It's not fair to you sir Simonovic, nor to the readers of the newspaper VIJESTI (supplement ART), to ask the editors of this newspaper and request that - in response to your reading of my text ("The story of the main "sinner" obscures the real culprits" - VIJESTI-ART January 27, 2024.) - reprints my text and my view of your book "Left's Mistakes".
Therefore, I will repeat this text in one, very short paragraph and retell it in other words. But also specifically to supplement so that they could mutually meet and understand on - in my opinion - a broad platform of an experienced and excellent connoisseur of "left" and "right" mistakes, Mihailo Lalic. (I can see that you appreciate it very much, as do I.)
I believe that it would be easiest to refer such an evil topic to institutions, primarily legal ones, which by definition must deal with this topic. Normally, not to forget the topic "there", but to give it a deeper and broader scientific consideration and research capacities.
On the other hand, today much more vital, is that the "errors of the left" should be looked at more carefully in order to avoid possible consequences that this topic may have today or tomorrow on Montenegrin society and its stability.
I believe that you will agree with me, that during the 90s of the XNUMXth century there was a "rupture" in Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina would have been forgotten. Because the Montenegrin society is a vindictive society that runs ahead while looking back.
DON'T MISS IT
I am sure that my - as well as yours, I can see from the end of your reaction - pacifist starting point would be healing primarily for the healing of Serbian-Montenegrin war wounds, which from time to time are known to erupt in the form of hot springs and populistically destroy the normal coexistence of people in Montenegro . Primarily Serbs and Montenegrins, but also other nations living in Montenegro.
Look at your "ugly" face
Well, my text was intended for all of us to collectively and individually look at our "ugly" face, be it the "left" or "right" one, and learn from that angle: how to be better, how to be more careful and socially smart, how to run faster forward, with whom and in which direction to run, what is and where is modernity, where is (are) power for small nations, what is sovereignty, etc.
But before I concretely present the "ugly face" of "my" partisan, communist side, one note concerns the title of my text, which you critically mention, Mr. Simonović. The title of the text was not chosen by me, but by the editors of the newspaper VIJESTI (ART), and on that occasion the title hit the epicenter of the essence of my writing.
Also this because it's important. (Sorry to be personal.)
I was never a member of the SKJ and I hygienically distanced myself from the communists - when they were in power. Maybe I felt sorry for them. And maybe them (hm) and despised. Maybe. I looked at their rule as a (transient) natural disaster. And when the "disaster" passed by itself, it appeared, i.e. emerged - from the depths of our past - the old, warlike and war-mongering "right" and "left" consciousnesses and the practices of those consciousnesses.
In short, after the bad, the worst came to power.
Therefore, I changed part of my opinion about the communists only when they fell from power. Because they inherited many problems even before the Second and even before the First St. war. National issues, for example. And that is already part of the deep roots of Montenegrin war and post-war "left-wing" and "right-wing".
This means that it would be important, even socially healing, for our "leftists" and "rightists" to show "their ugly face", i.e. the ugly face of its war and post-war practice, its ideology, as M. Lalić warns. In this sense, I did not accidentally mention a famous and positive example Willie Brant who - neither guilty nor obligated, and in the name and in front of the German state as its chancellor - knelt before the sacrifices made by his compatriots in the Second Holy War. He begged (the victims) for forgiveness. Thus he saved the democratic future of Germany. Only with such self-critical awareness and the practice of that awareness can any society be built and healed. Well, it can be Montenegrin, I hope.
On Tito's role in the "left's mistakes"
Specifically.
When it comes to "leftist mistakes", the essence of my writing and the "ugly face" of part of Montenegrin society has already been published in the newspaper VIJESTI (ART) dated February 05, 2022. Here is the central part of that text about "left errors".
The real, massive and deeply thought-out ("rational") "left errors" in Yugoslavia happened immediately after the Second World War. war. Tens of thousands of people who were retreating to the allies, to the west or simply fleeing from the new communist government were killed without trial. Some retreated with the German army. There are studies that state that a little over 100.000 people were killed. Among those killed were many people who had blood on their hands and the death sentence was very likely. But there were also innocent people and those who did not deserve death but a longer or shorter prison term.
It probably wouldn't be wrong if we called these massive "left mistakes" an "industry of death" and some kind of (first) Balkan genocide. Of course, after the genocide against non-Croats (Serbs, Jews, Roma) and Croats-anti-fascists that happened in the NDH at the beginning and during the Second World War.
Let's try to outline Tito's role in the "left's mistakes" politically in several points.
1) The discretionary and most likely oral decision about the post-war "leftist mistakes" was made by the top government, i.e. Tito in the first decade of May 1945. According to some sources, they were aware of the decision: Aleksandar Ranković i Ivan Macek-Matija, head of OZN for Zagreb. The decision of May 14, 1945 had a justification clause that guaranteed the rights of "those who did not bleed their hands". It was quickly abandoned, already on May 18, 1945. when the Croatian-Slovenian "left-wing responsibilities" were transferred to the federal level, i.e. on the four Yugoslav armies and their generals. Therefore, it is logical and war-natural that such an important and great state decision and its prompt implementation could not and should not have been made without Tito's knowledge and orders.
Looking deeper, we "understand" the decision politically in the context of the time and broader post-war circumstances. But without any legal justification. All the more so since the "mistakes" happened when the war was already over.
