pisavo in celo zgodovino. Najodmevnejše literarno 
delo v osemdesetih letih je bila sicer knjiga Danka Popovića Knjiga o 
Milutinu iz leta 1985, v kateri je avtor za srbske sovražnike razglasil ne 
samo Hrvate (kar je bila pogosta teza), pač pa tudi Slovence. Srbi naj bi 
osvobodili oboje, v zameno pa dobili Jugoslavijo, v kateri so nacionalno 
razbiti in ekonomsko izkoriščani. Knjiga, ki sicer govori o srbskem kmetu 
in njegovi usodi, je bila razprodana v tednu dni, sledilo pa je še trinajst 
izdaj. (SLIKA 4: Naslovnica knjige Danka Popovića Knjiga o Milutinu, 
1985.) Ko je bil zaradi zbirke pesmi Vunena vremena (v njej je žalil 
Josipa Broza - Tita) obsojen srbski pesnik Gojko Đogo, je bil v Beogradu 
maja 1982 pod okriljem društva književnikov osnovan Odbor za zaščito 
umetniške svobode. (SLIKA 5: Naslovnica knjige Gojka Đoga Vunena 
vremena, 1982.) Jugoslovanski intelektualci (tudi slovenski in srbski) so 
bili v prvi polovici osemdesetih let medsebojno solidarni pri obrambi 
umetniške svobode, čeprav je med njimi že prihajalo do nacionalnih 
nasprotij, ki jih je izzvala knjiga najbolj znanega srbskega pisatelja 
Dobrice Čosića Stvarno i moguče iz 1983. Oblasti v različnih sredinah 
so na tovrstno pisanje reagirale različno, z večjo ali manjšo stopnjo 
represije: s prepovedmi izdajanja, kadrovskimi menjavami, ponekod 
tudi aretacijami in obsodbami.
Navzkrižno obstreljevanje z zgodovinopisnimi temami je bilo 
za politiko dvorezno. Po eni strani ji je ustrezalo (in ga je – zlasti v 
212 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
medrepubliških sporih – spodbujala), po drugi strani ji je zraslo čez 
glavo, saj je načenjalo njeno legitimnost, utemeljeno v revoluciji. Zato 
je skušala komunistične zgodovinarje komuniste nekako pripraviti do 
tega, da bi »psa začeli loviti«. Ker pa so bili tudi marksistični zgodovinarji 
različnih nacionalnosti in kljub članstvu v ZKJ tudi različnih političnih in 
ideoloških prepričanj, nenazadnje pa med sabo tudi sprti, je bil to dokaj 
jalov posel. Med sicer številnimi poskusi ideološkega discipliniranja 
zgodovinopisne (in sploh o preteklosti pišoče) srenje na raznih 
ravneh so bili v osemdesetih letih najbolj odmevni trije: Posvetovanje 
historiografija, memoarsko-publicistička i feljtonistička produkcija 
u svjetlu aktualnih idejnih kontroverzi, ki je bilo 7. in 8. oktobra 1983 
v Zagrebu, Teden marksističnih razprav od 4. do 8. februarja 1983 
v Neumu in seja predsedstva CK ZKJ 17. decembra 1986 v Beogradu, 
ki se jo je udeležilo okrog šestdeset zgodovinarjev iz vse Jugoslavije, 
namenjena pa je bila pripravam na sejo CK ZKJ o ideoloških vprašanjih. 
Prvo posvetovanje je organiziral Centar CK SK Hrvatske za idejno-
teorijski rad pod vodstvom dr. Stipeta Šuvarja. Ta je za posvetovanje 
pripravil t. i. »Belo knjigo« spornih del o preteklosti, v kateri so bila sicer 
še prikrito (pod plaščem obrambe revolucije, Tita in jugoslovanskega 
socialističnega sistema) kritizirana zlasti dela srbskih piscev (v celoti je 
bilo v negativnem kontekstu omenjenih kar 168 piscev). Sam posvet (na 
katerega obtoženi niso bili vabljeni) je izzval ostre reakcije v javnosti, 
zlasti srbski. Objava razprav s posveta (Historija i suvremenost, Zagreb, 
1984) ni polemik niti najmanj umirila, kvečjemu povečala.
Teden marksističnih razprav v Neumu je ob sporih v zvezi s temami, 
ki smo jih že omenili, potekal zlasti v znamenju polemik zagovornikov 
»čiste« historiografije s tistimi, ki so trdili, da jugoslovansko zgodovinopisje 
»ne more biti čista znanost brez politične vsebine«.18 
Seja predsedstva CK ZKJ je bila v odnosu do idejno spornih besedil in 
pojavov kompromisna. Razpravljavci so menili, da na tovrstne pojave 
politika reagira prehitro, zgodovinopisje pa prepočasi, da zveza 
komunistov ne sme biti samo opazovalka v domačem zgodovinopisju in 
18  Rajković, Žarko. »Naše zgodovinopisje ne more biti brez politične vsebine.« Delo, 5. februar 1985.
Razprave | 213
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
publicistiki, vendar tudi ne bi bilo dobro, če bi prevzela vlogo dežurnega 
razsodnika.19
Omenjeni zbori (vključno z drugimi na republiških in lokalnih 
ravneh) k umiritvi razmer v »novokomponiranem« zgodovinopisju (kot 
so ga označevali po časopisju) niso kaj dosti prispevali, proti koncu 
osemdesetih let pa politika za morebitne nove poskuse discipliniranja 
ni več imela moči niti na simbolni ravni.
Rušilni epilog procesov v zgodovinopisju publicistiki in umetnosti 
se je preselil na politično področje, na koncu pa znova na vojaško. 
Jugoslovanske oblasti so v vseh povojnih desetletjih veliko stavile na 
jugoslovanski socialistični patriotizem, utemeljen v drugi svetovni 
vojni. Še posebej so bile pazljive pri mladih generacijah. Socialistični 
patriotizem, utemeljen v narodnoosvobodilnem boju, je bil tudi rdeča 
nit šolskih programov, še posebej pri predmetih, ki so poleg zgodovine 
zajemali literaturo, likovno umetnost in sorodne tematike. 
Hkrati je bila druga svetovna vojna navzoča tudi v vseh umetniških 
zvrsteh, segala je celo na področje stripa. Tako je bil v Jugoslaviji kulten 
strip o dveh mladih partizanih Mirko in Slavko. (SLIKA 6: Motiv iz stripa 
Mirko in Slavko.) A glavno vlogo v poveličevanju narodnoosvobodilnega 
boja in revolucije sta imela kiparstvo in slikarstvo, saj je v povojnih 
desetletjih nastalo na stotine spomenikov in spominskih obeležij v spomin 
na dogodke iz druge svetovne vojne. Nekako vzporedno s tem je bil 
film, ki je najbolj učinkovito ustvarjal črno-belo sliko dobrega (partizani) 
in zla (sovražniki). Slednje (zlo) je bilo, kar zadeva okupatorje, logično, 
saj so bili jugoslovanski narodi izpostavljeni brutalnemu terorju. Bolj 
problematično je bilo vprašanje »domačega zla«, torej kolaboracije, 
saj je v Jugoslaviji sočasno z narodnoosvobodilnim bojem potekal tudi 
notranji spopad. Jugoslovanska umetnost je do osemdesetih let redko 
posegla v problematiziranje tega ter v osebne dileme pri odločitvah 
posameznikov.
19  »Iz politike v zgodovinopisje.« Delo, 18. december 1986.
