July 1878, 13, the date when Montenegro was recognized as an independent state, and July 1941, 1878, when a popular uprising against fascism was raised in the country, are interpreted completely differently in the country. While XNUMX is viewed from the same perspective by almost the entire society, celebrating the first international recognition of Montenegro, the July XNUMX Uprising, although declaratively generally accepted, is increasingly a means of ideological and political conflicts, which is why the country's past is also being called into question.
Thus, Vijesti's interlocutors talk about what and who celebrates on July 13, or whether there is a unique view of the events woven into the Montenegrin Statehood Day.
This issue is increasingly relevant in the context of frequent historical revisionism coming from some government and church circles, primarily on issues from World War II. There is also rewriting of history among some opposition actors, whose officials, among other things, "boast" about personalities who approached the occupier.
On July 1878, 63, the great powers recognized Montenegro's independence at the Congress of Berlin, and on that date, XNUMX years later, the first nationwide uprising broke out in enslaved Europe.
Ideologically conditioned versions of July 13th
Historian and Senior Researcher at the Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Montenegro Nikola Zecevic, He told Vijesti that his impression is that both "political-identity" sides in contemporary Montenegro have to a certain extent accepted their own, "ideologically conditioned versions of July 13th."
He states that such a problem does not exist with regard to 1878, since, according to him, the dividing line that today conditions contemporary political confrontations had not yet been established. However, he notes that a problem exists with regard to 1941, and that interpretations of events from that period are not free from illogicality and internal paradoxes.
Zečević explains that one side often glorifies July 13th as the day of the nationwide uprising against the occupiers, emphasizing its mass character, but overlooks or deliberately ignores the fact that some prominent leaders of that uprising soon entered into open collaboration with the occupying forces and were responsible for mass war crimes.
"Not only is this contradiction being ignored, but these individuals are being glorified," he said.
As Zečević wrote for Vijesti a few years ago, some prominent future Chetnik commanders actively participated in the July 13th Uprising, such as: Pavle Djurišić, Bajo Stanišić i Djordjije Lasic, who shortly afterwards, after the collapse of the uprising, began to cooperate intensively with the Italian occupier.
The interlocutor says that the other "political-identity" side often emphasizes the values of the anti-fascist struggle and the symbolism of the July 13th Uprising as the foundation of modern Montenegrin statehood, while simultaneously glorifying proven collaborators. Exclusively because, as he claims, of the sovereignist commitment of these people.
"Although historical sources say that they openly opposed the July 13th Uprising, calling it 'communist rage' that had to be 'suppressed by force or will,'" Zečević reminds.
Among those glorified by some on that ideological spectrum, who collaborated with the occupier, is Krsto Zrnov Popovic, one of the leaders of the Christmas Uprising of 1919 and commander of the greenback collaborationist forces in World War II.
Zečević wrote that the partisans had offered Popović to join their movement, to end his “hesitant attitude” and turn his back on the “traitors of the Montenegrin people.” A report from the Main Headquarters of the People’s Liberation Partisan Detachments for Montenegro and the Boka Bay from early December 1941 states that Popović had already had a permanent office in the Italian Carabinieri command in Cetinje for two months.
The historian notes that these "selective and instrumentalized interpretations" lead to the undermining of a deeper, shared understanding of July 13th.
"Instead of this date being a bridge between different interpretative communities, it is increasingly turning into a means of political identification and ideological confrontation," he says.
Anti-fascist and pro-Chetnik division
Historian and member of the non-governmental association Antifascists of Cetinje Philip Kuzman, says that he would not make a pro-Serbian and pro-Montenegrin division when it comes to July 13, because in that case, he claims, it does not exist. He explains this by saying that July 13, 1878, is a generally accepted date and that, “except perhaps for Albanian irredentists,” no one in Montenegro questions the commemoration of that event.
When it comes to July 13, 1941, Kuzman states that in that case too there is no pro-Serbian and pro-Montenegrin division, but rather claims that the opposing sides are anti-fascist and pro-Chetnik.
"We must not forget that a large part of Serbs consider the Chetniks to be collaborators of the occupiers, and their ideology to be criminal, despite the extensive campaign to portray the Chetniks (or as they are 'rebranded' - the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland) as good guys. When we put things this way, only one side, the one that supports the Chetniks, selectively extracts from the history of the 13th of July Uprising what suits it," he told Vijesti.
Examples of what Kuzman and Zečević are talking about can be found in the discourse of the head of parliament Andrije Mandić (New Serbian Democracy). A few days ago, at a ceremonial reception he organized on the occasion of Statehood Day, he emphasized the mass character of the July 13th Uprising, stating that the uprising's victories were won together by "workers and intellectuals, royal officers and volunteers who participated in the Spanish Civil War, priests, believing people and freedom-loving atheists."
"The strength of the uprising rested precisely on unity and harmony, all differences were left aside, because the goal of liberating Montenegro was everyone's first priority," said Mandić.
However, about ten days before that, he stated that he did not oppose the opinions of the Metropolitan of Montenegro and the Littoral. Joanikia and Budimljansko-Nikšić The method regarding their affirmative statements about Pavle Đurišić and the leader of the Chetnik movement Dear Draža Mihailović.
Narratives of passion
For the diplomat and former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro Miodrag Lekić, July 13th becomes, “in conditions of a deep spiritual and values crisis in Montenegro”, often the subject of “political pamphleteering”.
According to him, instead of a mature view of the balance sheet and historical movement of Montenegro, in which July 13th is a significant historical moment, "but not the zero point of Montenegrin history, which also has older, great dates in the past," he claims, a narrative of passion, propaganda, ideological prejudices, stereotypes, and negative passions is on the rise.
"In the conditions of the rise of ideological-national vectors, without an adequate response from the state initiative, especially in terms of opening a well-designed policy of state and spiritual cohesion, it seems that major historical dates will continue to be, instead of signposts, the scene of clashes between various manipulators. The signals and impressions that the future of Montenegrin society is quite uncertain are worrying, but if the process of public destruction continues, then the aforementioned disturbances lead us to an even more dangerous, (sur)real conclusion - that our past is also becoming uncertain," Lekić told Vijesti.
If what Lekić warns about is a real danger, is it possible to build a unified interpretation of July 13th in today's Montenegro, given the deep identity divisions?
The polyphony of the past
Nikola Zečević assesses that Montenegrin society is facing what historiography labels as the “syndrome of competitive memories”. He explains that in post-conflict societies – although, he says, Montenegro is a “borderline case” in this sense – a “homogeneous narrative” rarely emerges through “spontaneous convergence”, but rather requires “institutional mediation, active translation of memories into inclusive public discourse and, most importantly, political will to accept the polyphony of the past”.
Zečević states that history curricula, public commemorations, and academic forums can serve as platforms for interpreting and reexamining various historical topics, including this one, and that such an approach would not deny the “heroic aspect” of the uprising, but would “contextualize it within the broader European and Yugoslav anti-fascist experience.”
"This would open up space for consensus on basic facts and for acceptance of a plurality of interpretations - with the explicit condition that this plurality must not become a haven for legitimizing or justifying any historical collaboration with Nazi-fascism. In summary, although consensus on basic historical facts is achievable, a completely unified, comprehensive interpretation of July 13 - which would overcome political divisions and be generally accepted - remains a difficult goal to achieve in the current socio-political context of Montenegro," the interlocutor claims.
Filip Kuzman also says that it is difficult to reach a consensus. He answered the question posed by repeating that there is an almost unified position on 1878, and that July 13, 1941, is being used as an "alibi for the Chetnik movement, which was criminal and fascist at its core (since the Chetniks accepted the plan in December 1941) Stevan Moljević about an ethnically pure Greater Serbia)”.
