No matter what ideology, nothing brings people together and groups them together faster than ideology, on the one hand, but also polarizes society on the other. The fate of human civilization is a continuous and unstoppable movement between these two extremes of human behavior: individual rapprochement and group classification. Depending on the belief (ideological) orientation, people align themselves with one side or the other.
When war is at stake or “on the horizon,” individual and group (re)groupings gain in vital importance and acceleration. Party fronts are quickly formed. The divided parties only need to be given weapons, given a flag bearing their ideological symbol, and the war can begin.
Within itself - when war has already begun or is on the horizon - war makes the same side more friendly. It brings the group closer together even emotionally. It makes the people in the group both harder and softer at the same time. Harder for the idea they are fighting for, but also softer in their mutual camaraderie.
One often hears the (correct) statement from people who belonged to the same war "side" that in their lives "They never experienced more camaraderie than in war.".
In ideological wars, the basic connective "tissue", i.e. the awareness of wartime camaraderie, is a shared idea, passion and belief in a better future for society.
It is clear that closed ideologies (belief in religion) have a multitude of attractive, magical powers, almost hypnotic effects. We would not be far wrong if we said that ideological comradeships are magnets that weaken over time, and war comradeships are “demagnetized” in peace, so to speak. (In peace, only bare iron remains of the revolutionary magnet.)
Wartime comradeship and post-war gossip
Unlike wartime behavior, people behave the opposite way in peacetime. They are most often divided by other criteria and patterns of behavior. In peacetime, they usually replace war ideology with interests. They replace the idea of revolution with the interests of evolution. They also change their previous style and form of life. Changes can even be made based on emotional depth, so ideological (revolutionary) marriages, replaced by peaceful loves and new wives, new families, new lives. (Such were post-war marriages Djilas, Tito, Rankovic and numerous others.)
This kind of revolutionary-marital behavior in ideological societies is very normal. Because it would not be acceptable to the party if Đilas, Josip Broz or Kardelj, for example, marry women from ideologically opposing camps. (For example, marrying the sister of a royal minister, the daughter of the president of an “unpopular” government, and the like.)
In peacetime, one often hears a fairly accurate statement that in peacetime, there is no camaraderie among people, except for material interest. Very quickly, wartime camaraderie is replaced by post-war gossip, and wartime camaraderie even turns into its opposite - hatred.
The connective tissue of peacetime camaraderie is most often money and competition for business or government positions. And pretty secretaries. So all that remains of revolutionary ideals is the struggle for prestige and naked powerWar ideology and its energy naturally fade and disappear over time from the political, but not from the social, scene.
We would briefly conclude here, by distancing ourselves from ideology, people become separated in one way. But they become closer to each other and functionally connected in other ways. To put it more clearly, in war, human similarities surface and are brought together by the force of circumstances, while in peace, human differences surface.
Politically speaking, ideological gatherings last from session to session, from congress to congress.
The relationship between Djilas and Dedier
Revolutionary camaraderie, on the one hand, and peacetime disassociation, on the other, are very clearly seen in the relationship between Milovan Đilas and Vladimir Dedijer.
Moreover, both belonged to the same, "leftist" idea, anti-fascism, similar Montenegrin-Herzegovinian roots despite the fact that Dedijer was born in Belgrade, inclined to writing, held similar administrative positions and were of similar ages. (Đilas was born in 1911, and Dedijer three years later.)
Both men matured ideologically in different conditions. Đilas matured ideologically in the pre-war underground, prisons and among the highest communist officials. Dedijer matured ideologically in a much lower ideological orbit, in the civic environment, journalism and among the middle party management cadres.
Their friendship went in a zigzag upward direction until the Third Extraordinary Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in January 1954 and a few years later. This time was also the culmination point of the brilliance of these people. But in the early 70s, Vladimir Dedijer became Đilas's public enemy. And even a hater.
A year later, Vladimir Dedijer would return under "Tito's greatcoat".
Đilas will stay out of that "overcoat".
A broader comparison of these great figures of the Yugoslav revolution would require writing a book, if not several books. For the journalistic type of writing, let us mention only a few lines in the form of a retrospective.
Comrades from Agitprop
Their revolutionary friendship began almost before World War II. (Đilas as a member of the Politburo, and Dedijer as a trusted party worker.) From November 1941, their friendship began to intensify. They helped each other in their joint escape from the Germans when they attacked the “Užice Republic” at the end of 1941.
During the war, they did not have any longer or more intense social gatherings, if we ignore their party propaganda work (“Proleter” and others). They spent a good part of their time at the Supreme Headquarters.
Their peacetime friendship and post-war cooperation began immediately after the liberation of Belgrade in an important department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, which was called, for short, Agiptrop CK. (Milovan Đilas was appointed head of the Agiptrop CK.)
The Agiptrop CK gathered "hard-core" ideologized intellectuals who, especially in the first years after the war, were seen to be stubborn in propagating Marxist-Leninist doctrine directed against the remnants of the still living enemy and the old government.
The administrative and propaganda cooperation between Milovan Đilas and Vladimir Dedijer was close. Over time, a semi-interested form of camaraderie developed, and even a personal friendship between these two men. From 1946, with Đilas's consent, Vladimir Dedijer was given the party assignment of being the editor of the newspaper "Borba".
The Đilas-Dedijer friendship expanded in the late 40s through a joint propaganda and information struggle against the Infombiro resolution. (The Silent War between the USSR and Yugoslavia, or Stalin and Tito culminated in 1948.)
In the conflict with the USSR, Milovan Đilas and Vladimir Dedijer very firmly, without the slightest hesitation, sided with Yugoslav independence, even at the cost of conflict with the USSR. (This period of their friendship was close to wartime camaraderie. The circumstances were semi-warlike.) In the book The Lost Battle of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin Vladimir Dedijer states the well-known fact that the response to Stalin's letter (the Infombiro resolution) of June 28, 1948, was written by Milovan Đilas, with minor corrections added by Tito and Edvard Kardelj after the plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.
Milovan Đilas was in Great Britain in January 1951 on a state mission related to helping Yugoslavia with weapons and food. He was accompanied by Vladimir Dedijer, not as a Yugoslav official but also as an interpreter in a highly confidential state mission. They were received together at Clement Atli in Downing Street, the then Prime Minister of the British government. They were also received at Winston Churchill and Buckingham Gate palaces.
They visited the grave together. Karl Marx in London, both with their caps off their heads.
In early September 1951, Milovan Đilas led the Yugoslav delegation to the OUN session held that year in Paris. The report on behalf of the Yugoslav delegation was written and read by Milovan Đilas, since he was the president of the Commission for International Relations of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. The secretary of the Commission was Vladimir Dedijer.
Đilas gave the report, which had about 100 typed pages, to Edvard Kardelj “for reading”. Kardelj had almost no objections to the report from the political-compositional side of the report. A few days before Đilas’s speech at the Special Political Committee of the OUN, the text was also read by Vladimir Dedijer. Dedijer had objections from the legal-documentary side and international law. He presented his objections to Kardelj and Đilas in a very sharp form. For the first time, Dedijer disagreed with Đilas. He expressed his disagreement in the form of anger at his superior. Dedijer's remarks were justified and based on legal facts, which made the report more convincing. Đilas accepted some of Dedijer's remarks.
It is very likely that the wartime friendship between these two had already begun or at least been brought into question by 1951. However, due to some wartime inertia, the friendship continued.
The birth of "New Thought"
Leader of the English Labour Left Anorjan Bevan and his wife Jenny Lee In the summer of 1952, they visited Yugoslavia. They were welcomed by Milovan Đilas and Vladimir Dedijer. A mutual sympathy developed between the Bevans and Đilas, which was reflected primarily in the closeness of their views on the social crises that “eastern” communism and “western” social democracy had fallen into. The Bevans spent a long time with Đilas on Durmitor (mostly in Žabljak) and Lake Biograd.
During the preparations for the pro-liberal 1952th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, which was held in Zagreb at the end of XNUMX, the leading people in the Agiptrop Central Committee, primarily Đilas - but also Dedijer and Drenovac as well as people from "Literary newspapers" (primarily Oskar Davičo) - they came up with the idea to start a magazine “A new thought"which would bring together writers, artists, and scientists on a broad ideological basis and begin critical analyses of the socialist legacy and social modernity.
The name of the magazine was “godfathered” by Milovan Đilas. The title was very important, because the title itself expressed new Yugoslav thinking, new thoughts different from the USSR.
Milovan Đilas and Vladimir Dedijer collaborated on this magazine. (Administrative work for the magazine was carried out by “Borba”, where Vladimir Dedijer worked.)