214 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Najpomembnejša oziroma najbolj glorificirana umetniška dela so bila 
tista, ki so bila povezana z voditeljem narodnoosvobodilnega gibanja 
in revolucije Josipom Brozom - Titom ter dvema najbolj znanima in 
mitiziranima bitkama jugoslovanske partizanske vojske: bitka na Neretvi 
in bitka na Sutjeski. (SLIKA 7: DVD ovitek za film Bitka na Neretvi.) V hudi 
bitki na Neretvi v Bosni spomladi leta 1943 je partizanom uspelo zlomiti 
četniške oddelke in se do sredine maja 1943 prebiti v Hercegovino, Črno 
goro, Sandžak in vzhodno Bosno. V ofenzivi na Neretvi je sodelovalo 
120.000 vojakov in 150 letal, močne oklepne enote in topništvo. Partizani 
so porušili most čez Neretvo, kar je Nemce prepričalo, da se bodo 
prebijali v nasprotni smeri. V resnici pa so porušeni most za silo povezali, 
odvrgli težko orožje, most prečkali in prebili obrambo okupatorjev. Pri 
tem so s sabo nosili tudi 4000 ranjencev, toda večino so Nemci nato 
zajeli in pobili med ofenzivo na Sutjeski (junija 1943). Srdite bitke, 
nečloveški napori, izčrpanost, pomanjkanje hrane in zdravil, nalezljive 
bolezni (zlasti tifus) ter maščevalni ukrepi napadalcev so v času obeh 
bitk zahtevali velike žrtve tako med civilnim prebivalstvom kot partizani. 
Tretjina od približno 20.000 partizanov (večinoma Srbov, Črnogorcev, 
Hrvatov, Muslimanov idr.) je na Sutjeski padla. Filma, posneta po obeh 
bitkah, sta bila najbolj znana partizanska filma socialistične Jugoslavije. 
V filmu Bitka na Neretvi so glavne vloge igrali Sergej Bondarčuk, Yul 
Brynner, Anthony Dawson, Milena Dravić, Boris Dvornik in Orson 
Welles. Plakat za film pa je za simbolično ceno – 15 steklenic vina raznih 
jugoslovanskih proizvajalcev – ustvaril Pablo Picasso.20 (SLIKA 8: Plakat 
Pabla Picassa za film Bitka na Neretvi.21) V Bitki na Sutjeski je Tita igral 
tedaj eden najbolj znanih zahodnih igralcev – Richard Burton. (SLIKA 9: 
DVD ovitek za film Sutjeska.)
V filmski industriji je sicer nastalo na desetine filmov in nadaljevank o 
partizanskem gibanju, večinoma je šlo za t. i. »partizanske vesterne«. So 
pa obstajale tudi izjeme – filmi, ki so v ospredje postavljali nesmiselnost 
vojne ter dvome in stiske ljudi, ki niso imeli izbire in niso mogli vplivati na 
20 »Kinoteka BiH proudly preserves Picasso’s poster for “Battle of Neretva.« https://visitbih.ba/
kinoteka-bih-proudly-preserves-picassos-poster-for-battle-of-neretva/ (dostop: december 2020).;
21 Dostopno na povezavi: https://www.google.si/search?source=univ&tbm=isch&q=picasso+nere
tva&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIicCkvrXtAhVmxYUKHXBvDA4QjJkEegQIAhAC&biw=1536&bih=722 (dostop: 
december 2020).
Razprave | 215
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
svojo usodo, denimo film Tri Aleksandra Petrovića (1965), ki je bil med 
drugim nominiran za tujejezičnega oskarja. Pripoveduje o treh vojnih 
izkustvih navadnega partizana, pri čemer vsako od teh opozarja na 
moralne dileme. Ali pa film Okupacija v 26 slikah Lordana Zafranovića 
(1978), ki je prikaz grozljive brutalnosti, ko v Dubrovniku, simbolu urbane 
kultiviranosti, zavlada logika krvavega nacionalizma.
Umetniška obravnava druge svetovne vojne, ki naj bi služila 
enakopravnosti jugoslovanskih narodov, krepila bratstvo in enotnost 
ter bila eden glavnih temeljev jugoslovanskega patriotizma, je svoj 
naboj, tako kot zgodovinopisna obravnava, izgubila v osemdesetih 
letih. V veliki meri je dobila nasproten, rušilen pomen. Seveda to ni bil 
vedno namen avtorjev, morda celo večinoma ne. Mnogi so postopno 
sproščanje političnih razmer izkoristili za odpiranje prej prepovedanih 
tem. A je bila umetniška produkcija znova instrumentalizirana v politične 
namene. Tokrat ne za jugoslovanski patriotizem in glorificiranje 
narodnoosvobodilnega boja, pač pa za rastoči nacionalizem in 
utrjevanje vloge nacionalnih politik in politikov po posameznih republikah. 
Politične elite v posameznih republikah so skozi vrednotenje preteklosti 
skušale utrditi svojo pozicijo in svojo vizijo preureditve jugoslovanske 
družbe. Nacionalni in ideološki konflikt med intelektualci posameznih 
narodov (hrvaškimi in srbskimi, slovenskimi in srbskimi, srbskimi in 
albanskimi) se je začel stopnjevati. Tako kot so razpadle povezave med 
jugoslovanskimi zgodovinarji, so tudi med pisatelji. Najpomembnejša 
skupna organizacija jugoslovanskih pesnikov in pisateljev, Zveza 
pisateljev Jugoslavije, je celo razpadla kot prva vsejugoslovanska 
organizacija. Morda najbolj simbolen pa je bil razhod kultnih igralcev 
najbolj znanih partizanskih filmov, npr. Hrvata Borisa Dvornika, ki je igral 
glavno vlogo v nadaljevanki Kapelski kresovi, in srbskega igralca Bate 
Živojinovića. Igrala sta tudi v filmu Sutjeska. (SLIKA 10: Eden od plakatov 
za film Sutjeska. Na spodnji levi fotografiji sta igralca Bata Živojinović in 
Boris Dvornik.) Po razpadu Jugoslavije sta se sprla in nista do smrti nikoli 
več spregovorila. Po prvih večstrankarskih volitvah po posameznih 
republikah (1990) je zgodovina druge svetovne vojne svojo politično 
funkcijo, kar zadeva Jugoslavijo, izgubila. Vsa umetniška produkcija: 
literarna, filmska in druga, povezana s skupnim narodnoosvobodilnim 
216 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
bojem, ustvarjanjem federalne države in jugoslovanskim socialističnim 
patriotizmom, je postala nepomembna in nezaželena. Pravzaprav je 
bolj ali manj vse, kar je bilo jugoslovanskega, postalo nezaželeno in celo 
sovražno, vsaj pri desnih in nacionalističnih političnih opcijah, medtem 
ko so leve taktično in previdno molčale.
A če z današnje tridesetletne distance pogledamo na celoten prostor 
nekdanje Jugoslavije po njenem razpadu, ki se je spremenil v kopico 
nedemokratičnih, nacionalističnih manjših državic, ki so vse deloma 
ali v celoti ideološko revidirale spomin na drugo svetovno vojno, je 
paradoksalno prav umetniška produkcija presegla razpad nekdanje 
države. Filme kot sta Sutjeska in Neretva so z enako mednarodno 
pozornostjo nasledili filmi Nikogaršnja zemlja, Lepe vasi lepo gorijo 
in drugi, jugoslovanska socialistična umetnost in arhitektura pa sta 
predmet mednarodnih razstav tudi v najbolj elitnih galerijah po svetu.
Partizanska umetnost je izhajala iz stališča, da partizanski boj ni 
bil samo boj proti okupatorju, temveč tudi boj za bolj pravičen, bolj 
človeški in solidaren svet. Ta ideja se je v Jugoslaviji združila in izrazila z 
napredno umetniško formo. Za izdelavo najpomembnejših antifašističnih 
spomenikov so vabili najboljše umetnike. S podpiranjem naprednega in 
svobodne umetniške forme se je jugoslovanski socializem razlikoval od 
Sovjetske zveze, kjer je prevladoval socrealizem, temelječ na slogu iz 
19. stoletja. Modernizem je po sporu s Sovjetsko zvezo v bistvu postal 
uradna umetnost v Jugoslaviji, ne pa socrealizem kot v Sovjetski zvezi in 
v takratnem celotnem vzhodnem bloku.
Pevec Tomaž Pengov je leta 1978 izdal ploščo z naslovom Napisi 
padajo, s katero je protestiral proti uničevanju slovenskih napisov na 
avstrijskem Koroškem.22 Politika je namreč vedno in povsod postavljala 
napise in spomenike ter jih tudi rušila.