2) Tito's victorious base (ordinary army), wanted and even quietly demanded retribution and revenge. On the other hand, international pressure and the (post)war circumstances surrounding Trieste and Gorica significantly contributed to this ("Tito's") decision. The achievement of the Yugoslav revolution and the ideology of communism were called into question. On the third side, Tito felt his authority was threatened, which could have contributed to such a radical decision. From the fourth point of view, Tito possibly saw the remnants of the defeated army as a future "Trojan horse" in the eventual conflict between Yugoslavia and the West. (Part of the southern wing of the allied troops could have changed its direction and headed towards Belgrade, i.e. against Tito.) From the fifth point of view, this decision tried to definitively "forget" Tito's cooperation with Draž Mihailović and the cooperation of the partisans with the Chetniks at the beginning of the uprising in 1941.
Such a decision is not new in post-revolutions and the "joyful logic" of the victors. The French war is well known De Golova "controversy" with Claude Levi Strossom when these two disagreed about how many pro-fascist Frenchmen needed to be killed after World War II. war. (KL Strauss advocated the killing of at least 80.000 French fascist collaborators, while De Gaulle advocated killing "only" 60.000.)
Therefore, it is no wonder that Tito himself had a "joyful" recognition of himself and his leading role in these "left errors" when he pointed out in a celebratory speech in Ljubljana on May 26, 1946 that "the hand of justice reached the Quislings and counter-revolutionary elements, the hand revenge of our people". And myself Stalin praised this decision of Tito's by reprimanding the state Polish delegation in 1945, which - unlike Tito - was sympathetic to its war opponents and eventual opposition. And Stalin could not and should not be misinformed. Especially when it comes to mass crime.
Our (primarily) historians, new-class politicians, but also numerous intellectuals (academics, university professors, journalists, lawyers, etc.) looked at this terrible "left-wing crime industry" as a simple scientific seminar issue. This crime was committed after the signing of peace and capitulation of Germany. What's more, these "leftist mistakes" continued, many years later.
The other "leaders" around Tito are not without their share of blame.
3) The role of Aleksandar Ranković and his numerous direct assistants in these "left errors" has never been examined. The various services that this high-ranking state and party official led during the war and after the war (OZNA, UDBA, etc.) was to produce and hide the "left mistakes" of his government, which was Ranković's official duty. This high-ranking state official was never mentioned, let alone prosecuted for "left-wing sinfulness".
4) It is similar to Ranković and other high-ranking Tito's new-class officials who made "leftist mistakes" (Mitija Ribicic, Ivan Macek-Matijaž, Jefto Sasic etc.).
5) Edward Kardelj showed solidarity and found understanding for the decision on the intended murder of around 700 White Guards, when almost all of Slovenia was liberated. (These people barricaded themselves in the Aureberg castle on Turjak. Admittedly, about 100 people, mostly commanders, were liquidated.)
6) Milovan Djilas also decided the life and death of some opponents of the Yugoslav revolution.
7) Broadly speaking, the blame for the "left's mistakes" and the "industry of death" is also borne by the Western allies. Primarily a British military, political and state factor. The British allies "accepted" about 25.000-30.000 soldiers and numerous Quislings and refugees from the Balkans. Fed marshal Harold Alexander and his general Patrick Scott as well as the general F. Morgan emphasized that they were all sent back to Yugoslavia "regardless of the fact that we knew what was waiting for them there" (H. Aleksander).
When the Foreign Office in London "found out" about these extraditions, the official explanation was that it was a "bad mistake". Therefore, the return of refugees was not independent without a political decision of the top of the British government headed by Winston Churchill. It is possible that this British attitude was part of the agreement of the winning trio: Churchill - Stalin - FD Roosevelt in Yalta from February 4-11, 1944.
Therefore, "left mistakes" are not only domestic war, political, military, ethical, legal and any other issue. It is also an international issue, and the roots and culprits are on all sides. The topic of "left errors" in its broader spectrum was dealt with, for example, by JV Stalin or allied (American) general H. Alexander and numerous others. (Archives of numerous countries would be very useful. Especially Italian, Vatican, German, British.)
Let's conclude.
First. What is paradoxical is that the fewest "left mistakes" were in Montenegro compared to the entire war in Yugoslavia. Those ("Montenegro") mistakes are not out of the ordinary compared to other similar revolutions.
Second. If the "Tito case" was opened on time (legally) in 45. or a few years later, there would (probably) not have been numerous "industries of death" in Yugoslavia after Tito's death.
Let's also mention this, which is related to your reference to various authorities dealing with this issue. It is your choice to cite an academic Zoran Lakić. It's OK. But, from the opposite (leftist) side, I could also quote for example Miša Leković which is very relevant for this topic.
Also this. It is important when it comes to authorities, ie. about our "elite".
Many "elite" state historians were silent or held "scientific" seminars, symposia, wrote doctorates, convened "round tables", gathered titles when they were told about the real and most massive "left mistakes" that happened immediately after the Second World War. , fame, functions and money etc. and "professionally" threw anathema at M. Đilas. But none of them (could) remember - while Tito was alive, and even later - to "bend the sheet" and submit a criminal complaint to a domestic or international court against a "person" who could be justifiably suspected of having committed "left mistakes".
It is clear to you, Mr. Simonović, that state "authorities" and (primarily) historians are closer to the ruling policy and were their extended arm, rather than "gatherers of facts" (Andrej Mitrović).
Milovan Đilas was the first to write about the "errors of the left" while Tito was still alive and present the "errors of the left" to the international public. He actualized the topic because he was not allowed to explain the topic in the domestic media and directed it towards research and the truth.
I thank you that the level of your writing and explaining the topic is mostly noteworthy.
THE END.
Bonus video:
