If it weren't for the claims in the title and a few, almost incidental, critical remarks, there would be no reason for my reaction to the publicist's text. Veselina - Mitko Pavlićevića about my book Left errors ("The story of the main 'sinner' obscures the real culprits", "Vijesti", No. 8731 of January 27, 2024). Because the bulk of the text represents Pavlićević's theoretical, socio-philosophical, ideational and ideological consideration of the phenomenon of "left errors", not only in specific Montenegrin circumstances, such as those created and imposed by the Second World War, that is, the National Liberation Struggle.
Of course, I have no intention and no need to engage in a polemic about Pavlićević's view, which I already know, that all the evils and wrongdoings of the communists should be put under the "roof" of "left mistakes", not only during the Second World War and the NOB. Especially since in the first sentence of my book I clearly and precisely emphasized that I deal with what happened in the first act of the Montenegrin war drama, i.e. from September 1941 to May, until the departure of the Partisans from Montenegro in 1942, the period for which Both in the lay and professional public and in historiographical science, from then until today, the so-called "left mistakes", "left turns", "left deviations..."
Therefore, it does not stand, nor can I accept Pavlićević's assessment that the title of my book is "quite pretentious". Likewise, I find his thesis that, until the Srem front and the final liberation operations, "the nature of the war in Montenegro and throughout Yugoslavia was guerrilla, which means several wars in one war", where, as he says, it was not known who kills whom, and that "in that type of war there are no 'mistakes' or they are negligible!"
I remain unwaveringly convinced that no innocent victim, no crime, whoever committed it and whenever, in the name of any ideology, can never be forgotten and neglected, whatever and whose interest was behind it, however and whose history defined it.
I also cannot accept Pavlićević's assessment that "contrary to the excessive breadth of the book's title, the author's interpretation of the beginning of the 'civil war' in Montenegro is overly narrow and exclusive", and that I lightly state the claim that "the revolutionaries are the first to blame" for the "errors of the left" ie communists", which, in Pavlićević's opinion, is "a fairly widespread narrative among many authors of 'right-wing' journalism and historiography, who deal with the roots of 'leftist mistakes'".
Whoever opens page 40 of my book, which is apostrophized by V. Palićević and on which he bases his claim, will easily be convinced that I am only quoting verbatim one of the most eminent post-war Montenegrin historians, academician Zoran Lakić, one of the first who more than 40 years ago spoke openly about this taboo topic, plowed into this until then unplowed and largely bypassed fallow land, pointing the finger at the "first-culprits".
"Revolutionary solutions were sought by the people themselves, they were not afraid of them - writes academician Lakić. - But when patriots were declared enemies in the name of the revolution, when some members of the KPJ began to be shot, without any real guilt, it caused unrest among the members of the KPJ and among the people, who turned their backs on the NOP at the moment of its crisis. That's how partisan Montenegro was lost overnight, or as it is Moša Pijade reported Tita, 'a country without Chetniks is experiencing a real Chetnik offensive'."
As from then until now no one has moved the letters or cast doubt on this point of view of academician Lakić, but others equal or similar to him have confirmed it, I still trust him unreservedly, especially since V. Pavlićević, just like me, is not a historian and a scientist with valid references in the field.
However, if from this it is not entirely clear who is in which positions, V. Pavlićević, with the story of Moša Pijade, an "outsider", who "in some way was a communist war deserter", unwaveringly remained in the positions of the author. "right-wing" (not to say pro-Czech) journalism and orientation. He does not mention or in any way refute anything from what I wrote and the evidence provided about the role and actions of M. Pijada while he was in Montenegro in 1941 and was exposed to the blackest Chetnik, and not only Chetnik, propaganda (in an Italian in the list of blackmailed communist outlaws and bandits in Montenegro, from 1942, the name of Moša Pijada is on the first place: for his head the occupier offers 500.000 lira, which is even five times more than the price of the "second-ranked" Ivan Milutinović).
"Although very sharp and warlike - says, among other things, Pavlićević - Moša Pijade did not at all know the character of Montenegrin society, so his war reports (letters) to Tito can be considered less or even not at all reliable. - adds Pavlićević - his 'left' radicalism is very well known in the Durmitor, Žabljak area, where he spent part of the beginning of the war."