Mnoge iz obdobja NOB so na večjem delu nekdanje Jugoslavije 
porušili. Krvavi razpad Jugoslavije je posledično povzročil postavljanje 
22 Pengov, Tomaž. »Napisi Padajo.« https://youtu.be/avXvAPqyvLo (dostop: december 2020).; 
Klobučar, Teja. »Tomaž Pengov. Sedem desetletij od rojstva samospevca.« http://www.sigic.si/tomaz-
pengov-sedem-desetletij-od-rojstva-samospevca.html (dostop: december 2020). 
Razprave | 217
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
novih spomenikov – v Sloveniji spomenike osamosvojitveni vojni,23 
spominske plošče domobrancem24 in spomenik »sprave«.25 Na Hrvaškem 
slavijo spomin na domovinsko vojno in prvega predsednika dr. Franja 
Tuđmana,26 Bošnjaki v BiH postavljajo spomenike svojim žrtvam.27 V Srbiji 
in BiH postavljajo spomenike Draži Mihajloviču in po njem poimenujejo 
ulice,28 spomenik sta dobila tudi filmski lik boksar Roki, ki ga je igral 
Sylvester Stallone,29 in jamajški pevec Bob Marley.30 V Črni gori so 
leta 2018 v Podgorici ponovno postavili Titov kip,31 v Makedoniji je bila 
nacionalistična vlada obsedena z antično preteklostjo, kar je razvidno 
iz postavljanja ogromnih spomenikov Filipu II. in njegovemu sinu 
Aleksandru Velikemu.32 Na Kosovu so postavili spomenik Billu Clintonu, 
nekdanjemu ameriškemu predsedniku itd.33 Večinoma gre za dela brez 
umetniške vrednosti,  v mnogih primerih za navaden kič. V letu 2020 
23 »Kenotaf žrtvam vojne za Slovenijo razglasili za kulturni spomenik.« https://www.rtvslo.si/
kultura/drugo/kenotaf-zrtvam-vojne-za-slovenijo-razglasili-za-kulturni-spomenik/395307 (dostop: 
december 2020).
24 »Foto: V Grahovem odkritje spomenika domobrancem in poklon žrtvam nacizma.« https://
www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/foto-v-grahovem-odkritje-spomenika-domobrancem-in-poklon-
zrtvam-nacizma.html (dostop: december 2020).
25 »Jutrišnja slovesnost na Kongresnem trgu: spomenik sprave ali spomenik razdora.«  https://www.
dnevnik.si/1042777875 (dostop: december 2020).
26 »Spomen-obilježja žrtvama Domovinskog rata na mjestima masovnih grobnica.«  https://
braniteljski.hr/spomen-obiljezja-zrtvama-domovinskog-rata-na-mjestima-masovnih-grobnica/ 
(dostop: december 2020).
27 »Clinton ob spomeniku žrtvam v Srebrenici.« https://www.rtvslo.si/svet/clinton-ob-spomeniku-
zrtvam-v-srebrenici/9841 (dostop: december 2020).
28 »Ulico Draže Mihailovića bomo branili s svojimi telesi.« https://www.delo.si/novice/svet/ulico-
draze-mihailovica-bomo-branili-s-svojimi-telesi/ (dostop: december 2020).
29 »Otkriven spomenik Rokiju u Žitištu.« https://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php? 
yyyy=2007&mm=08&dd=19&nav_category=15&nav_id=259816 (dostop: december 2020).
30 »Bob Marley je ujedinio Srbe i Hrvate.« https://www.index.hr/magazin/clanak/bob-marley-je-
ujedinio-srbe-i-hrvate/399630.aspx (dostop: december 2020).
31 »Naval jugonostalgije: Titov kip spet sredi Podgorice, nekoč Titograda.« https://www.rtvslo.si/
kultura/drugo/naval-jugonostalgije-titov-kip-spet-sredi-podgorice-nekoc-titograda/476014 (dostop: 
oktober 2020).
32 »Makedonski Disneyland ali sejem baročnega kiča.« https://old.delo.si/druzba/panorama/
makedonski-disneyland-ali-sejem-barocnega-kica.html (dostop: december 2020).
33 »Bomo z odstranitvijo kipov lahko odstranili tudi zgodovino?« https://www.rtvslo.si/kultura/drugo/
bomo-z-odstranitvijo-kipov-lahko-odstranili-tudi-zgodovino/527496 (dostop: december 2020).
218 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
se je v Evropi in ZDA razmahnilo množično uničevanje spomenikov, 
povezanih s kolonialno preteklostjo in imperializmom.34
Razumljiva so čustva ljudi, ki so trpeli zaradi nekoga ali nečesa, 
vendar z uničevanjem spomenikov ne bomo spremenili preteklosti. 
Kam pelje brisanje kolektivnega spomina z uničevanjem spomenikov? 
Je popoln prelom s preteklostjo sploh možen? Se nam obeta boljša 
prihodnost z izkrivljanjem preteklosti? Z razpadom Jugoslavije se vsaj v 
Sloveniji, razen nekaj izjem, ni uničevalo spomenikov iz NOB.
Eden od večjih posegov se je zgodil na Poti spomina in tovarištva 
(PST oz. POT), 32, 5 km dolgi pešpoti okoli Ljubljane, ki poteka po trasi 
bodeče žice, ki je med drugo svetovno vojno obdajala mesto. Postavila 
jo je italijanska vojska z namenom, da osami odporniško gibanje v 
mestu in prepreči njegove stike z okolico. Ljubljana ima v zgodovini 
druge svetovne vojne posebno mesto, saj je bilo le malo okupiranih mest 
spremenjenih v množični zapor, tik ob njem pa je potekala še močno 
utrjena okupacijska meja med fašistično Italijo in nacistično Nemčijo. 
Kljub temu so iz tega zastraženega obroča po skrivnih kanalih ilegalno 
prehajali partizani in aktivisti Osvobodilne fronte. Zato je pot ob nekdanji 
žici spomenik upora proti okupatorju v želji po svobodi. Leta 1985 so kot 
del celostne ureditve ob poti postavili tudi sedem jeklenih jamborov. 
Po mnenju arhitekta Janeza Koželja, ki je bil skupaj s sodelavci avtor 
celostne ureditve in označitve poti, so bili prav ti jambori, ki so služili 
kot smerokaz, ena od najbolj prepoznavnih prvin poti. Oblikovani so 
bili v jeziku ruskega konstruktivizma in so v strokovnih krogih znani kot 
instalacija neokonstruktivizma. Po osamosvojitvi Slovenije je tedanja 
desno usmerjena mestna oblast pod vodstvom župana Jožeta Strgarja 
jambore odstranila. V poti, predvsem pa v jamborih z rdečo zvezdo je 
videla ideološko konotacijo oziroma neke vrste spomenik komunizmu. 
Takratni mestni sekretar za komunalno dejavnost Janez Lesar je dal 
vseh sedem jamborov odstraniti pod pretvezo, da jih bodo očistili 
rje, prebarvali in ponovno postavili. Toda požaganih jamborov ni bilo 
več mogoče obnoviti, poškodovane so našli na odlagališču ob Zaloški 
34  »Bomo z odstranitvijo kipov lahko odstranili tudi zgodovino?« https://www.rtvslo.si/kultura/drugo/
bomo-z-odstranitvijo-kipov-lahko-odstranili-tudi-zgodovino/527496 (dostop: december 2020).