It states that Pavle Đurišić and Bajo Stanišić cannot be absolved of the crimes they committed simply because they participated in the uprising.
"At the same time, the thesis that the uprising began due to Germany's attack on the Soviet Union or the St. Peter's Day Assembly (held on July 12 in Cetinje) is emphasized, and the facts that from the first days of Yugoslavia's capitulation, the communists were collecting weapons and preparing an uprising are deliberately omitted. This interpretation, where facts are approached as if they were on a buffet, cannot lead to a unified interpretation of events. Because facts are sacred, and beliefs (even if they are wrong) are free," Kuzman pointed out.
What did July 13th mean in different historical eras?
Nikola Zečević says that, given that the old (Julian) calendar was in force in the Principality, and then in the Kingdom of Montenegro, the Berlin Treaty, according to the then valid calculation of time, was signed on July 1, 1878, and that, accordingly, July 13, which corresponds to this event according to the new (Gregorian) calendar, was not celebrated as a national holiday, nor was its parity date according to the Julian calendar, July 1.
The reason for this, he claims, had nothing to do with the type of calendar.
"Already with the then romantic understanding that the day of international recognition of Montenegro represented only a formal verification of the already existing and uninterrupted Montenegrin statehood and independence."
Filip Kuzman claims that the reason for not marking it lies in the fact that Prince Nikola Petrović Njegoš was not satisfied with the decisions made in Berlin, which revised the Treaty of San Stefano from March 1878.
"His dissatisfaction can also be seen from a letter to Montenegrin envoys in Berlin, in which he suggests that they inform representatives of 'the great powers that Montenegro is not being fairly rewarded and that its new borders are in many places completely unnatural'."
He adds that there was even less reason to celebrate July 13th during the time of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Yugoslavia, "since that would have reminded us of an independent and Petrovic Montenegro."
Zečević says that the reasons why July 13th did not have the status of a national holiday at that time were not only related to the fact that Montenegro did not have a special constitutional and legal position in the new state union, but also because that date did not have any symbolic significance for the state ideology of the Yugoslav kingdom.
“Only after liberation, in June 1945, with the adoption of the Law on the Establishment of a National Holiday, was July 13th officially declared as the Day of Uprising for the first time. The decision to this effect had previously been made in 1944 by the National Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation. During the period of socialist Yugoslavia, the meaning of this holiday was exclusively linked to the July XNUMXth Uprising, while the context of international recognition of Montenegro was almost completely ignored.”
Zečević explains that after the collapse of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the beginning of the process of restoring Montenegrin independence, the two dates were symbolically merged.
"Thus establishing continuity between two historical moments of Montenegrin political subjectivity."
Kuzman states that in the period around the 2006 referendum and in the first years after it, July 13, 1878, rather than July 13, 1941, was emphasized more, but that practice was soon discontinued.
Lekić: Instead of social cohesion, a neglected state
Miodrag Lekić assesses that, due to the state of division in Montenegro, the impression and image of the state as a neglected society is being created, "and this in the essential sphere, that is, that of spiritual foundations and historical self-awareness."
"Instead of making efforts to anchor the country on its main path of common value cohesion, which, of course, implies respect for historical facts, we are living with the consequences of a neglected state."
He says that we should "appreciate pragmatic efforts and results in terms of life-economic issues, of course to the extent that they exist," but that the image of "the construction of apartment buildings in the capital or the desirable narrative of the state as a machine that successfully breaks European chapters" should not divert society from the topic of "a spiritually disintegrated country with worrying manifestations."
"All with the aim of somehow anchoring the country on its main road. And with some combination of tradition and modernity. In other words, it was necessary to build a serious, decent state, rules that apply equally to all its citizens, a community capable of successfully reproducing itself, primarily on the economic and cultural level. How we did in that construction, from the foundations onward, remains a topic for serious analysis."
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