Instead of any comment, insisting on evidence for this claim, I will quote the report, the characteristics that were written about Moša and his behavior in the Durmitor area by the Local Committee of the party, and at the request of the KPJ Provincial Committee for Montenegro, Boka and Sandžak, i.e. Ivan Milutinović, since Moša left Montenegro in 1941, after the Battle of Pljeval, on Tito's invitation and on his own accord, and thereby greatly angered Milutinović and other Montenegrin political and military leaders at the time:
"Comrade Čiča - it is written among other things in that act - while he was in our county, he showed certain signs of opportunism, and this is especially reflected in the liquidation of spies and fifth columnists (emphasized BS), so he interrogated some spies when they themselves reported to the headquarters to make a statement, he let them go and guaranteed their safety while they went home, even giving some of them an escort from the partisans to accompany them to their house.. .”
I didn't quite understand what Pavlićević's qualification means that my method of research is "right-wing traditional" and that my research result should be brought "under serious scientific doubt, especially since valid archival material on 'left-wing errors' is very scarce or non-existent".
It was logical for him to support such a conclusion by denying or at least by directly and concretely casting doubt on at least one of the hundreds of written documents, books, studies, feuilletons, testimonies... given in the bibliography at the end of the book, or the testimony of at least one of dozens of witnesses who are referred to I call. Since all that was left out, it does not deserve further comment.
I sincerely expected that V. Pavlićević, as a man who, as far as I know, was mostly involved in Montenegro Milovan Đilas, more to “sharpen the pen” about his role in the story of “left mistakes”. Everything, however, came down to general notes and remarks from which, undoubtedly, it can be concluded that Đilas is the main "sinner" from the title of the text. In addition, Palićević emphasizes that "almost all reflections in the book deserve deeper and sophisticated attention when it comes to Milovan Đilas." At the same time, he apostrophes the book Miloš - Mido Milikić Along the war paths of Milovan Đilas as one of the most credible testimonies about the war journey and the role of M. Đilas.
As I have done so in several places in my book, here I will not repeat specific examples of mistakes and inaccuracies in M. Milikić's book, I will only remind you that my friend M. Milikić (I once wrote an extensive feature about him) entered the People's Liberation Struggle in At the age of 13, he was the youngest bearer of the Partisan Memorial in 1941 in Yugoslavia, the youngest colonel of the JNA and that he was a great aviator and not a historian! I think that he still cannot be the most authoritative interpreter and protector of Milovan Đilas's name and work, that it is too pretentious to cast doubt on the testimony of key actors and direct witnesses, those who in that period of the NOB were right next to Đilas, not as his companions and ordinary soldiers !
And finally, let me return to the beginning once again, to the title of Veselin - Mitko Pavlićević's text "The story of the main 'sinner' obscures the real culprits". If somehow, only at the very end, we found out who the main "sinner" is, that it is Milovan Đilas after all, we will not find out how the story about him "clouds the real culprits" and, especially, who these "real culprits" are. As I am not in the habit and as much as possible avoid dealing with hypotheses, as I have always valued the most those who had the guts and courage to look everyone straight in the eye and call everyone by their right name, I will not insist on this occasion that Pavlićević reveal what I do not know , and I believe that even the readers could not even guess, I leave it to him to do it on some other occasion. Because there was never any point in howling at the dogs, and I don't appreciate those who even now, after eighty years, won't or can't, all the same, call everything by its right name, and at the same time teach great lessons, appreciate and judge, teach how should and what would happen if there were, they criticize and complain and do not offer any concrete solutions, they do not provide any valid counter-arguments.
And for the very end, I will once again refer to the wise man from Vasojević, one of the unquestionable participants and witnesses from NOB and the Revolution, Mihailo Lalic: "Even the phenomena that were called the mistakes of the left were also necessary and justified by the revolution - says the famous writer - because it is characteristic of revolutions that they are not conducted in gloves and that they cannot be imagined without fierce confrontations. The left's mistakes were condemned and curbed in time, they were overcome by the discipline of the revolutionaries and overcome as early as the spring of 1942, but their consequences were used for a long time, perhaps even today, by members of the counter-revolution to justify their crimes and betrayals..."
I would not say, nor did it seem to me, that V. Pavlićević's text was aimed at that, but it is certainly not a valid contribution of serious respect to finally get closer to the truth and try to definitively calm the passions, introduce this story into reasonable flows that would lead us to "better knowledge rights" and finally cooled our foreheads, so that we remember this and never forget it, so that it never happens again anywhere, but that we do not deepen the already deep and bloody trenches of discord.
Bonus video:
