interpretation of history. The design of the memorial
Above, there is a picture of the Monument to
complex at Sutjeska is an outstanding example of
the Revolution of the people of Moslavina, a region the creation a desired memory culture from the
in Croatia, by the sculptor Dušan Džamonija: Since perspective of the Yugoslav state. 7
the break-up of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s,
thousands of these monuments dedicated to anti-
The proposal for the monument at Tjentište
fascist Partisan fighters and victims of Croatia’s (in Bosnia-Hercegovina) by the sculptor Miodrag
World War II Ustasa regime, or representing other Živković was accepted as a perfect symbol and
symbols of socialist Yugoslavia, have been vandalised artistic expression of the “inescapable meaning” of
or demolished, and many activists in Croatia are now the Battle of Sutjeska in 1943. The battle exemplified
determined to halt the destruction. But one could the struggle of all the Yugoslav nations against
add that in spite of the collapse of the old state and “foreign occupiers and domestic traitors”. The
the wars of the 1990s, in some parts of Croatia at battle was defined as “a glorious historical example
least a significant number of these monuments have with far-reaching consequences, exalted and
remained untouched. unique”. Živković’s work is still the most famous
6
Partisan monument in the territory of the former
There is a complex relationship between
socialist Yugoslavia. It was mentioned as a place
commemorative sculptures or monuments and of memory and as a site for a memorial complex
the formation of a collective memory. Today it is for the first time in 1954. After Josip Broz Tito
widely accepted that historical memory neither personally endorsed the ultimate design concept,
reproduces past events nor is an expression of past he played a crucial role in adopting the law on
facts; rather, it is a construct through which past or financing the works in the memorial complex in
present events are filtered, interpreted and then re- Sutjeska. The design of the memorial complex
interpreted. Collective memories always represent an at Tjentište, a place where it was claimed that
act of reconstruction and design, and are therefore “5,000 soldiers were buried”, cost approximately
inseparable from the social context. Collective 57.8 million dinars, and was financed entirely by
remembrance changes, and so memorial architecture federal funds. Officially the monument was unveiled
changes as well. The construction, destruction, in 1971 in the presence of Josip Broz Tito under
restoration, or censorship of a country’s monuments the title “Monument of Victory”. However, in an
allows scholars to analyse how political elites seek increasingly decentralised system, actors such
to transmit their ideological worldview and the as the Union of Partisan Veterans feared that the
mechanisms they use to mould the past in order building of the memorial complex might meet with
to obtain contemporary political legitimacy. Both opposition on financial grounds, and so they quickly
institutionalised memory – the interpretations of the unveiled the monument, even though it was not yet
past constructed by political elites, their supporters, finished. So by the beginning of the 1970s, although
and their opponents – and individual memory are “brotherhood and unity” remained the official
primarily subject to the needs of the present. motto of the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia,
the demands for “transparent accounting” within
The political structures in socialist Yugoslavia
the federation were applied to all financial issues,
were well aware of the importance of monuments and the financing of monuments and memorial
as the most visible expressions of the socialist complexes of common Yugoslav significance was
6 https://balkaninsight.com/2019/05/21/the-struggle-to-save-croatias-vanishing-anti-fascist-monuments/
7 https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tjenti%c5%a1te&qpvt=Tjenti%c5%a1te&FORM=IGRE
82
Observing Memories
ISSUE 3