Metrika

  • citati u SCIndeksu: [1]
  • citati u CrossRef-u:0
  • citati u Google Scholaru:[]
  • posete u poslednjih 30 dana:7
  • preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:4

Sadržaj

članak: 2 od 8  
Back povratak na rezultate
2021, vol. 55, br. 3, str. 1165-1182
Prodor nacionalsocijalizma - Nemci Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941. godine
Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Pedagoški fakultet u Somboru

e-adresamilnik.markovic@gmail.com, zeljko.sombor@yahoo.com
Ključne reči: Nemci; politika; isključivost; nacionalizam
Sažetak
Nemačka zajednica jugoslovenske kraljevine je najvećim svojim delom bila skoncentrisana na prostoru današnje Vojvodine. Njeno viševekovno prisustvo na ovim prostorima ukazuje na spremnost da živi u multinacionalnoj sredini, ali i ambiciju da u odnosu na druge živi bolje kako u kulturnom, tako i u privrednom smislu. Njen odnos prema novoformiranoj državi bio je oprezan, odisao je zabrinutošću i rezervom, ali nije bio negativan poput onog koji je bio vidljiv kod mađarske zajednice. Nemci su nameravali da očuvaju svoj kulturni identitet kroz organizaciju udruženja, a potom i da osnuju stranku. Njihove ambicije narastaju sa jačanjem Trećeg nemačkog rajha, kada i njihova politička manifestacija postaje provokativnija i militantnija.

There have been historical attempts in relation to the social phenomenon of the establishment of a multinational state in the Balkans. Apart from the pretentious ambition of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to bring the nationally and state-building emancipated Serbian nation under its crown, thus contributing to the deepening antagonisms, the only other great attempt was the project of the Yugoslav state after World War One. Taking into account the lessons learnt from the intrusiveness and supremacy of one nation over the other, this project had a conveniently negative experience and began its realization deviating from it. However, the Yugoslav geopolitical reality also had its challenges, one of which was the minority question.

The research of the position of the Germans in the Yugoslav monarchy is a part of that historiographical and sociological problem. The preservation of the cultural and educational identity and the right to political organization were the prerequisite for loyalty and support to the ruling political elite. The strengthening of nationalist exclusivity in the home country and its turning into dissatisfaction with the international political situation also caused the changes in the attitudes of the Germans in Yugoslavia. The national expression grew stronger, manifestations turned into an expression of self-confidence that refuted the existing state. There is a pronounced development road of the national identity from cultural moderation to the arrogant nationalist concept of the militarized community. The consideration of this social phenomenon is evident in some works we will rely on in our text (Janjetović, 2005; Antolović, 2017; Bešlin, 2001; Ristović, 1991). Owing to new findings and historical sources, we have the opportunity to clarify thoroughly this phenomenon of the breakthrough of the nationalist paroxysm.

The triumph of the Serbian national idea, paved with huge human casualties, in the territory of Vojvodina was achieved at the Great People's Assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci and other Slavs in Banat, Bačka and Baranja, held on 25th November 1918 (Lalošević, 1919). As many as 757 representatives participated in the work of the Assembly. Among them there were 578 Serbs, 84 Bunjevci, 62 Slovaks, 21 Rusyns, three Šokci, 2 Croats, 6 Germans and 1 Hungarian (Marković, 2020). The great number of delegates and their organized arrival in Novi Sad illustrated solid organization primarily of the Serbian population, but also the absence of non-Slavic people. In those circumstances, the organization of the election of the Assembly representatives could not observe the democratic election procedure, but it relied on the majority political will of the Slav population, mainly the Serbs in Vojvodina. The Serbs did not want to miss their historical opportunity. "The election for the Great Assembly was far from democratic. The members of the non-Slav minorities had no voting rights. As a matter of fact, all Slavs did not participate in the election of the representatives either" (Janjetović, 2005, p. 126). These shortcomings could be tolerated at that historical moment because they witnessed the initiation of a democratic process in the territory where nationalist discrimination and territorial pretentiousness as the "main source of all political hysterias" (Bibó, 1996, p. 26) were the official national and state program. Such exclusive ideology about a "political Hungarian nation" in the multinational environment could be successful only in the atmosphere of authoritarianism and intolerance.

At that moment, in the territory of Vojvodina there were 34.7% Serbs, 24.4% Hungarians, 22% Germans, 8.1% Croats (where this percent also includes Bunjevci and Šokci, without considering their political struggle for ethnic individuality within the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and subsequently of Yugoslavia, 3.8% Slovaks, 4.3% Romanians and 0.9% Rusyns (Marković, 2010). According to the following census of 31st March 1931, performed based on religion, there were 1,625,382 inhabitants in Vojvodina with East Srem, excluding the counties in the Sava Banovina. Roman Catholics were the most numerous – 742,998 (45.7%), followed by the Orthodox population – 674,560 (41.5%), Evangelists – 161,822 (10%) and members of other religions – 46,002 (2.8%). The structure of the constituent parts of the Province was uneven. In Banat and Srem, the Orthodox believers accounted for more than a half of the population, while Roman Catholics were the majority in Bačka and Baranja (Census, 1938, p. 46).

The outcome of the war meant the defeat of the ideology of exclusivity and disrespect for other nations, and the decision of the Great People's Assembly emphasizing "equality and progress in every direction, not only for us, but for all Slav and non-Slav people living with us" (Marković, 2011, p. 115), pointed to the understanding of the complexity of the national and political situation and willingness to overcome it in a democratic manner. However, for something like that, the legislative stronghold was not sufficient; there was no honest intention for the implementation in the field (Janjetović, 2000). It could be successful only if democracy and the national idea, social ideas of the same root" (Bibó, 1996, p.54) developed simultaneously and evenly. However, the historical experience showed that "an imbalance arose in the establishment of the national community, on one hand, and the liberation of the people, on the other hand" (Bibó, 1996, p.54). That imbalance, additionally encumbered by the "dominance of affective and not rational relations" (Vujačić, 2013) of many nations in one state, could lead to national distrust and alienation that led towards the destabilization of the state. The Yugoslav monarchy had to face such challenges and its success depended on the perseverance in respect, parliamentarism, dialogue and democratization of the society. If perseverance was longer, national tensions would be relieved; otherwise, there was a stronger need to emphasize national individuality to the point of egoism that leads to the so-called "we-they syndrome" (Kecmanović, 2004, p. 189) as an overture into the ideological society that "serves the matters of will, and not the matters of an opinion" (Đurić, 2009, p. 344) and is most frequently achieved by intrusiveness that, going towards the goal, relies on conflict.

The Yugoslav state encountered the trap of the ideological society, i.e. the "grey zones" (Subotić, 2009, p. 162) of its vagueness as early as the time of its constitution. Afterwards, the contradictions regarding the national question and the state order only deepened further, despite political efforts made to avoid it. The national consciousness persistently kept its unified attitude. It ignored the fact that in the new Yugoslav state there were 39% Serbs, 23.9% Croats, 8.5% Slovenes, and 6.3% inhabitants of Muslim religion with a pronounced feeling of being special. In addition, the state had almost 20% national minorities, out of which 4.3% were Germans (Dimić, 2001, p. 44).

The process of German settlement occurred during the 18th century as a part of the "systematic politics of the Viennese Court" (Antolović, 2017, p. 21). The Germans were the most economically developed community.

"They owned 31.2% of arable land and accounted for 46.7% in industry production and for 40% in artisan production realizing 55% of the total national income. They were dominant in mill, brick and particularly in hemp industry, in which they had 90% of the production... The Germans in Vojvodina belonged to a large group of the so-called Danube Swabians (Donauschwaben) that had about two million people and lived in the region between the Danube and the Transylvanian Alps, i.e. present-day Vojvodina, southern parts of Hungary and Romanian Banat" (Bešlin, 2001, p. 14).

During the uncertain process of accession, the Germans were politically divided into two factions: "the moderate", led by Jakob Bleyer and gathered around the German-Hungarian People's Council (Deutsch-ungarischer Volksrat), and "the radical", led by Rudolf Brandsch and the founders of the German People's Council for Hungary (Deutscher Volksrat für Ungarn). Neither of these factions brought to question the territorial integrity of Hungary, but the proponents of the radical option demanded autonomy within the new Hungarian state. To that end, on 31st October 1918 they declared the establishment of the "Banat Republic" in Timisoara (Milenković, 1985) and elected the People's Council of Banat. Doctor Otto Roth was appointed civilian Commissioner, while Lieutenant Colonel Albert Bartha served as the military leader of the Banat Republic. The Hungarian government abolished this republic and incorporated the leaders in its clerical ranks. Citing Wilson's principles about the right of the people to self-determination, the Germans tried to introduce the so-called "Swabian Manifesto" in which they insisted on the preservation of their identity. Appreciating the newly-created geopolitical reality, the Germans "subjugated to the one whose power was felt more strongly" (Petrović, 2017, p. 242).

"According to the official results of the population census from 1921, there were 381,343 inhabitants of German nationality living in Banat, Bačka, Baranja and Srem. There were 126,530 of them in Banat, 190,049 in Bačka and Baranja, and 64,764 in Srem (including the town of Zemun). In the total national structure, the Germans in Bačka and Baranja accounted for 24.2%, 22.5% in Banat, and 15.9%in Srem" (Antolović, 2017, p. 49).

Although there was a relatively large number of Germans, they, unlike the Hungarians, had no irredentist aspirations and were quite reconciled to the newly-created situation. Their inertness, manifested as loyalty, was acceptable, and therefore they were allowed to establish the Swabian-German Cultural Association (Schwäbisch-Deutshes Kulturbund) in Novi Sad on 17th May 1920, even before the signing of the Treaty of Trianon. The Kulturbund was officially presented as a non-political organization that should fulfil the cultural needs of the Germans. Its first president was Josef Menrath. Under the constant pressure of the state apparatus and because of the lack of trust in its work, the Kulturbund was prohibited in 1924 (Politika, 1924), but resumed its work in 1927. During the mandate of President Johann Keks, this organization doubled the number of its local councils, from 29 to 64, in only two years. After the expiry of the right to opt for Austria or Hungary, the Germans got the opportunity to organize themselves politically as well. Agitation for the establishment of their party began as early as the beginning of 1922. The founding assembly of the Party of the Germans (Partei der Deutschen im Königreich der Serben, Kroaten und Slovenen) was held in Žombolj (Jimbolia, formerly in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and today in Romania) on 17th December 1922. Ludwig Kremling became the President of the party. Since he was also the leader of the Party of the Germans in the former monarchy, his election marked the intention of the community to preserve the continuity of national identification. The party agenda required cultural and educational recognisability of the Germans in the state, as well as their right to participate in power at the local level, in the places where the Germans lived. The leading parties in Vojvodina – the Radical Party and the Democratic Party – despite the emergence of the Party of the Germans, tried to win over the Germans for their ranks and, due to such ambition, they did not look benevolently at the newly-established rival party. The Croatian Peasant Party was much more successful in winning over the Germans to its side. The Catholic Church provided significant support in those activities.

The Party of the Germans participated in the elections and won eight mandates. This parliamentary group was led by Stephan Kraft – "the key political figure of the German minority not only in Vojvodina, but also in the entire Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" (Antolović, 2017, p. 62). The representatives of the Party joined the ruling coalition and advocated for school autonomy, accepting the centralist organization of the country. In the following election, the representatives of the Party also cooperated with the Democrats and other representatives of the exclusively ruling majority. Due to their insistence, particularly on schooling in their mother tongue, they were criticized by the youth patriot organizations.

When the 6th January dictatorship was introduced, the work of this Party was also prohibited. The regime hoped in vain that "our German fellow citizens will become Yugoslavs" (Jugoslovenski dnevnik, 1930). In his review of the tenth anniversary of the accession, political leader Kraft criticized "the politics of denying the minority question" and "the treatment of the minorities as foreign elements". In a sharp tone, he continued to describe the politics of alleged "persecution" that, by restricting the right to schooling in the mother tongue and through "uneven tax burdens", led to a very difficult position of the Germans in the country. Despite these grave words, Kraft still remained hopeful that the circumstances might "become stable", mostly likely because of the critical, yet affirmative tendency of the whole concept of addressing intellectuals and politicians from Vojvodina, and much less likely because of his belief that their position would ultimately become better. Such impression could not be blurred even by the fact that the Germans in Vojvodina, where publishing was quite advanced, had the best-developed printing activity. In that respect, the political leaders of the Germans knew how to thank King Aleksandar.

"In His Majesty the King we see an honest friend and the pillar of universal peace, and cordial and cultural relations and cooperation in today's difficult times, necessary in the spirit of European solidarity as the last guard of our civilization" (Jugoslovenski dnevnik, 1931). The King's benevolent attitude towards the Germans was most frequently met with the concern of the Serbian intelligence for fear that "their unprecedented prosperity [...] was not accompanied by their loyalty" (Stanić, 1931, p. 128).

After the assassination of King Aleksandar Karađorđević and the disappearance of his political attitudes, simultaneously with the strengthening of National Socialism in Germany, distrust was revived against the Germans who continued to develop their cultural and educational rights successfully, while also pursuing financial independence and progress on a larger scale (Minority press in the Danube Banovina, AY, F-38, 7). The Germans tried to relax this concern-filled attitude by supporting the King's politics and giving support to the ruling parties in their election campaigns and in elections.

“The minority population opted for Mr. Jeftić’s list. Among the members of the German minority, the situation was easier because the candidates were former members of the parliament, together with the representatives of their cultural and trade organizations” (Report to the Central Press Bureau from Novi Sad, 1935, AY, F-38, 7).

However, Adolph Hitler's coming to power in Germany, the breakthrough of Nazism into its neighbouring countries, as well as the idea of revising the Peace Treaty of Versailles were carefully monitored by the Germans in the Kingdom. In this monitoring process, their reserve kept dwindling and was being replaced by support and demonstration of affiliation. Gradual dominance of the National Socialist ideology in the home country was reflected in the Kulturbund. Young and educated Germans increasingly became the agitators of the politics of the "new world order". Inside the Kulturbund, there was a disagreement between "old" members and the so-called "restorers" who supported Nazi politics and in the same manner advocated their attitudes, by arrogantly expressing their pretentions at the Kulturbund meetings, not even hesitating to enter conflict. On those occasions, Novi Sad, as well as other towns in Vojvodina, ominously reminded of the venue of young Nazi marches in Germany. It was accompanied by the typical iconography with swastikas, the threatening message of which was more than clear. At one moment, the followers of this faction, led by Jakob Avender, united with Dimitrije Ljotić's organization "Zbor". That occurred under the influence of the by the closeness manifested in their ideological concepts, as well as of the financial support coming from abroad.

This was an increasingly complex problem that was closely monitored by the state. At the same time, the Third German Reich began supporting directly its fellow countrymen in the Kingdom, including the financial support to their fellow countrymen in land acquisition (Report to the Central Press Bureau from Novi Sad, 1938, AY, F-38, 7). In the ruling structure, the opinion prevailed that such activity of land acquisition was well-run and synchronized by Germany and that it was aimed at creating an economically strong German community in this territory, and the weakening of the economic potential of other inhabitants (Gaćeša, 2007, p. 23). The threatening economic strengthening of the Germans, supported by their home country, did not dwindle even on the occasion of the establishment of Milan Stojadinović's government (Janjetović, 1993) or of the Yugoslav Radical Community. Stephan Kraft became the member of the latter, hoping that the political requirements of the Germans would be fulfilled. Hence, on 18th February 1938 Milan Stojadinović's government responded by adopting the Decree with legal force on limiting the alienation of immovable property in the area of the appellate courts in Novi Sad and Zagreb. The Decree was aimed at stopping further land acquisition and took the Germans by surprise. That is why the Third Reich put in significant efforts to abolish this Decree. The course of war events and Germany's successes during the first years of the conflict imposed "certain hesitations and inconsistencies in the work of the commissions for the approval of the transfer of immovable property in the entire territory of Vojvodina". Hence, the confidential instructions by the Ministry of Justice of 23rd July 1940 note that "the regulations are not implemented strictly if the transfer is performed among the members of the same nation" (Archives of Vojvodina, F 122, 756). Germany's constant diplomatic pressure, as well as the development of war operations, led to the abolishment of this Decree on 19th September 1940. Therefore, land acquisition continued until the beginning of the April War.

The idea of belonging to one nation, tradition and cultural identity became a recognizable expression of the Kulturbund activities. The operations of the Third Reich were greeted with enthusiasm. "German minority newspapers mostly glorify Chancellor Hitler [...]. The sections of the Kulturbund local organizations actively promoted the cult of the German national history, songs, dances and customs" (Report to the Central Press Bureau from Novi Sad, 1939, AY, F-38, 7). The state tolerated these activities, trying not to irritate Hitler with its actions. Accordingly, the instructions were given to the Central Press Bureau stating: "1) Anything can be reported about the events in Austria that has been written about by German and other foreign newspapers, provided it is not offensive to Germany and Mr. Hitler (April War in 1941, 1969, p. 26).

However, these actions, to a certain extent understandable from the perspective of self-preservation at the moment when the European order is being destroyed, led to the strengthening of arrogance and ostentation of the Kulturbund. Before the beginning of World War Two, this organization was eventually dominated by the young people who also reflected the victory over the moderate orientation of its former leaders.

"The increased activism of the Kulturbund is related to the resolution of the dispute and conflict existing between Doctor Kraft, the former MP, and Keks, the President of the Kulturbund, i.e. the followers of their respective factions. According to the decision of the selected court of honour, all the chief representatives of the opposing factions retreated from the leadership of both the Kulturbund and the Association of German Minority Business Cooperatives, Afterwards, a larger number of young German minority intellectuals became the leaders of German minority institutions, whereas most of them were inspired by National Socialism. Nevertheless, inevitable conflict ensued because of the fight for the primacy between the so-called moderate and combative factions. The latter were rather aggressive and accused the "moderates" of being opportunists, Hungariansupporting and too governmentalist, while the moderates did not hide their fear that 'Erneurerers', or the advocates of German revival, would provoke a reaction or even give rise to Nationalist tensions in these regions" Report to the Central Press Bureau from Novi Sad, 1939, AY, F-38, 7).

During the following period, the Kulturbund developed its activities on such a scale that it became the essential organization of the Germans in Vojvodina, under the full control of the home country. The successes of the German Third Reich encouraged an increasingly extreme attitude of the Kulturbund that got more successful in channelling its intra-organizational tendencies into a Nationalist consensus.

“The Banovina administration has a number of confidential reports about the attitudes among the German minority young people that under the influence of the National Socialist propaganda and agitation from abroad often cross the line in showing that they are the sympathizers of the Reich” (Report to the Central Press Bureau from Novi Sad, 1941, AY, F-38, 7).

The General Staff of the Army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia closely monitored the activities of German organizations as well. The German minority's acting was rather risky from the perspective of the security of the Yugoslav state (Tešić, 1996).

The tolerance by the government authorities was required by the official political tendency of Prince Pavle Karađorđević that ranged from initial neutrality towards the accession to the Triple Alliance. In addition, the Kulturbund activities in support to the Reich were most likely connected with the need and internal pressures exercised on the Kingdom to join the Axis powers. These activities were coordinated from the home country through the so-called Coordination Centre for Ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle) and, despite the still sober standpoint of Adam Berenz, the Roman Catholic priest from Apatin (Bešlin, 1999), they affected the process of "Nazification"", or "the intensification of Nationalist loyalty" (Orwell, 2006, p. 12) of the Germans in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the Führer. "The Nazification politics of the German minority was clearly expressed during the great manifestations held on 28th and 29th May in Apatin and Lazarevo in honour of the 'German Day'. The gathering in Apatin was attended by about 20,000 people and on the stage there was a motto 'Loyalty, blood and soil' (Treue, Blut und Boden)" (Antolović, 2017, p. 152).

With the approaching war reality and increasing German imperial appetites, militarization, but not "romantically styled" (Lukács, 1956, p. 73), and army organization of the Germans who accepted nationalism as the "pathology of modern development" (Anderson, 1983, p. 5), became more evident and less concealed activities in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. These activities were motivated by the "wrath" towards the state in which the Germans currently lived and the "satisfaction" (Gellner, 1998, p. 21) with the home country – the Third Reich that should liberate them. It was yet another moment of "liberation and social enthusiasm" (Hobsbawm, 1989, p. 340) that filled the 20th century to such an extent that trust in their permanence was completely lost.

The state was also familiar with the sabotage activities, but its helplessness made the response completely futile. In the April War in 1941, these paramilitary formations "permeated by the Nazi ideology" (Terzić, 1982, p. 200) actively participated in the collapse of the Army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia by disarming, according to some data, about 90,000 Yugoslav Army officers and soldiers.

After the collapse of Yugoslavia, Banat became part of the German Third Reich, while the Germans in Bačka and Baranja asked for a special position for these regions (Sonderstellung) (Ristović, 1991). It did not take place because Hungary objected to it. In any case, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia suffered violent geopolitical changes in which the Serbian national idea and the Yugoslav state were defeated.

Sources

Archives of Yugoslavia (AY):

Minority press in the Danube Banovina, F-38, file no. 7

Report to the Central Press Bureau from Novi Sad of 16th March 1939, F-38, file no. 7

Report to the Central Press Bureau from Novi Sad of 12th September 1938, F-38, file no. 7

Report to the Central Press Bureau from Novi Sad of 29th May 1939, F-38, file no. 7

Report to the Central Press Bureau from Novi Sad of 9th March 1941, F-38, file no. 7

Archives of Vojvodina (AV)– АSNS, F. 122, 756

Press:

Politika, 25th April 1924

Jugoslovenski dnevnik, 3rd June 1930

References

Antolović, M. (2017). German Minority in Vojvodina (1918-1941): Societies and Politics. Sombor: Pedagoški fakultet u Somboru [In Serbian].
April War in 1941. (1969). Collection of documents. Beograd: Vojnoistorijski institut [In Serbian].
Benedict, A. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. London-New York: Verso.
Bešlin, B. (2001). Vesnik tragedije - nemačka štampa u Vojvodini 1933-1941. godine / A Harbinger of Tragedy: German Press in Vojvodina 1933-1941. Novi Sad & Novi Sad-Sremski Karlovci: Platoneum & Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića [In Serbian].
Bešlin, B. (1999). Nemačka katolička štampa u Vojvodini i njen spor sa nacionalsocijalistima 1935-1941. godine / German Catholic Press in Vojvodina and its Dispute with National Socialists in 1935-1941. Zb Matice Srp Istor, 59-60, 107-123. [In Serbian]
Biber, D. (1966). Nazism and Germans in Yugoslavia. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba [In Slovenian].
Bibo, I. (1996). The misery of small Eastern European states. Sremski Karlovci-Novi Sad: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića [In Serbian].
Definite results of the population census of 31st March 1932. (1938). The population census by religion. Vol. 2, Beograd. [In Serbian]
Dimić, Lj. (2001). History of Serbian Statehood: Serbs in Yugoslavia / Istorija srpske državnosti. Novi Sad: SANU-Ogranak u Novom Sadu & Beseda-Izdavačka ustanova Eparhije Bačke & Društvo istoričara Južnobačkog i Sremskog okruga [In Serbian].
Đurić, M. (2009). Utopia of World Changes: Myth, Science, Ideology. Collected Works, Vol. 6. Beograd: Službeni glasnik [In Serbian].
Gaćeša, N. (2007). Land Ownership Relations in Vojvodina on the Eve of World War Two. Novi Sad: Matica srpska [In Serbian].
Gellner, E. (1989). Nations and Nationalism. Zagreb: Politička kultura. [In Serbian]
Hobsbawm, E. (1989). The Age of Empire 1875-1914. New York: Vintage books.
Janjetović, Z. (2005). Children of Emperors, Stepchildren of Kings. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju [In Serbian].
Janjetović, Z. (2000). Question of national minority protection in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919-1920. Istorija 20. veka, XVIII(2), 31-42. [In Serbian]
Janjetović, Z. (1993). About the expansion of the land owned by Vojvodina Germans between two world wars [In Serbian]. Godišnjak za društvenu istoriju, 1-3, 101-111.
Kecmanović, D. (2004). Rational and Irrational in Nationalism. Beograd: XX vek [In Serbian].
Kraft, S. (1931). King, the Pillar of Universal Peace. In: Our Greatest King. Beograd: Jugoslovenski dnevnik. [In Serbian].
Lalošević, J. (1919). Our Liberation and Unification. Sombor: Istorijski arhiv, fond 57, inv. no. 448. [In Serbian]
Lukács, G. (1956). Nietzsche and Fascism. Beograd: Kultura [In Serbian].
Marković, S. (2010). Bunjevci of Vojvodina in the Political Life of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Yugoslavia in 1918-1941. Subotica: Bunjevački informativni centar [In Serbian].
Marković, S. (2011). Jovan Lalošević's Political Biography. Sombor: Pedagoški fakultet [In Serbian].
Marković, S. (2020). From Accession to Redrawing: Vojvodina in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians/Yugoslavia 1918-1941. Novi Sad: Arhiv Vojvodine [In Serbian].
Milenković, T. (1985). Banatska republika i mađarski komesarijat u Banatu 31. oktobar 1918-20. februar 1919 / Banat Republic and Hungarian Commissariat in Banat (31st October 1918-20th February 1919). Zb Matice Srp Istor, 32, 99-141. [In Serbian]
Orwell, G. (2006). Notes on Nationalism. Novi pogledi, Sarajevo. [In Serbian]
Petrović, M. (2016). Memories. Novi Sad: Matica srpska-Gradska biblioteka [In Serbian].
Ristović, M. (1991). German 'New Order' and South-eastern Europe 1940/41-1944/45: Plans for the Future and Practice. Beograd: VINC [In Serbian].
Stanić, S. (1931). Swabians in Vojvodina. Letopis Matice srpske, 330, 1-2, 114-136. [In Serbian]
Subotić, M. (2009). Eric Hobsbawm: A historian in search of the future [In Serbian]. Filozofija i društvo, 20(1), 159-192. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/789598/Erik_Hobsbaum_istori%C4%8Dar_u_potrazi_za_budu%C4%87no%C5%A1%C4%87u [In Serbian]. [Crossref]
Terzić, V. (1982). Slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941 - uzroci i posledice poraza / The Collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia: Causes and Consequences of the Defeat. Beograd & Beograd-Ljubljana & Titograd: Narodna knjiga & Partizanska knjiga & Pobjeda [In Serbian].
Tešić, D. (1996). The Army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and National Minorities in the years before the April War. Istorija 20. veka 2, 79-92. [In Serbian]
Vujačić, V. (2013). Sociology of Nationalism: Essays from Theoretical and Applied Sociology on the examples of Russia and Serbia. Beograd: Službeni glasnik [In Serbian].
Reference
*** (1938) Definite results of the population census of 31st March 1932: The population census by religion. Beograd, Vol. 2, [In Serbian]
*** (1969) April War in 1941: Collection of documents. Beograd: Vojnoistorijski institut, [In Serbian]
Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. London-New York: Verso
Antolović, M. (2017) German Minority in Vojvodina (1918-1941): Societies and Politics. Sombor: Pedagoški fakultet u Somboru, [In Serbian]
Bešlin, B. (2001) Vesnik tragedije - nemačka štampa u Vojvodini 1933-1941. godine / A Harbinger of Tragedy: German Press in Vojvodina 1933-1941. Novi Sad: Platoneum, [In Serbian]
Bešlin, B. (1999) Nemačka katolička štampa u Vojvodini i njen spor sa nacionalsocijalistima 1935-1941. godine / German Catholic Press in Vojvodina and its Dispute with National Socialists in 1935-1941. Zbornik Matice srpske za istoriju, 59-60, 107-123. [In Serbian]
Biber, D. (1966) Nazism and Germans in Yugoslavia. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, [In Slovenian]
Bibo, I. (1996) The misery of small Eastern European states. Sremski Karlovci-Novi Sad: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića, In Serbian
Dimić, Lj. (2001) History of Serbian Statehood: Serbs in Yugoslavia / Istorija srpske državnosti. Novi Sad: SANU-Ogranak u Novom Sadu, Vol. III, [In Serbian]
Đurić, M. (2009) Utopia of World Changes: Myth, Science, Ideology: Collected Works. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, Vol. 6, [In Serbian]
Gaćeša, N. (2007) Land Ownership Relations in Vojvodina on the Eve of World War Two. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, [In Serbian]
Gellner, E. (1932) Nations and Nationalism. Zagreb: Politička kultura, [In Serbian]
Hobsbawm, E. (1989) The Age of Empire 1875-1914. New York: Vintage books
Janjetović, Z. (2005) Children of Emperors, Stepchildren of Kings. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, [In Serbian]
Janjetović, Z. (2000) Question of national minority protection in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919-1920. Istorija 20. veka, year XVIII, 2, 31-42. [In Serbian]
Janjetović, Z. (1993) About the expansion of the land owned by Vojvodina Germans between two world wars. Godišnjak za društvenu istoriju, 1-3, 101-111. [In Serbian]
Kecmanović, D. (2004) Rational and Irrational in Nationalism. Beograd: XX vek, [In Serbian]
Kraft, S. (1931) King, the Pillar of Universal Peace. u: Our Greatest King, Beograd, 23rd November, Jugoslovenski dnevnik. [In Serbian]
Lalošević, J. (1919) Our Liberation and Unification. Sombor: Istorijski arhiv, fond 57, inv. no. 448. [In Serbian]
Lukács, G. (1956) Nietzsche and Fascism. Beograd: Kultura, [In Serbian]
Marković, S. (2010) Bunjevci of Vojvodina in the Political Life of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Yugoslavia in 1918-1941. Subotica: Bunjevački informativni centar, [In Serbian]
Marković, S. (2011) Jovan Lalošević's Political Biography. Sombor: Pedagoški fakultet, [In Serbian]
Marković, S. (2020) From Accession to Redrawing: Vojvodina in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians/Yugoslavia 1918-1941. Novi Sad: Arhiv Vojvodine, in Serbian
Milenković, T. (1985) Banatska republika i mađarski komesarijat u Banatu 31. oktobar 1918-20. februar 1919 / Banat Republic and Hungarian Commissariat in Banat (31st October 1918-20th February 1919). Zbornik Matice srpske za istoriju, Novi Sad, 32, 99-141. [In Serbian]
Orwell, G. (2006) Notes on Nationalism. Novi pogledi, Sarajevo, [In Serbian]
Petrović, M. (2016) Memories. Novi Sad: Matica srpska-Gradska biblioteka, [In Serbian]
Ristović, M. (1991) German 'New Order' and South-eastern Europe 1940/41-1944/45: Plans for the Future and Practice. Beograd: VINC, [In Serbian]
Stanić, S. (1931) Swabians in Vojvodina. Letopis Matice srpske, vol. 330, 1-2, 114-136. [In Serbian]
Subotić, M. (2009) Eric Hobsbawm: A historian in search of the future. Filozofija i društvo, vol. 20, br. 1, str. 159-192
Terzić, V. (1982) Slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941 - uzroci i posledice poraza / The Collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia: Causes and Consequences of the Defeat. Beograd: Narodna knjiga, Knj. I, [In Serbian]
Tešić, D. (1996) The Army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and National Minorities in the years before the April War. Istorija 20. veka, 2, 79-92. [In Serbian]
Vujačić, V. (2013) Sociology of Nationalism: Essays from Theoretical and Applied Sociology on the examples of Russia and Serbia. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, [In Serbian]
 

O članku

jezik rada: srpski, engleski
vrsta rada: pregledni članak
DOI: 10.5937/socpreg55-32323
primljen: 19.05.2021.
revidiran: 20.08.2021.
prihvaćen: 20.08.2021.
objavljen u SCIndeksu: 29.10.2021.
metod recenzije: dvostruko anoniman
Creative Commons License 4.0

Povezani članci

Nema povezanih članaka