Razprave | 219
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
cesti in jih nekaj let hranili v Muzeju novejše zgodovine Slovenije. Leta 
2018 je nova mestna oblast pod vodstvom župana Zorana Jankovića 
postavila nove jeklene jambore z rdečimi zvezdami, kakršni so nekoč 
stali na križiščih poti z mestnimi vpadnicami (SLIKA 11: Eden od sedmih 
spominskih jamborov ob Poti spomina in tovarištva (PST oz. POT) v 
Ljubljani. Po osamosvojitvi Slovenije jih je mestna oblast odstranila in 
tako poškodovala, da jih ni bilo več mogoče obnoviti. Leta 2018 je nova 
mestna oblast postavila nove spominske jambore. Ljubljana, 3. november 
2020.). Ker so bili jambori del z odlokom zavarovanega kulturnega 
spomenika, je ljubljanski regionalni zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine 
na ljubljansko tožilstvo podal ovadbo zoper neznanega storilca zaradi 
suma storitve kaznivega dejanja poškodovanja spomenika, vendar 
ni doživela epiloga. Je pa tožilstvo ovadilo revijo Mladina, ker je ta 
Lesarjev nezakoniti poseg razkrila. A jambori niso bili edina žrtev 
poosamosvojitvene lustracijske ihte. Odstranjeni so bili tudi spominski 
kamni, ki so stali na 102 mestih ob poti, kjer so med drugo svetovno 
vojno stali bunkerji, poleg tega so bili že pripravljeni stroji, ki naj bi pot 
v celoti izbrisali. Popolno uničenje ni sledilo, saj se je temu odločno uprl 
civilni odbor za ohranitev poti, ki se je pozneje preimenoval v društvo 
Zeleni prstan.35
Nekaj podobnega je ena od Demosovih strank želela doseči z 
izbrisom Spominskega parka Trebče, ki se je kasneje razvil v Kozjanski 
park. Park z bogato zgodovino, spomeniki in naravo, ki prinaša 
prebivalstvu nove razvojne možnosti, so želeli ukiniti z argumentom, da 
gre za ostanek prejšnjega režima. Le po zaslugi nekaterih posameznikov 
se to ni zgodilo.36
Se pa dandanes skuša pod krinko sprave in pod pokroviteljstvom 
Boruta Pahorja, predsednika Republike Slovenije, potvarjati zgodovino 
35 Marn, Urša. »V Ljubljano se vračajo jambori z rdečimi zvezdami.« https://www.mladina.si/185293/
vrnitev-odpisanih/ (dostop: december 2020).
36 Flajšman, Božidar. Podsreda, zgodbe z razglednic. Podsreda: Kozjanski park, 2017, 78−79. V knjigi 
je objavljeno pismo Staneta Peterlina, ki je podrobno opisal zgodbo o Kozjanskem parku.
220 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
z novimi spomeniki.37 Slednji se namreč zavzema za skupna obeležja, 
za to, da so imena partizanov in sodelavcev okupatorja navedena na 
isti spominski plošči, kot se je zgodilo na Karlovici pri Velikih Laščah.38 
Reducirati NOB na bratomorno vojno je skregano z zgodovinskimi 
dejstvi. Kot da ni bilo okupatorja, katerega cilj je bil uničiti slovenski 
narod. Nemogoče pa je sprejeti, da bi se, če si to predstavljamo, na 
isti spominski plošči znašla imena zavezniških pilotov, partizanov, 
okupatorjev in okupatorjevih sodelavcev. To bi pomenilo enačenje žrtev 
in njihovih rabljev. S potvarjanjem zgodovine in pod krinko plemenitosti 
se tlakuje pot zgolj v nove delitve in nove grozote.
Po podatkih na Geopediji je bilo v Sloveniji doslej popisanih 5120 
partizanskih spomenikov, 2700–2900 pa jih vodijo v Registru nepremične 
kulturne dediščine.39
Nekateri spomeniki, predvsem podobe Tita, so šli v muzeje in jih niso 
uničili. Ali kot je dejal zgodovinar Peter Mikša: »Ne uničevati, ampak 
ohranjati in prikazati v kontekstu zgodovine.«40
Antifašistični spomeniki v nekdanji Jugoslaviji niso izražali le 
ideoloških sporočil. Mnogi med njimi so in še vedno imajo veliko 
umetniško vrednost. To so spoznali tudi v Muzeju moderne umetnosti 
(MoMA) v New Yorku, kjer so leta 2018 pripravili veliko razstavo Proti 
betonski/konkretni utopiji: o Jugoslovanski arhitekturi med letoma 1948 
in 1980. Razstavo je spremljal obsežen katalog, v katerem so podrobno 
predstavili vrsto spomenikov, ki se nahajajo v Ilirski Bistrici, na Petrovi 
gori, Kozari, Sutjeski, Kamenskem, Mostarju itd.41 Časovni okvir razstave 
37 O Pahorjevi zlagani podobi spravitelja Slovencev je več analitičnih člankov napisal filozof 
dr. Boris Vezjak: Vezjak, Boris. »Pahorjeva zlagana podoba spravitelja Slovencev.« https://vezjak.
com/2015/07/17/pahorjeva-zlagana-podoba-spravitelja-slovencev/ (dostop: december 2020).
38 Prav tam.
39 »Partizanski spomenik.« https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partizanski_spomenik#cite_note-1 (dostop: 
december 2020).
40 Štok, Katja. »Bomo z odstranitvijo kipov lahko odstranili tudi zgodovino?«  https://www.rtvslo.
si/kultura/drugo/bomo-z-odstranitvijo-kipov-lahko-odstranili-tudi-zgodovino/527496 (dostop: 
december 2020).
41 Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia 1948−1980. Ur. Stephanie Emerson. New 
York: Museum of Modern Art, 2018.
Razprave | 221
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
sega od Informbiroja do Hiše cvetja. Se pravi od spora Tita s Stalinom, 
kateremu je sledilo postopno odpiranje države in politika neuvrščenosti, 
do Titove smrti, ko se začne novo obdobje. Nekdanja država bratstva 
in enotnosti je začela razpadati. Zgodovinski revizionizem in norosti 
nacionalizmov so dobili krila. Zavladala je ideologija sovraštva.
Končalo se je s krvavimi vojnami.
V vsaki izmed šestih jugoslovanskih republik in dveh avtonomnih 
pokrajin je po eno mesto nosilo Titovo ime (SLIKA 12: Še za Titovega 
življenja in po njegovi smrti leta 1980 je bilo več mest v Jugoslaviji 
poimenovanih po njem. V vsaki republiki in pokrajini je bilo po eno. Po 
razpadu države v 90. letih pa so dobila prvotna imena. Razglednice 
iz 80. let prikazujejo: 1. Titovo Velenje - Velenje (Slovenija); 2. Titova 
Korenica - Korenica (Hrvaška); 3. Titov Drvar - Drvar (Bosna in 
Hercegovina); 4. Titovo Užice - Užice (Srbija); 5. Titov Vrbas - Vrbas 
(Vojvodina); 6. Titova Mitrovica - Kosovska Mitrovica (Kosovo); 7. 
Titograd - Podgorica (Črna gora); 8. Titov Veles - Veles (Makedonija).). 
Po razpadu Jugoslavije se niti eno ime ni obdržalo. Danes so ta mesta 
v sedmih različnih državah. Tudi impozanten most na otok Krk so iz 
Titovega preimenovali v Krški most (SLIKA 13: Titov most na otok Krk, 
odprli so ga leta 1980, po razpadu SFRJ so ga preimenovali v Krški 
most (hrvaško Krčki most). Razglednica, poslana leta 1984.). Po Titu 
pa so ponekod še vedno ostali njegovi kipi, poimenovane ulice in trgi. 
Novih pa vsaj v Sloveniji ni več možno poimenovati s tem imenom, ker 
je slovensko ustavno sodišče leta 2011 podalo tudi zgodovinsko oceno 
Josipa Broza - Tita in z odločbo prepovedalo poimenovanje ulice po 
nekdanjem predsedniku Jugoslavije.42 Kot ključno so upoštevali negativni 
vidik simbolne teže Titovega imena. Odločili so, da če nekaj hkrati 
simbolizira nekaj dobrega in nekaj slabega, kot celota ni sprejemljivo, 
saj simbolizira tudi nekaj slabega. V neki drugi odločbi pa so ustavni 
sodniki odločili, da Rimokatoliške cerkve (RKC) in verskih skupnosti v 
primerih, ko se pojavljajo kot denacionalizacijski upravičenci, ne bi bilo 
dopustno enačiti z veleposestmi fevdalnega izvora oz. z lastninskimi 
odnosi, ki izvirajo iz historično izkazanih fevdalnih odnosov. Kot temelj 
42  Odločba Ustavnega sodišča RS, št. U-I-109/10-11, 26. 9. 2011.
222 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
za dopustno razlikovanje je ustavno sodišče navedlo vlogo Cerkve kot 
obče koristne ustanove.43 Pri RKC je kljub njeni temni (tudi zločinski) 
plati zgodovine obveljala le pozitivna plat, ki je šla v njeno neposredno 
materialno korist, pri Titu pa je obveljala le negativna plat.44 Tovrstno 
arbitrarno črno-belo odločanje naj bi po mnenju ustavnega sodišča 
zavarovalo dostojanstvo ljudi!? Na podoben način so po razpadu 
Jugoslavije nekateri začeli obravnavati antifašistične spomenike. 
Partizane so začeli razglašati za zločince, sodelavce okupatorja pa za 
junake in žrtve. Antifašistične spomenike se je začelo interpretirati kot 
simbole komunističnega režima in socialistične preteklosti, s katero je 
treba dokončno obračunati. Začelo se je njihovo uničevanje, pogosto 
ob ravnodušnosti ali celo na pobudo državnih organov. Kakovost, 
umetniška vrednost in avtorstvo najboljših umetnikov seveda niso bili 
faktorji, ki bi odločali o njihovi ohranitvi.
Po do sedaj zbranih podatkih je bilo največ spomenikov uničenih na 
Hrvaškem. Juraj Hrženjak je o tem zbral obširno gradivo, objavljeno v 
knjigi Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, Irena 
Škorić pa je posnela zelo zgovoren in prepričljiv dokumentarni film 
»Neželena dediščina«.45  
Verjetno politične razloge rušenja antifašističnih spomenikov na 
Hrvaškem najbolje ilustrira grafit izpisan v čast poglavniku nekdanje 
ustaške Neodvisne države Hrvaške (NDH). Nahaja se v enem od 
zapuščenih prostorov nekdanje raketne baze Jugoslovanske ljudske 
armade (JLA) Stupišče na Visu v bližini Komiže. Likovni umetniki, ki so 
služili vojaški rok v JLA, so bili pogosto angažirani, da so z vojaškimi 
motivi in političnimi parolami poslikali vojašnice. Tudi v tej raketni bazi 
najdemo poleg ladij naslikane tudi jugoslovanske zastave in napise 
TITO, NAROD, PARTIJA, ARMIJA. Po razpadu Jugoslavije so neznanci tudi 
to bazo precej uničili, izgrebli rdečo zvezdo in zraven v zid vrezali napis 
»ŽIVIO ANTE PAVELIČ NDH.« Je pa nekdo v desni spodnji kot vrezal tudi: 
43 Odločba Ustavnega sodišča RS, št. U-I-107/96, 5. 12. 1996.
44 Flajšman, Božidar. »Pogumna vsebinska presoja.« Delo, 6. oktober 2011, 5.; Repe, Božo. »Kdo piše 
zgodovino?« Mladina, 21. oktober 2011.
45  »Regioskop: Neželjena baština« https://youtu.be/byKpQ4QcAwo (dostop: december 2020).
Razprave | 223
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
»JEBI SE ANTE, SLO.« (SLIKA 14: Napisu TITO, NAROD, PARTIJA, ARMIJA 
je neznani grafitar dodal ŽIVIO ANTE PAVELIČ, NDH. Raketna baza JLA, 
Stupišče (Vis), 26. junij 2004.).
Ena od oblik uničevanja spomenikov je tudi kraja bronastih skulptur, 
ki jih vandali pretopijo in preprodajajo. S tem se povzroča velika kulturna 
in zgodovinska škoda, ker v večini primerov niso ohranjeni kalupi, ki so 
velikokrat dela velikih jugoslovanskih umetnikov, jih ni mogoče ponovno 
uliti. 
Nekateri spomenike uničujejo iz golega vandalizma. Z uničevanjem 
spomenikov NOB pa želijo politični vandali izbrisati spomin na 
antifašistični boj, na katerem temelji sodobna Evropa. Zato tovrstno 
uničevanje pomeni tudi rušenje evropskih temeljev.
Nekaj primerov:
Petrova gora 
Spomenik vstaji ljudstva Banije in Korduna, odkrit leta 1981 na Petrovi 
gori, ohranja spomin na civilne žrtve in borce padle v boju proti fašizmu. 
Spomenik iz armiranega betona, kiparja Vojina Bakića, prekrivajo plošče 
iz nerjavečega jekla (SLIKA 15: Spomenik na Petrovi gori, razglednica iz 
okoli leta 1981.). Po razpadu Jugoslavije je komemorativna dejavnost ob 
spomeniku zamrla, v naslednjih letih pa so vandali popolnoma uničili 
tako stavbne dele kot zgodovinske muzejske in arhivske predmete. 
Uničevanje se še kar nadaljuje – ljudje še naprej odstranjujejo plošče iz 
nerjavečega jekla (SLIKA 16: Uničevanje spomenika na Petrovi gori se še 
kar nadaljuje. Petrova gora, 4. marec 2016.).
224 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Na Petrovi gori je delovala tudi partizanska bolnica in v njej zdravnica 
dr. Marija Schlesinger.
Zraven enega od podzemnih bunkerjev (zemunic) se nahaja tudi 
njen grob, kjer se je prvotno nahajal tudi njen reliefni portret z napisom:
SCHLESINGER Dr MARIJA
1895 - 1943
ZA VRIJEME 4. NEPRIJATELJSKE
OFANZIVE OVDJE JE SAHRANJENA
PARTIZANSKA DOKTORICA MARIJA
SCHLESINGER
MRTVA PARTIZANKA GROBOM JE
MASKIRALA I ŠTITILA RANJENE
DRUGOVE
(Schlesinger dr. Marija 1895–1943. V času 4. sovražnikove ofenzive je 
bila tukaj pokopana partizanska zdravnica doktorica Marija Schlesinger. 
Mrtva partizanka je z grobom prikrila in varovala ranjene tovariše.) 
(SLIKA 17: Grob partizanske zdravnice dr. Marije Schlesinger in vhod v 
podzemni bunker. Partizanska bolnica na Petrovi gori, razglednica iz 
okoli leta 1980. ).
Na betonski plošči je dandanes ostalo le še nekaj ulitih črk, zdravničin 
bronasti portret je bil zlomljen in v treh delih vržen v bunker.46 (SLIKA 18: 
Uničena plošča na grobu partizanske zdravnice dr. Marije Schlesinger. 
Partizanska bolnica na Petrovi gori, 4. marec 2016.). Sabor Republike 
Hrvaške pa je 28. junija 1991 sprejel ukaz, s katerim so razglasili zakon o 
prenehanju veljavnosti Zakona o »Nagradi dr. Marije Schlesinger«, ki se 
je podeljevala zdravstvenim delavcem.47
46 Kresojević, Željko. »Zapisi iz gore (4): Doktorica Marija.« https://banija.rs/obicaji/20035-zapisi-iz-
gore-4-doktorica-marija.html (dostop: december 2020).
47 Zakon o prestanku važenja Zakona o "Nagradi dr. Marija Schlesinger".« https://narodne-novine.
nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1991_07_34_947.html (dostop: december 2020).
Razprave | 225
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Makljen
Na planini Makljen v Bosni in Hercegovini so leta 1978 postavili 
partizanski spomenik v spomin na bitko na Neretvi (znano tudi kot četrta 
sovražnikova ofenziva ali bitka za ranjence). (SLIKA 19: Razglednica 
spomenika na Makljenu, posvečenega Bitki na Neretvi; zraven sta še 
fotografiji muzeja NOB v Jablanici, 1984.). Kip kiparja Boška Kučanskega 
je bil leta 2000 miniran, danes v zrak štrli samo njegova grozljiva 
konstrukcija iz armiranih betonskih stebrov (SLIKA 20: Miniran spomenik 
na Makljenu. Makljen, 24. april 2004.). Očitno so nacionalisti tudi ta 
spomenik interpretirali kot simbol komunističnega režima in socialistične 
preteklosti, s katero je treba dokončno obračunati.48
Tjentište
Izjemen spomenik, delo kiparja Miodraga Živkovića, stoji v Narodnem 
parku Sutjeska. 
Na Tjentištu so ga leta 1971 postavili v spomin na borce, padle 
v bitki na Sutjeski, v kateri so se partizani v peti nemški ofenzivi leta 
1943 z velikimi žrtvami (7366 padlih borcev) prebili iz okupatorjevega 
obroča. Zraven je še kostnica s posmrtnimi ostanki 3301 borca. Osrednji 
spomenik je od leta 2019 v dobrem stanju. V neposredni bližini so 
zgradili še nekaj objektov – spominski dom, nekaj hotelov in dodatna 
obeležja. Večina teh objektov je bila v času zadnje vojne poškodovana. 
Notranjost spominskega doma krasi 13 izjemnih fresk slikarja Krste 
Hegedušića, ki pa so doživele vandalsko izživljanje (SLIKI 21:  Okupatorji, 
upodobljeni na Hegedušićevi freski v spominskem domu bitke na 
Sutjeski, razglednica iz okoli leta 1975. in 22: Vandalsko poškodovana 
freska v spominskem domu bitke na Sutjeski. Tjentište, 6. avgust 2011.). 
Gre predvsem za vrezane datume in podpise posameznikov pa tudi 
za nekaj strelnih poškodb, kar kaže, da je šlo za vandalizem brez neke 
ideološke podlage. Spominski dom so pred leti vsaj toliko uredili, da 
so preprečili nadaljnje propadanje. Na Sutjeski je padlo tudi veliko 
Hrvatov, predvsem Dalmatincev. Ob 75. obletnici bitke na Sutjeski je 
48 Monumenti, promenljivo lice sećanja. Ur. Daniel Bromund, Christian Pfeifer. Beograd: Forum 
Ziviler Friedensdienst, 2013, 58−59.
226 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
hrvaški sabor zavrnil pokroviteljstvo nad slovesnostjo, redno pa podpira 
srečanja pristašev ustašev v Bleiburgu.49
Drvar
25. maja 1944 je nemški okupator izvedel desant na Drvar, ki je 
bil neuspešen poskus zajetja vrhovnega komandanta NOV in POJ 
Josipa Broza - Tita. Razglednica Drvarja iz okoli leta 1985 prikazuje 
parkovno urejen spominski kompleks na hribčku Šobića glavica nad 
mestom. Osrednji del predstavlja leta 1967 postavljen spomenik s štirimi 
poševnimi in v štiri smeri neba dvigajočimi se 20 metrov visokimi stebri 
z reliefnimi podobami iz časa 2. svetovne vojne.50 (SLIKA 23: Spomenik 
NOB v Drvarju, razglednica iz okoli leta 1985.). Monumentalni spomenik 
padlim borcem in žrtvam fašističnega terorja, ki sta ga oblikovala Lujo 
Šverer in Marijan Kockovič, je danes popolnoma uničen (SLIKA 24: 
Uničen spomenik NOB v Drvarju. Drvar, 26. april 2011.).
Vis
Kmalu po desantu na Drvar, 25. maja 1944, je politično in vojaško 
vodstvo partizanskega gibanja z Josipom Brozom - Titom na čelu 
preko Italije prispelo na Vis. V spomin na ta dogodek so v pristanišču v 
Komiži postavili spomenik z napisom: »Od 7. 6. – 15. 9. 1944 Tito je s Visa 
usmeravao borbu za oslobođenje zemlje i medjunarodno priznanje 
nove Jugoslavije.« (Od 7. 6. – 15. 9. 1944 je Tito z Visa vodil boj za 
osvoboditev in mednarodno priznanje Jugoslavije.) (SLIKA 25: Zgornji 
fotografiji prikazujeta partizanski spomenik v pristanišču v Komiži, 
posvečen prihodu vodstva partizanskega gibanja s Titom na čelu na Vis 
7. junija 1944. Razglednica iz okoli leta 1985.). Po razpadu Jugoslavije je 
bil spomenik odstranjen. Kaj točno se je z njim zgodilo, ni znano (SLIKA 
26: Pogled na pristanišče v Komiži po odstranitvi spomenika pod št. 14. 
Komiža, 26. junij 2004.).
Na proslavi dvoletnice ustanovitve Prve dalmatinske udarne brigade 
12. septembra 1944 na Visu je Josip Broz - Tito govoril tudi o bodočih 
49  Gall, Zlatko. »Kako se Hrvatska odrekla svojih mrtvih sa Sutjeske.«  https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/
kolumne/kako-se-hrvatska-odrekla-svojih-mrtvih-sa-sutjeske-525772 (dostop: december 2020).
50  Niebyl, Donald. Spomenik, Monument database. London: Fuel, 2018, 42−43.
Razprave | 227
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
državnih mejah. Takrat je izrekel tudi znani stavek: »Mi tujega nočemo, 
a svojega ne damo.«51 V spomin na ta dogodek so 27. julija 1964 v 
pristanišču na Visu odkrili monumentalen spomenik iz belega marmorja 
avtorja Antuna Auguštinčića. V spomenik je bil spredaj vklesan omenjeni 
Titov stavek, v stranskih in zadnji ploskvi spomenika pa besedilo o 
Prvi dalmatinski brigadi.52 (SLIKA 27: Spomenik v pristanišču na Visu: 
»Mi tujega nočemo, a svojega ne damo.«53). Leta 1994 je bil spomenik 
odstranjen in prepeljan v vojašnico Samogor, kjer je bil v naslednjih letih 
popolnoma uničen.54 Spomenik je bil odstranjen z odlokom občinske 
oblasti Visa, ki je bila takrat v rokah stranke HDZ (Hrvatske demokratske 
zajednice).55 Nekateri domačini so leta 2002, ko je spomenik že močno 
poškodovan ležal v zapuščeni vojašnici Samogor, pripovedovali, da 
ga oblast ni mogla razstreliti, ker je bil preblizu naseljenemu območju. 
Nekateri člani HZD so se bali, da bi ga morebitna nova oblast skušala 
ponovno postaviti nazaj. Da bi to preprečili, so na spomeniku z macolami 
razbili vse napise (SLIKA 28: Uničen spomenik »Mi tujega nočemo, a 
svojega ne damo.« Nekdanja vojašnica JLA Samogor na Visu. Vis, 27. 
junij 2002.).
Na hribu Čunkovica, približno pet kilometrov iz Visa, je bil postavljen 
kamnit spomenik angleškim pilotom. Napis se je glasil: »Na slavnu 
uspomenu avijatičara Royal Air Force, koji su dali svoje živote u 
operacijama nad Jugoslavijom.« (V slavni spomin pilotom Royal Air Force, 
ki so žrtvovali svoja življenja v operacijah nad Jugoslavijo.) (SLIKA 29: 
Spomenik angleškim pilotom na Visu pred izbrisom besede Jugoslavija 
in zamenjavi s Hrvaško.56). V začetku devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja 
so ob političnih spremembah in skrajnih nacionalističnih težnjah ta 
spomenik sicer pustili, odstranili pa so napis Jugoslavija in ga zamenjali 
51  Josip Broz Tito. Borba za osvoboditev Jugoslavije, članki in govori iz narodno osvobodilne borbe 
1941-1945. Beograd: Državna  založba Jugoslavije, 1945, 217−223.
52 Spomenik v pristanišču na Visu: “Mi tujega nočemo, a svojega ne damo.” V: Vis, ur. Drago Zdunić, 
Darivoj Žilić. Rijeka: Otokar Kerševani; Zagreb: Spektar, 1974, 77, 123.
53 V: Vis, ur. Drago Zdunić, Darivoj Žilić. Rijeka: Otokar Kerševani; Zagreb: Spektar, 1974, 77, 123.
54 »Vis –“Tuđe nećemo – svoje ne damo”.« https://www.sebenico.com/our-works/vis-tude-necemo-
svoje-ne-damo/  (dostop: december 2020).
55 Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, 235.
56 V: Vis, ur. Drago Zdunić, Darivoj Žilić. Rijeka: Otokar Kerševani; Zagreb: Spektar, 1974.
228 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
s Hrvaško. Na drugi strani spomenika je bil isti napis tudi v angleščini 
zato so tudi tu zamenjali Jugoslavijo s Hrvaško (SLIKI 30: Spomenik 
angleškim pilotom na Visu po odstranitvi besede Jugoslavija in zamenjavi 
s Hrvaško. Vis, 26. junij 2001. in 31: Spomenik angleškim pilotom na Visu. 
Tudi na napisu v angleškem jeziku so odstranili besedo Jugoslavija in jo 
zamenjali s Hrvaško. Vis, 26. junij 2001.).
Ostale spomenike posvečene pilotom pa so popolnoma uničili. Gre 
za spomenik na nekdanjem zavezniškem letališču, ki je na Pliskem polju 
delovalo po kapitulaciji Italije leta 1943 (SLIKA 32: Uničen spomenik 
na Pliskem polju, kjer je med 2. svetovno vojno delovalo zavezniško 
letališče, Vis, 27. junij 2002.).
Na križišču cest Vis-Komiža-Podstražje so leta 1951 postavili spomenik 
iz grobo obdelanega kamna (SLIKA 33: Spomenik na križišču cest Vis–
Komiža–Podstražje, posvečen padlim pilotom in oficirjem.57). Spomenik 
postavljen v spomin na padle pilote in oficirje je bil po razpadu 
Jugoslavije popolnoma uničen (SLIKA 34: Uničen spomenik na križišču 
cest Vis-Komiža-Podstražje, posvečen padlim pilotom in oficirjem. Vis, 
27. junij 2002.).
Podgora
Spomenik jugoslovanske vojne mornarice – Krila galebov. 
V vasici Podgora je bil septembra 1942 ustanovljen prvi oddelek 
jugoslovanske mornarice. Njeni vlogi je bil dvajset let pozneje posvečen 
spomenik, ki ga je odkril jugoslovanski predsednik Tito. Spomenik je 
med letoma 1960 in 1961 zasnoval kipar Rajko Radović. Skulptura je 
visoka 32 m, narejena pa je iz belega betona, ki se dviga iz črnega 
granitnega platoja dimenzij 12 x 30 m. Postavljen je med morsko obalo 
in strmo gorovje Biokovo in tako ustvarja močan vizualni poudarek 
v pokrajini (SLIKA 35: Spomenik jugoslovanske vojne mornarice – 
Krila Galebov v Podgori. Razglednica iz okoli leta 1975.). Po razpadu 
Jugoslavije so spomenik večkrat neuspešno minirali, pozneje pa je bil 
pomen dogodkov iz protifašističnega upora namerno marginaliziran. 
57 V: Vis, ur. Drago Zdunić, Darivoj Žilić. Rijeka: Otokar Kerševani; Zagreb: Spektar, 1974.
Razprave | 229
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Revizionizem se kaže tudi pri novem opisu spomenika na spominski 
plošči, ki trdi, da je spomenik posvečen vsem »hrvaškim mornarjem«, 
partizanskega upora pa ne omenja.58 Na večkratne poskuse rušenja 
spomenika je vezana tudi anekdota, ko je predsednik Hrvaške dr. Franjo 
Tuđman leta 1997 obiskal Podgoro. Med govorom zbranim je dejal: 
»Hvala vam Podgorjani, ker ste ohranili ta čudoviti spomenik.« Neka 
ženska iz množice mu je odvrnila: »Nismo ga mi ohranili, ampak je bil 
on s svojo žilavostjo močnejši od tvojih rušiteljev - minerjev.«59
Kamensko
Spomenik zmagi prebivalcev Slavonije (znan tudi kot spomenik 
ljudstvu-junaku Slavonije) je bil monumentalni spomenik iz nerjavečega 
jekla, postavljen na pobočjih Papuka, in sicer v bližini vasi Kamenska 
v današnji Požeško-slavonski županiji. Spomenik je delo kiparja 
Vojina Bakića. Odkrit je bil leta 1968 in je bil ob postavitvi največja 
postmodernistična skulptura na svetu (SLIKA 36: Spomenik posvečen 
zmagi prebivalcev Slavonije v Kamenskem. Razglednica iz okoli 
leta 1980.). Spomenik je bil leta 1992 popolnoma uničen (SLIKA 37: 
Uničevanje spomenika v Kamenskem, 1992.60). Obstaja sum, da so za 
razstreljevanje spomenika odgovorne sile hrvaške vojske.61 Ker je bil 
izdelan iz nerjavečega jekla, so ga v Slavonskem Brodu predelali v 
posode.62
Mostar 
Leta 1993 je hrvaška vojska v Mostarju porušila znameniti most 
arhitekta Mimarja Hayruddina iz leta 1566. Leta 2004 so ga na 
novo zgradili in slavnostno odprli.63 Niso pa obnovili izjemnega 
58 Bugarič, Boštjan {et al.}. Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin, Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945-
1991. Ljubljana: Društvo arhitektov, 2020, 108−109.
59 Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000. Zagreb: Savez 
antifašističnih boraca Hrvatske, 2002, 217.
60 Dostopno na: https://www.spomenikdatabase.org/kamenska (dostop: december 2020).
61  »Spomenik pobjedi naroda Slavonije.« https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spomenik_pobjedi_naroda_
Slavonije (dostop: december 2020).
62  Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, 8.
63 »Odprli most v Mostarju.« https://www.rtvslo.si/svet/odprli-most-v-mostarju/21337 (dostop: 
december 2020).
230 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
partizanskega pokopališča arhitekta Bogdana Bogdanovića, ki 
je doživelo več vandalskih uničevanj in je močno poškodovano. 
Pokopališče je oblikovano v terasah, vrezanih v pobočje hriba. Mesto 
mrtvih je zasnovano kot podvojitev mesta živih – z ulicami, trgi, 
mostovi, stolpi in mestnimi vrati. V masivne oporne stene, obložene s 
kamnom, so vgravirani ornamentalni simboli in imena približno 800 
padlih partizanov. Še nekaj sto neidentificiranih trupel počiva v skupni 
grobnici (SLIKA 38: Partizansko pokopališče v Mostarju, razglednica iz 
okoli leta 1980.). Miha Dešman je zapisal, da ga je presunil kontrast 
med zanemarjenostjo, tiho lepoto spomenika in nebrzdano turistično 
okupacijo bližnjega mesta z mostom, kjer je njegova lepota ponižana v 
slikovito merkantilno kuliso.64 Avtor spomenika Bogdan Bogdanovič pa: 
To je spomenik jugoslovanski solidarnosti. Posvečen je mostarskemu 
bataljonu. Ganilo me je, da so bili borci praktično še otroci. Njihova imena: 
bosanska, srbska, hrvaška. Spominjala so me na otroško križarsko vojno. 
Večina jih je bila ubitih. Njim so posvečeni kenotafi, simbolični grobovi. Nekaj 
ostankov je tu pokopanih, ne prav veliko. Spomenik je močno poškodovan, 
a ne da se ga porušiti, saj je vrezan v hrib in tako neuničljiv.65
Karlovec
V parku svobode v Karlovcu so leta 1955 odkrili spomenik padlim 
borcem in žrtvam fašizma, avtorja Vanje Radauša (SLIKA 39: Spodnja 
fotografija prikazuje spomenik NOB v Karlovcu, razglednica iz okoli 
leta 1975.). Spomenik je bil tako kot večina antifašističnih spomenikov 
v Karlovcu leta 1991 popolnoma uničen (SLIKA 40: Popolnoma uničen 
spomenik NOB v Karlovcu. Karlovec, 4. marec 2016.). Miniran je bil 
tudi kip Franje Pucaka. Združenje Hrvaški domobran (Udruga Hrvatski 
domobran) pa je na istem mestu postavilo spominsko obeležje ustašem 
in domobranom z napisom: »Hrvaškim vojakom padlim za Hrvaško 1941 
– 1945 in 1991 – 1995, Postavilo Združenje veteranov Hrvaški domobran 
64 Bugarič, Boštjan {et al.}. Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin, Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945-
1991. Ljubljana: Društvo arhitektov, 2020, 114−115.
65 Bogdanović, Bogdan. Bogdanović by Bogdanović, Yugoslav Memorials through the Eyes of Their 
Architect. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2018, 28–35.
Razprave | 231
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
Karlovec - 1991 – 1995.«66 (Hrvatskim vojnicima palim za Hrvatsku 1941 – 
1945. Podiže Udruga veterana Hrvatski domobran Karlovac). 
Opuzen
V Opuzenu so oktobra 1978 odkrili, julija 1991 pa z miniranjem porušili 
monumentalen spomenik Stjepanu Filipoviću, narodnemu heroju, 
rojenemu leta 1919 v Opuzenu, ki je pod nacistično-četniškimi vislicami 
(v Valjevu, 22. maja 1942) pogumno in z vzdignjenimi rokami klical k 
svobodi in pozival ljudi v boj proti okupatorju in njegovim služabnikom67 
(SLIKA 41: Obešanje partizana Stjepanja Filipovića 22. maja 1942 v 
Valjevu.68). Delo kiparja Mira Vuca in Stjepana Gračana je porušila 
skupina pod vodstvom ustaškega emigranta Daiđa, kasneje generala 
hrvaške vojske.69  
Do porušenja je bil spomenik Stjepanu Filipoviću skupaj z 
istoimenskim spomenikom v Valjevu v Srbiji, kiparja Vojina Bakića, ena 
od dveh monumentalnih parafraz znamenite fotografije Filipovića pod 
vislicami leta 1942 (SLIKI 42: Spomenik partizanu Stjepanu Filipoviću v 
Opuzenu.70 in 43: Z miniranjem popolnoma uničen spomenik Stjepanu 
Filipoviću.71). Zgražanje in protesti antifašistov iz Opuzena in Dalmacije 
vse do najvišje oblasti v Republiki Hrvaški so ostali brez odziva.72
Gregor Jazbec navaja, da se je v gestapovskih arhivih ohranila 
slika s spremnim dopisom, v katerem je med drugim zabeleženo, da je 
Filipović pogumno in vojaško korakal poleg straže, tako da je bil korak 
66 Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, 69.
67 Zgodbo o spomeniku Stjepanu Filipoviću je avtorica Irena Škorić podrobno predstavila v 
dokumentarnem filmu "Neželena dediščina", posvečenemu porušenim antifašističnim spomenikom na 
Hrvaškem. Dostopno na: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byKpQ4QcAwo&t=1s
68 Vir: https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stjepan_Filipovi%C4%87#/media/Slika:Stjepan_Stevo_Filipovi 
%C4%87.jpg (dostop: december 2020).
69 Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, 51, 69.
70 Vir: Putovima revolucije, ur. Zdravko Krnić. Zagreb: Turitkomerc in Republički odbor Saveza 
udruženja boraca NOR SR Hrvatske, 1979.
71  Vir:  »Spomenik slavnog partizana miniran, na njegovom mjestu industrijska zona.« https://
radiosarajevo.ba/vijesti/regija/spomenik-slavnog-partizana-miniran-na-njegovom-mjestu-
industrijska-zona/366878 (dostop: december 2020).
72 Juraj Hrženjak. Rušenje antifašističnih spomenika u Hrvatskoj 1990 – 2000, 51.
232 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
njegovih spremljevalcev videti smešen. Ko so ga postavili pod vislice, je 
obsojeni še vedno kričal, žalil okupatorja in celo samega vodjo velikega 
nemškega rajha z besedami: »Živeli komunisti, živel delavski boj, dol 
s Hitlerjem.« Njegove zadnje besede so bile: »Kaj čakate, kaj trpite?! 
Vzemite puške in izženite to golazen iz države! Živela komunistična 
partija Jugoslavije! Živela Rdeča armada!« Ko so mu srbski rablji dali 
zanko okoli vratu, je Fillipovič, sicer po rodu Hrvat, izjavil: »Ne obesite 
me vi, bratje Srbi, naj me Nemci.«73
Drugi prisotni očividec, SS vodnik Maletan, je zapisal, da je bil zaradi 
»hujskanja, ki bi pri delu okuženega srbskega prebivalstva lahko izzval 
incidente,« obešen že pred načrtovano enajsto uro. V resnici bi moral 
biti že dva meseca prej, pa zaradi mučenja ni mogel stati na nogah. Z 
usmrtitvijo so počakali do okrevanja.74 
Fotografija obešanja Stjepana Filipoviča visi na sedežu Združenih 
narodov v New Yorku kot simbol upora proti tiranijam.75
Zdaj že pokojni islandski skladatelj filmske glasbe Jóhann Jóhannsson 
je zasnoval režijski prvenec (premierno prikazan na Berlinskem 
filmskem festivalu, 2020) minimalistično znanstvenofantastično 
abstrakcijo Poslednji in prvi možje (Last And First Men), ki s črno-belo 
fotografijo izjemno estetsko prikazuje najbolj prepoznavne in kvalitetne 
jugoslovanske spomenike NOB (Tjentište, Petrova gora, Jasenovac, 
Kadinjača …) brez kakršnekoli navedbe avtorjev in lokacij spomenikov.76 
Skozi meglice prikazuje detajle in celoto navedenih spomenikov, medtem 
ko glas Tilde Swinton pripoveduje zgodbo o apokaliptično uničenem 
svetu, v katerem so po propadu nekoč napredne civilizacije ostali le 
spomeniki z značilnim brutalističnim značajem betonske zgradbe. Tudi 
brez poznavanja konteksta NOB ti spomeniki s svojo kvalitetno likovno 
73 Jazbec, Gregor. Bitka na Sutjeski. Gornja Radgona: Gregor Jazbec s. p., 2020, 242–243.
74 Prav tam, 243.
75 Prav tam.
76   »Last and First Men.« https://youtu.be/nqDBlBKlbDA (dostop: december 2020); Kohn, Eric. 
»‘Last and First Men’ Review: Jóhann Jóhannsson’s Posthumous Film Is a Dazzling Vision of the 
Apocalypse.«  https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/last-and-first-men-review-johann-johannsson-
berlin-1202213596/ (dostop: december 2020).
Razprave | 233
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
govorico predstavljajo prepričljiv dokument o življenju določenega 
časa. Umetniki so v ta dela vnesli duha časa, ki ga simbolizira upor proti 
zlu in prizadevanje za boljšo prihodnost. Ti spomeniki opozarjajo, vabijo 
in spodbujajo k razmisleku o človekovih preteklih in bodočih ravnanjih. 
Hkrati sporočajo, da je človeštvo sposobno dobrih, istočasno pa tudi 
najbolj zavržnih dejanj. Brez ohranjanja kolektivnega zgodovinskega 
spomina (tudi s spomeniki) se nam zavržna dejanja lahko zelo hitro 
ponovijo.
234 | Razprave
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
SLIKOVNO GRADIVO
Lastnik razglednic in avtor fotografij je Božidar Flajšman, razen tistih, kjer je avtorstvo 
ali vir posebej naveden.
LITERATURA
Glej angleški del prispevka.
Razprave | 235
The Politics of Erasing Remembrance 
and the Path to It
POVZETEK
Da bi razumeli, zakaj se je odnos do partizanstva po vsej Jugoslaviji 
tako spremenil, da je postal podlaga za uničevanje spomenikov, 
je treba poseči v osemdeseta leta. Obravnava druge svetovne se je 
v kmalu po Titovi smrti v osemdesetih letih preselila skorajda v čisto 
politiko. Politične elite v posameznih republikah so skozi vrednotenje 
druge svetovne vojne (in sicer zgodovine) skušale utrditi svojo pozicijo 
in vizijo preureditve jugoslovanske družbe. Vse, kar je bilo povezano 
z vrednotenjem preteklosti: umetniška dela, spomini, feljtonistika ali 
»prava« zgodovinopisna dela, je postalo predmet polemik, zaradi 
česar se je meja med strokovnim zgodovinopisjem in bolj poljudnimi 
žanri zabrisala, zgodovinopisna stroka pa vedno bolj politizirala 
in zapirala v republiške meje. Po prvih večstrankarskih volitvah po 
posameznih republikah (1990) je zgodovina svojo politično funkcijo, 
kar zadeva Jugoslavijo, izgubila, še vedno pa je ostala pomemben, 
ponekod tudi osrednji dejavnik v političnih bojih znotraj novonastalih 
držav. Na tej podlagi so se nove državne, še večkrat pa lokalne oblasti 
tudi odločale za rušenje spomenikov, preimenovanje ulic in šol ter drugo 
retuširanje zgodovine na novi podlagi. Antifašistične spomenike se je 
začelo interpretirati kot simbole komunističnega režima in socialistične 
preteklosti, s katero je treba dokončno obračunati. Zgodovinska dejstva, 
kakovost, umetniška vrednost in avtorstvo najboljših umetnikov seveda 
niso bili faktorji, ki bi odločali o njihovi ohranitvi.