Toward a New Central Europe

CROATIA AND CENTRAL EUROPE

STJEPAN BUC

THE geopolitical situation of a people is not created by supernatural forces: it is formed in the same way as the people themselves. The task of science is not only to explain the ethnogenesis of the respective collective organism, but also to answer the questions how this collective community of people could maintain its area, and what were the dangers menacing its existence which had to be mastered?

The aim of our article is to explore the character of the Croatian people, one of the oldest peoples of Europe, their biological and historical peculiarities, and their attitude to their neighbors in the Central European area.

Where is "Central Europe"?

In spite of some difficulties in finding a definition that would be of general value, it is not altogether impossible, to my mind, to answer this question in a satisfactory manner. We can fix the limits of our continent rather easily, but the definition of "Central Europe" is difficult because no natural geographical frontier exists. E.g., if we consider the area of "Atlantic Europe" there is at least one quite clear border: it is contained in the very definition of the term. This is not the case regarding Central Europe. Nevertheless, this concept is still used, particularly in German political literature. If we glance at the map of Europe, we must admit that the "Pannonian Plain" belongs to the heart of the continent and that the Carpathian Mountains from such a wall in the East that they can in no way be overlooked. Budapest is almost centrally located between the Rhine and the Carpathian Mountains, while the area between the rivers Drava and Drina constitutes an access to the warmer sea. Although geographers are of various opinions regarding the eastern boundary, we must, nevertheless, take it for granted that one should not go eastward beyond the Carpathian Mountains. 1) Furthermore, the history of this area during the last thousand years can in no way be understood without considering the "Pannonian Plain" as a part of Central Europe. German

political literature very often uses the name "East Central Europe" today. This causes more confusion because the basic idea itself is not yet clarified.

The former deputy to the German Reichstag, Friedrich Naumann, created the term "Mitteleuropa" and popularized it 2) For Naumann it was a matter of political conception; by the term "Central Europe" he referred to the "Central Powers" of that time: Germany and the Dual Monarchy. But he did not stop at the Rhine; he supposed that France should also be included in his "Central Europe." He stressed, however, that the last wars drew France away from "Central Europe." Naumann's error consisted in the fact that he wished for the information of one state comprising all those empires. There is no doubt that through the destruction of these two empires in World War I, Europe also was 'eo ipso' destroyed - thanks to extra-European forces. This, too, proves that "Central Europe" is the kernel of Europe in general. The catastrophe caused by it is evident from the fact that the boundaries of Asia have been extended to the Trieste-Lubeck line and have reached Berlin.

We are of the opinion that this delineation of the boundaries by Naumann - regarding the area itself - is comparatively the most realistic, because it is based today, as at the time of Naumann, on a concrete and historical foundation that could not be destroyed by political catastrophes of two world wars. On the contrary, it seems to bid defiance to all dramatic events that have ruined Europe. Hence, the idea that the area of "Central Europe" is the territory of the former so-called Central Powers (Germany and the Dual Monarchy) is based on the fact that peoples of Western culture inhabit it and that it is situated before the gates of the eastern world: it is a kind of "antimurale occidentis."

Croatia belongs to this area

The surprising ignorance of sociology in East European history has had harmful results regarding the interpretation of Croatian history. Even worse, however, are the quite false political conclusions generated by this ignorance. The catastrophic consequences can be best illustrated if one realizes that the present unsound political structure of Central Europe represents one focus of the current world crisis, and that, this results from the above-mentioned ignorance concerning the nature of the peoples of the Indogermanic-Slavic linguistic group. Old Byzantine fairy tales about a fictitious ethnic "Slavic unity" (continuously accepted and carried on also by the romanticism of the 18th and 19th centuries) resulted in the fabrication of those artificial states in the first half of the present century. Not only different peoples and hostile races strangers to each other were forced into such states, but actually two different worlds - the East and the

West - were supposed to unify. Such was the case of the Croatian people who became one of the victims of the false doctrine of so-called "Slavic unity." They were forced into an artificial states - i.e., Yugoslavia - which they never considered their home country, but rather a prison. The fundamental error made was that a European, Western people were isolated from their organic, natural connection with Europe - let us say, from Central Europe - and were forced to be part of an Asiatic-Byzantine power, such as Yugoslavia, as far as its ethnic and cultural aspects are concerned.3)