The work in "Nova misla" by Đilas and Dedijer is significant for the aspect of the social need to "rejuvenate" socialist ideas in Yugoslavia and the criticism of Leninist-Stalinist dogma.
However, there was no talk of creating a political opposition center in "To a new thought". But the magazine strengthened individual awareness of the need for new non-dogmatic social (socialist) ideas.
This was also the time (1953) when Đilas wrote a series of so-called “Borba's Articles” in which he “criticized” Tito's government. Dedijer (verbally) supported Đilas's political ideas, although that was also very brave.
For the (dis)association between Đilas and Dedijer, the period just before the Third Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in January 1954, at which Đilas politically “fell”, was important.
At that time, Dedijer was a very frequent, almost everyday guest at the Đilas family. (Đilas lived in a villa in Dedinje next to Tito's villa at the time. He was married to a second ("non-revolutionary") wife. Stefanija Barić, originally from Zagreb.)
Dedijer proposed many ideas and initiatives to Đilas regarding behavior at the Plenum.
It is possible that Đilas then began to doubt Dedijer's sincerity and friendliness. Đilas even refused to read Dedijer's written speech at the future Plenum. This gave Đilas's suspicion a deeper meaning of Dedijer's connection with "someone higher up".
From camaraderie to Dedijer's open hatred
The third extraordinary plenum lasted two days. Vladimir Dedijer spoke on the very first day of the Plenum. He defended Đilas from the (elastic) position of the party's way of dealing with him. He interpreted positively most of Đilas's "Borba's articles", emphasizing the differences between himself and Djilas.
But, on the other hand, in Dedijer's presentation did not criticize Tito's attitude towards Đilas's political ideasOn the contrary. Dedijer's statement went in the direction of the need for unity of the party led by Tito.
Đilas spoke right after Dedijer. He immediately distanced himself from Dedijer's presentation. Obviously, he was suspicious of Dedijer's defense and the "background" of that defense. (It is likely that at the moment of refusing Dedijer's help, Đilas still had the psychology, the psyche of a communist in him.)
After the Third Plenum, Đilas and Dedijer by inertia, they continued to hang out for a while. But from February 1954 onwards, the socializing became less frequent and by the end of the year it almost stopped.
Nevertheless, they were both given suspended sentences in January 1955 for pro-liberal statements made to the foreign press (AFP). In late 1955, Dedijer became even more vocal in his opposition to Đilas's statements to the international public.
In the fall of 1955, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia began a showdown with the semi-rebellious Vladimir Dedijer. The foreign press also got involved. Indirectly, Milovan Đilas also supported Dedijer. But there was no longer any ideological agreement between Đilas and Dedijer, except for the “comradely” court process when both were sentenced to prison sentences in a one-day secret trial (“in camara”) with express conditional sentences. (Đilas to three years in prison, and VD to a year and a half.)
Through Marijan Stilinović, a member of the Central Committee of the Croatian Communist Party, two great figures of the Yugoslav revolution met once again at a “neutral place”, in the restaurant “Two deer” in Belgrade in 1967. This “lunch” is significant because it definitely broke the thin thread of closeness between these two revolutionaries.
Wartime camaraderie turned into open post-war hatred of Vladimir Dedijer towards Milovan Đilas
In the early 80s, Vladimir Dedijer offered (“Politika” 18 December 1981) to refute alleged inaccuracies in Đilas's book of war memoirs ("Wartime" HBJovanovich, USA). These memoirs attracted considerable world attention and damaged Tito's global charisma. On this occasion, Vladimir Dedijer wrote and published a bold book "The great rebel Milovan Đilas” in which VD's hatred towards Milovan Đilas culminates.
Đilas was unable to explain the inaccuracies in this book, because the party ban on publishing anything Đilas wrote and explained was in effect. This very fact - that a man who has no possibility and right to a media response is being vilified and attacked - speaks volumes about the historical "truths" of Vladimir Dedijer and his alleged dissidence.
Let's conclude.
Finally, there is not a single text in his numerous books, interviews, and the like that Vladimir Dedijer has given to the domestic or foreign public in which he criticizes the deficit of freedom and democracy in Yugoslavia or the direction of its development.
Instead of dissidence, the CEO engaged in Russell's judgment traveling around the world, criticizing someone else's politics i other people's individuals - but not what was right under his nose: Tito's absolute and cocooned power.
Bonus video:
