Croatia under the Ustasha
Stuart Germain
History 312: Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century
Dr. K. Flatt
Redeemer University College
November 10, 2014 Many European countries adopted new forms of government in the twentieth century. One of these countries was Croatia which under the control of a group called the Ustasha adopted a Fascist political system for the Independent State of Croatia that emerged in 1941. The name Ustasha came from the Croatian word for uprising, ustanak, where an Ustasha is someone that takes part in an ustanak. A fascist government is no necessarily totalitarian where Totalitarianism is “A political system in which a single political party seeks, on the basis of a comprehensive legitimating
…show more content…
Although the Ustasha didn’t gain control of Croatia until April 10, 1941 the events that took place in the post-World War I Balkans led to the establishment of the Ustasha and the strengthening of Croatian nationalism. After World War I the Austro-Hungarian Empire fell apart. This collapse left all of the former countries that had been subjugated by the empire free to govern themselves. Croatia was made part of a nation that would later be called Yugoslavia with Serbia, and Slovenia by a national council with members from each of the countries. After an attack on the members of the Croatian …show more content…
The Ustasha Croatian Revolutionary organization was led by Gustav Percec and Ante Pavelic, who was a lawyer for the Croatian Party of Rights (HSP) and was made up of a large number of students and youth radicals. The movement was rooted in a distinct ideology that was based on extreme nationalism. In many ways the movement was not unlike the fascist movements in Germany and Italy. The Ustasha wanted to liberate the Croatian people through whatever means necessary from their Serbian oppressors and set up an independent Croatian state (NDH) which would be purely Croatian. At the very core of this nationalist ideology was an emphasis on youth, dynamism, and energy. This emphasis on youth would embody the struggle that was taking place in Croatia between the new “youthful” fascist movement and the old, liberal democracy, and Yugoslavism. The very essence of the Ustasha Ideology can be seen in a statement from the Ustasha programme of June 1941, “In the Ustasha state, created by the poglavnik [leader] and his Ustashas, people must think like Ustashas, speak like Ustashas, and - most important of all - act like Ustashas. In a word, the entire life in the NDH (Independent State of Croatia) must be Ustasha-based.” If this Ustasha statement is viewed in light of the definition for totalitarianism presented earlier in
In fact, sometimes it is actively encouraged as part of preserving the culture and the traditional aspects of the nation in question; for example, routine celebrations of national holiday and the wearing of cultural clothing demonstrate moderate forms of nationalism. However, it is when extreme pride in one’s nation leads to acts that contravene common decency that the forces of nationalism become dangerous. A historical example of such an event was the Bosnian war and the resulting Bosnian genocide that occurred shortly after the partition of Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s. In this event, extreme Serbian nationalism called for the unity of the Serbian peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina - an event that echoes the words of the source. Serbian leaders and followers believed that their culture and people were superior to that of the neighbouring ethnic groups - the Bosniaks and the Croatians - and thought that they needed to be eliminated because of the potential threat they posed to the establishment of an autonomous Serbian Republic, or “Greater Serbia”. In the course of the war, and the ethnic cleansing that followed, more than 100,000 Bosniaks and Croatians were to be killed in a mass act of genocide. This appalling and gruesome figure shows the extent to which extreme nationalism is unacceptable and how unification of a people by force is both detrimental and wrong on all
The United States Involvement in Bosnia; is it positive or negative. After a lifetime of war in Bosnia, can the United States really offer positive change? To truly get a feel for the conflict in this region we must first look at the long-standing hatred between the occupying ethnic groups: Serbs, Muslims, and Croats. From 1481 to 1903 the Ottoman Empire was the ruling body over the entire Balkan region. By the early nineteen hundreds the Ottoman Empire had collapsed. In 1918, at the end of World War One, Russia annexed the Balkan region renaming it Yugoslavia. In 1919 Joseph Stalin, Communist ruler of Russia and its satellite states (i.e. Yugoslavia), appointed Tito to be the head of Yugoslavia. Tito quickly became an iron fisted and ruthless dictator. The Machiavellian characteristics exhibited by Tito have given all Serbs a reputation as being strong armed and merciless. With Tito’s death in 1991, Yugoslavia collapsed and split into 3 independent states: Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Croatia. In 1994 Slovadon Malosovitch was elected ruler of the Serbian state. Incidents of mass genocide and several other war crimes became regular occurrences under his rule. The Bosnian crisis has shown the world the worst of human nature. On behalf of the United Nations, in an effort to settle the unrest in the Balkan region, The United States became involved in 1995. The United States involvement includes: the commitment of twenty thousand troops, the troop support of legions of tanks and other vehicles, and the “full support” of the United States Government.
opposed to those who saw themselves as Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats. These nations were members of Yugoslavia, later to become the independent states of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina. Macedonia and Serbia. The participants were all members of the Yugoslav state and gained recognition as states later, after its. collapse. Then the sand is broken.
A new leader arose by the late 1980s, a Serbian named Slobodan Milosevic, a former Communist who had turned to nationalism and religious hatred to gain power. He began by inflaming long-standing tensions between Serbs and Muslims in the independent provence of Kosovo. Orthodox Christian Serbs in Kosovo were in the minority and claimed they were being mistreated by the Albanian Muslim majority. Serbian-backed political unrest in Kosovo eventually led to its loss of independence and domination by Milosevic. In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia both declared their independence from Yugoslavia soon resulting in civil war. The national army of Yugoslavia, now made up of Serbs controlled by Milosevic, stormed into Slovenia but failed to subdue the separatists there and withdrew after only ten days of fighting. Milosevic quickly lost interest in Slovenia, a country with almost no Serbs. Instead, he turned his attention to Croatia, a Catholic country where Orthodox Serbs made up 12 percent of the population. During World War II, Croatia had been a pro-Nazi state led by Ante Pavelic and his fascist Ustasha Party. Serbs living in Croatia as well as Jews had been the targets of widespread Ustasha massacres.
Fascism is one of the great political ideology in the 20th century. It is a kind of authoritarian government that, according to Wikipedia, “considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.” Two of the most successful and to be in the vanguard of fascism government is Italian fascism – led by Benito Mussolini, and Nazi Germany – led by Adolf Hitler. Fascism in Italy and Germany, though in many regards very similar - have the same political ideologies, still have many aspects to them that make them different from each other.
Fascism is defined as, “an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.” Peter Hyland reports that throughout the 1920s and the 1930s, an economic depression was growing and becoming widespread throughout the world. People were losing faith in their democracies and in capitalism. Leaders who gained power supported powerful militarism, nationalism, and initiated the return of an authoritarian rule. J.R. Oppenheimer says that the rise of fascism and totalitarianism in Europe and Russia instigated a “critical step on the path to war.” In 1922, Benito Mussolini held leadership in Italy, promising a proficient and militaristic nationalistic state. During his control as prime minister, he gained a large group of followers, banned the disparagement of government, and used extreme violence against his enemies within the parliament.
Their action to prevent this was to dissolve the rest of Yugoslavia and created Serbia and Montenegro. This was the end of Yugoslavia.
It was created out of the Austria-Hungary empire that lost the war and lost its land. Serbians, Croatians, Slovenes, and Bosnians and Muslims lived all in one country. The problem was the people didn't get along and each republic wanted to take control of the country. This went on until after WWII, when the Soviet Union took power and control over the country. Joseph Broz (Tito) was leader of Yugoslavia until the 6 republics separated.
One of the worst nations to suffer from Stalin’s great purges in the Soviet Union was not the Russians. Fascist sought to rejuvenate their nation based on commitment to the national community as an organic entity which individuals are bound together by ancestry, culture, and blood which are all super personal connections. However, even though Stalin did enforce Russia of the Soviet Union the main enemies of his were the political opponents and their followers. His most ferocious acts of terror “The Great Purges” took place between 1934 and 1939.
It was during the 1920’s to the 1940’s that totalitarian control over the state escalated into full dictatorships, with the wills of the people being manipulated into a set of beliefs that would promote the fascist state and “doctrines”.
The last two decades of the twentieth century gave rise to turbulent times for constituent republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, eventually leading them to split apart. There were a number of damaging aspects of past history and of the political and economic circumstances that contributed to the breakup and eventually caused the situation to snowball into a deadly series of inter-ethnic conflicts. Yugoslavia was reunified at the end of the war when the communist forces of Josip Broz Tito liberated the country. Under Tito, Yugoslavia adopted a relatively liberal form of government in comparison to other East European communist states at the time and experienced a period of relative economic and political stability until Tito’s death in 1980. In addition to internal power struggles following the loss of their longtime leader, Yugoslavia faced an unprecedented economic crisis in the 1980’s. As other communist states began to fall in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, some former Communist leaders abandoned communism and founded or supported ethno-national parties, blaming the economic suffering on the flaws of communism and other ethnic groups. The ethnic violence that followed would not have been possible without the willingness of politicians from every side to promote ethno-nationalist symbols and myths through media blitzes, which were especially effective due to low levels of education in the former Yugoslavia. Shadows of the events of World War II gave these politicians, especially the Serbs, an opportunity to encourage the discussion and exaggeration of past atrocities later in the century. The ethnic violence in the former Yugoslavia can be traced back to a series of linked damaging factors such as the de...
Croatia intended to break away from Yugoslavia to become an independent country, while Serbians living in Croatia, supported the Yugoslavian war efforts. They combated the withdrawal that Croatia wanted because they wanted Croatia to stay under the control of Yugoslavia, because the Serbs sought to be a new state with new borders in parts of Croatia. The Serbs envisioned themselves as the majority in the country order to bring to make this vision a reality the Serbs attempted to takeover as much of Croatia as they could.
For a historian, the 20th century and all the historic events that it encompasses represents a utopia with endless sources of inspiration for the analysis of political figures, events and their consequences. Political figures such as Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mao Zedong of China and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union are all names we are familiar with due to the time period that they influenced; this time period after the trauma and atrocities of World War I and the Great Depression led to completely new forms of government in Europe and beyond. These “manifestations of political evil”, commonly known as totalitarian states, should not be considered as mere extensions of already existing political systems, but rather as completely new forms of government built upon terror and ideological fiction. Therefore, this was also a time in which political philosophers such as Hannah Arendt, the author of the standard work on totalitarianism, “Origins of Totalitarianism”, could thrive. When looking at totalitarianism as a political philosophy, two initial questions have to be dealt with: what is totalitarianism and what kind of effect it has on countries ruled by totalitarian regimes.
In modern history, there have been some governments, which have successfully, and others unsuccessfully carried out a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is one in which a single ideology is existent and addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, government is ran by a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. In a totalitarian state, the party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military,
Personal traits are developed through a vast amount of ways. They can relate to events that have occurred during one’s life, the environment they grew up in, and the way their household is. I believe these factors have shaped my personal traits. I would not be the person I am without authoritarian parents and my Bosnian background.