The well-known Austrian sociologist, Johannes Peisker, 50 years ago referred to an important fact, and according to him this fact is clearly proven by history: "All so-called Slave States of which we have sufficient information turn out to be either Germanic or Atlantic foundations."4) One should keep this statement in mind if one wishes to deal with the historical life of the peoples of the Slavic linguistic group. It would be preferable to correct the denomination "Germanic or Atlantic" to "Germanic or Nordic," for the latter fits better into the geographical and historical aspect. The Croatian state was founded by Illyrian-Gothic elements, while the Serbian state was established by the Turkish (Cumanes).

Hence, the ethnogenesis of the Croats is to a certain degree similar to that of the French: what the Illyrians are in the Croatian case, the Celts (Galli) are in the French case; what the Goths are for the Croats, the Franks are for the French. The enormous excavations in Croatia, particularly in Bosnia and Dalmatia (from the time of the Roman Empire: "Illyricum Superior" or "Dalmatian Romana," between the rivers Sava and Drina and the Adriatic Sea, are rich with remnants of the Illyrian and Gothic culture, which again prove the above-mentioned ethnogenesis. We would like to mention an important fact: these discoveries reach eastward, mainly to the line which follows the river Drina before its mouth into the Sava, along its upper bed, and from here inclines toward the Adriatic Sea until it reaches it at the little coastal town of Budva. This line forms the most exact and the oldest boundary of Europe: it divided - and divides also today - West and East in that part of our Continent, between the Pannonian Plain and the Adriatic Sea.5) Eastwards is the Turkish-Byzantine, westwards the European world.

Not only the settlements of these areas, but also their historical developments are fundamentally different. The administration of Caesar was divided along this line which cut the Imperium Romanum into eastern and western halves between the sons of Theodoric toward the end of the 4th century. On this same line the Empire burst asunder . in the following century, while the former western part became an area in which new states were formed. But the boundary persisted as a perpetual "memento" of the division of peoples and worlds; only a few "emitters" succeeded in fleeing to the

West at the time of the Turkish domination. Finally, the Christian Church split up on the same line into the Roman and Byzantine churches. Eugene Pittard, one of the best experts of the anthropology of the Balkan peoples, is quite right in asking whether these splits were not separations of quite different ethnic elements that could not live under the same roof.6) This fact cannot be explained otherwise.

A modern sociologist termed the nature of the Illyrians and their importance to the Western world as follows: ". . . The Celts, Illyrians and Venets (the latter were probably only a tribe of the Illyrians) deserve the merit that the Occident has preserved its name to a greater extent, and that it became European to a greater degree . . . The Celts, Illyrians and Venets have prepared Central and Western Europe to be the proper bulks of Europe and the bearers of the Occidental culture.7) The bulk of the Illyrians - we have mentioned already - were living on a Croatian soil; this is confirmed not only by the name of the area (Illyricum), but most of all, by excavations. The Illyrian settlements were followed in the 5th century by a second wave of settlement by Gothic tribes, likewise from the North. They intermixed without any difficulty and constituted a oneness in a similar way of life and in one language.8)

Defense against the East

What it all means to live on the limits of the Eastern world is known only by those peoples of Western culture who themselves have experienced it through the centuries. We Croats and the Hungarians experienced it more than sufficiently in the past as well as today. That is why these peoples appreciate the necessity of European ties more than those who are not immediate neighbors to the Eastern world. We know quite well from experience what the modern phrase "coexistence" means for us. God protect us from such a "coexistence!"

Striving for power is generally characteristic of human beings. But if two do the same, it is yet not the same. As the eastern individual is quite different in his nature and character. so will he act and react differently. The Ukrainian psychologist, Professor Yaniv, has characterized the peoples of the two worlds from a psychological point of view as follows:9) "Considering the division of the inner impetus in the human being such as: the intellect, willpower and emotion, the last factor is very much developed in the East; to a certain extent, of course, at the expense of the former two." The Western man - according to Prof. Yaniv - is differently constituted than the Easterner: the intellect and the willpower of the Westerner is less passionate, he is better balanced, more capable of controlling his feelings because he can temper his passion. If we should define the word "freedom," we may state that "freedom" is nothing more than the ability of controlling ourselves. It refers not only to the political, but also to the

individual-psychological aspect. Whoever is not able to master himself, to control his emotion, is not a free man but a servant to his passions. And the striving for power, the lust for domination in the East is uncontrolled The average Western man has only a vague idea of this. He is e.g., dazed, seeing how the authoritative factors of the East decide various important problems. The Westerner simply cannot understand it because all this results from the psychological constitution of the Easterners; it is the emanation of their nature and character-. They have a different vocabulary 10) and, likewise, a different logic. The historians, e.g., have proven that the term "democracy" in Byzantium meant something quite different from what it means to us. "Democracy" means for them what "anarchy" means for the Westerners. What in the West is generally termed "democracy", that is dictatorship in the East; what is "peace" for them. that is "a peace of cemetery": their "coexistence" translated for us means that burglary is to be voluntarily acknowledged by the legitimate owner as a just action at the burglar. Different logic, different moral conceptions; hence, a different philosophy and different ethics. The doctrine of Marx has become - just to mention it - empty slogans in the East, something that has nothing in common with the original teachings of Marx. When I was studying sociology at the University of Zurich I very often had a good opportunity to meet Ilja Uljanov Lenin in a little library. A few weeks before he moved to Sweden I explained to him that according to the doctrine of Marx the development of his native country was in no way ripe for the introduction of socialism. Lenin answered me by quoting the verses from Faust by Goethe, in which Mephisto says to the student: ". . . Grey is, my dear friend, all theory . . . "; at the same time he added: "Facts are accomplished with the fist." For the Easterner, science is nothing more than a "maidservant of politics." With special regard to the culture in the East, the task of science is not the truth, not what exists, but what should be. Lenin explained also that "ethical" is only that which will serve the proletarian to seize power; in other words, what will serve the interest of a certain clique.

It would not be correct, however, to classify the Eastern man and his world as something generally inferior. That world is simply different from ours. Because of these essential differences we simply do not wish to be under the rule of that world. We just cannot endure its domination. We prefer to enjoy our right of self-determination and we wish to live freely in our own state.

Most Croats are of the opinion that they never have received anything good from the East. Byzantium destroyed our state and was eager to enlarge its power beyond this line westward. Of course, the spontaneous resistance of the people was so powerful and the Byzantine Empire so weak that it did not succeed. In the course of time when our state legitimized itself under the Croat name, this resistance became even stronger. Charlemagne was obliged to wage war with

Byzantium because of Dalmatia, as he considered that the entire Croatian area legally belonged to the West. Not sooner than 923, the Patriarch of Constantinople was obliged to give up all claim to the jurisdiction in Dalmatia in favor of the Pope, this jurisdiction being mere theory anyway.

We have cognizance of only one case in the long Croatian history till 1918 when measures were taken there to force Croatia into the eastern camp. It happened in 878 under Prince Sedeslav. But he lost at this very moment, not only his throne, but also his life.

With the decay of this unnatural state on the Bosporus, pressure became weaker, too. But in place of it there had arisen in our immediate neighborhood, beyond the Drina boundary, another aggressor that endangers our existence up to this date: Serbia.

Serbian history bears a likeness to Muscovite history. The Serbian and the Muscovite alike are imbued with similar eastern qualities, at least among their leading class. They are a relatively young people; their history may be traced back not more than 1,000 years.

W. O. Kluchevskij; stresses the following regarding the Russians: the history of Russia is the history of a country that is being colonized. As far as we are able to trace back. We may observe the same phenomenon in Serbian history: their rulers try to make Serbia a country by means of colonization. The Nemanjides have endeavored to do it through 200 years but - as Jirechek himself has stated - they have not succeeded in attaining their end. After the collapse of the "Dushan-empire," the church, established by the son of Nemanja, Save, resumed the function of the state. It is very interesting to cast a glance at the nature of this excellent political method whereby the church was the bearer of the colonizing idea in foreign areas. We would like to deal with this at least in brief.

In his book, "The Life of St. Sava'' 11) , Bishop Nicholay Velimirovic deals also with the motives that led Sava to go on a pilgrimage to Nicaea (Asia Minor) to get approbation for the establishment of the church. At that time the Emperor and the Patriarch both had fled to Nicaea, having been endangered by the crusaders. Sava tried to explain to them how dangerous Catholicism was to the East, and how necessary it was to set up a bulwark against it. Velimirovic writes on it as follows: "Impressed deeply by Sava's lucid explanations, both the Emperor and the Patriarch gladly accepted his proposal as a very reasonable and timely one" (p. 110). In such a way Sava returned as an archbishop from Nicaea (1219) and started the organization of his instrument. While the administration of the Eastern Church in its interior matters reached westward to the Drina, the first step of Sava was to nominate two bishops west of this line; that is, on the purely Catholic area of southern Dalmatia, Ston, and the Bay of Cattaro. The episcopates could not be, of course, maintained for a longer time, but the establishment of the Sava-Church created not only a bulwark

against the West, but far more: an outpost for future Eastern expansion in all directions. At the Drina watershed two forces appeared, East and West, that were opposed to each other more than ever before. The renowned Serbian historian, Stojan Novakovic (together with professor Jagic who was the publisher of "Archiv fur Slavische Philologie" at that time) writes on this theme as follows: "The Greek Orthodoxy and the Serbians joined in one indivisible unit, and by the stubbornness of the patriotic Serbians this new united power could not but cause a struggle: the quite different Catholic civilization of their Croat brothers had become repugnant to the Serbians. A new abyss arose between the Greek Orthodox Serbians and the Catholic Croats resulting in the fact that the two people - although speaking the same language - had formed two kinds of civilization with two quite different literatures without the hope of any sound union in the future. There were two different cultures, the Byzantine and the Roman one, and both decided to wage a bloody war to the death.12) The prominent historian, however, committed an error when - according to the "Slavic romanticism" of that time - he believed that the Serbians and the Croats are two groups of one people. They never were one people, they are not now either, and cannot ever be one people.

On the contrary - owing to the social development in the whole world - they constitute today two entirely different nations, that cannot live together in one state even if they had a common racial basis.13) The unnatural "union" disproved by history alienated these two peoples even more in 1918. The horrible Communist dictatorship is at present the unique means of preserving this conglomerate. Its downfall would call forth at the very moment the decay of Yugoslavia and its disappearance from the map of Europe.

Croatia Belongs to Central Europe

Because of her origin, development, culture, and entire nature Croatia belongs to the Central European area. Conversely, Croatia does not belong to the East nor to the Balkans. Separated from the Western world by treachery and violence, and thank to the fabricated "Slavic Union" that never really existed, Croatia was handed over to a traditionally aggressive Eastern foreign rule. The Croats were not only deprived of their right of self-determination, but at the same time they were exposed to the danger of completely disappearing from the surface of the earth as a cultural entity. May we, at the same time, refer to the Hungarian example, because our situation is best illustrated by it. The Croats and the Hungarians are peoples of Western culture; their struggle against the Eastern aggression is reflected in the honorary titles conferred on them by the Popes "Fortissima Dropugnacula fidei et antemurale christianitatis." Croats and: Hungarians

alike have endured Serbian imperialism under Communist dictatorship, which has proved that the Serbs are madly aggressive. When the Patriarch of Pec Arsenije Crnoevic in 1690, after the debacle of the imperial liberation armies in the southwest, was compelled to take refuge with his people across the Danube. He reserved the right for himself that the refugees would return to their fatherland as soon as possible. Russia, Serbia were liberated, but the refugees did not come back to their native country. They remained in Hungary, where a Serbian cultural center also developed. Its influence on the later cultural development of the old mother country was quite significant And what happened later on? The former refugees, who at the beginning were welcomed as guests by the Hungarians finally became "occupants and conquerors" striving successfully to annex the ethnic-historical area of Hungary to Serbia. While the German portion of the population was simply annihilated and the remainder expelled, the "Black" (as the Serbs are called there) were moved into this area from the Balkans to colonize this strip of land. The Hungarian part of the population was left where it was; but anyone who knows the nature of the intruders can in no way have illusions what the fate of those who have remained there will be. We would like to mention here some facts illustrating the true nature of the Serb invaders, through pseudo-scientific researches made in the so-called "museum" (in Novi Sad and in Belgrade alike) the Serbs tried to prove that the area had been "Serbian" from time immemorial, and that it has now returned again to its motherland. A few years ago there was news spread in the world, according to which the territory called "Vojvodina" - that came under the rule of the Serbian "People's Republic" and was also enlarged by a portion of Croatia, Slavonia or Sriem - constitutes 51% of Serbian population. I mention this in order to characterize the diabolic methods of colonialism. that have come to an end even in Africa and now in that part of Central Europe were put in high gear by the dictator in Belgrade and used against non-Serbian peoples. And this practice happens publicly before the whole world. The same methods are applied also in Bosnia. As already mentioned, Bosnia never had anything in common with Serbia. In its southern area - the Herzegovina - there was an intrusion from Rascia, but the intruders were chased away. During the Turkish occupation, several refugees succeeded in escaping beyond the Drina-line, thus forming the present Serbian minority in Herzegovina. In its insatiable lust for Slavic expansion, Belgrade was eager to denationalize this area. The Bosnian Mohammedans belong to the indigenous population of he country because they are of Illyrian-Gothic origin. The Serbian imperialist's first endeavor was to strip off the nationality of this population; that is why one million people are registered after their confession of faith as "Musulmans" (Moslems). By the same terroristic methods the Croat people are prevented from confessing their Croat

nationality. As is generally known, the Serb occupants plan to declare these people at a given moment as "Serbians." This is how Central Europe is being "Balkanized." The former Central Powers constituted a real "Cordon Sanitaire" against this Slavic evil, but this bulwark was destroyed by two world wars and by their consequences. The enemy, however, does not stop at our boundaries. After having reached the Trieste-Lubeck line he continues to march westward. He aims at "Balkanizing" not only Europe, but also the entire West at last.

1) Encyclopedia Italiana. Vol. XIV, p. 645.

2) Friedrich Naumann: Mitteleuropa. Berlin, 1915.

3) This happened later in Yalta to the whole of Central Europe which was given away to be a part of the Soviet orbit. (Editor's remark).

4) Johannes Peisker: "The expansion of the Slav>" in "Cambridge Medieval History," Vol. II. 1913.

5) The term "Illyricum" included also an enlarged area, of course, only for a shorter time. The proper ethnic Illyricum is important because it later became the basis for the ethnic historical area of the Croatian people. The Drina boundary constituted its eastern limits. See: J. Lucinus "De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae." Amsterdam, 1666: he quotes the definition of 'Paladii Fusci Patavini Lib. I.,' by stating: "Illyricum auctore Plinio terminus habet... ab Ortu (East!) Dirinonem flumen quod et Drinum dicitur." Hence it also included Dalmatia, Istria, Pannonic Croatia, Slavonia (with Sirmium, Sriem, and Bosnia and (contemporary) Herzegovina.)

6) Eugene Pittard, Les peuples des Balcans, Paris-Neuchatel, 1916 p. 44.

7) Wilhelm Schmidt, Rassen und Volker in Vorgeschichte und Geschichte des Abendlandes", Luzern, 1946, II, p. 300.

8) Thom. Archidiac, Historia Salonitana, Cap. VII.: "Permixti ergo sunt populi isti et facti sunt gens una, vita moribusque eonsimiles, unius loquele."

9) Yaniv: Ukrainian Quarterly, Vol. 1. (1950)

10) See "Wordmanship. Semantics as a Communist Weapon", by Stephan T. Possony, Director of International Studies, Hoover Institution, Stanford, California (Printing Office, Division of Public Documents).

11) Libertyville, Ill., USA, 1957.

12) Vol. 33, p. 445.

13) See W. Schmidt's above-cited book, p. 15.

Toward a New Central Europe