POVIJEST KOJA (JOŠ) TRAJE

POVIJEST KOJA (JOŠ) TRAJE

Malo se tko spasio iz tamnica u Ljubuškom

Traženje istine nije osveta nego pravo žrtava na dostojanstvo

Piše: dr. Ante Čuvalo

ljub

Ljubuške tamnice i grobišta (priredio Anđelko Zlopaša)

Prošla su desetljeća od kraja Drugog svjetskog rata, pali su komunistički totalitarni režimi, raspale se umjetne državne tvorevine, prohujao i odnio živote još jedan rat, donesena je Rezolucija o europskoj savjesti i totalitarizmu (2. travnja 2009.) kojom su osuđeni zločini protiv čovječanstva, ali kod Hrvata (ali i nekih drugih) još uvijek je nedovršena kobna dionica nedavne povijesti. Premda zamagljena, ona je prisutna, ona ne zacjeljuje rane i ne podučava mlađe, nego kao ružna mora muči (još poneke živuće) progonjene i progonitelje, pa i njihove potomke. Kosti ubijenih leže u masovnim grobištima, a za mnoge ne znamo jesu li uopće i pokopani. Grobišta za koja znamo još su (uglavnom) neistražena. Državne vlasti u BiH, kao i u Hrvatskoj, žele te naše drage pokojne i dalje ostaviti iza komunističke dimne zavjese koja nas još obavija i svakodnevno udišemo zrak koji su ta ideologija i njezini talibani zagadili. Misle valjda da će pobijeni i mučeni pasti u zaborav, kao i mučitelji i posljedice njihove ideologije. Ali ljudska memorija je čudna; sve ostaje, ništa se ne briše. I kroz donedavno olovna vremena ljudi su očuvali sjećanja na stratišta i grobišta, mjesta gdje su naši očevi, djedovi, braća, stričevi i rođaci bez suda i presude pobijeni i leže čekajući da istina o njihovoj nepravednoj smrti ugleda svjetlo dana.

Vodstvo Općine Ljubuški, da bi poduzelo istraživanje ratnih i poratnih žrtava na svom području, 29. prosinca 2009. ustrojilo je Povjerenstvo za obilježavanje i uređivanje grobišta iz Drugog svjetskog rata i poraća na području općine Ljubuški. Članovi Povjerenstva su Vice Nižić (predsjednik Općinskog vijeća) – predsjednik, te članovi Nevenko Barbarić (načelnik Općine), mr. fra Miljenko Stojić, fra Ante Marić, dr. Ante Čuvalo, Gojko Grbavac (šef imovinsko-pravne službe), prof. Drago Grgić, Ivan Herceg (pomoćnik načelnika) i prof. Ante Paponja.

Uz Nevenka Barbarića i Vicu Nižića, dvojicu vodećih osoba Općine, posebice je važna uloga fra Miljenka Stojića, vicepostulatora postupka mučeništva »Fra Leo Petrović i 65 subraće«. Premda je njegova službena dužnost pronalaziti, iskopavati i istraživati okolnosti poginule mu subraće tijekom i poslije Drugog svjetskog rata, svojim znanjem, iskustvom i poletom on predvodi i ovaj tužni, ali neprocjenjiv posao.

Grobište Tomića njiva

Na području općine Ljubuški ima veći broj stratišta i grobišta. U samom gradu zna se za nekoliko lokaliteta. Prvo iskapanje obavljeno je na lokalitetu Tomića njiva, koji se nalazi nedaleko od OŠ Marka Marulića, danas u okružju lijepih obiteljskih kuća. Radovi su trajali od 19. do 28. srpnja 2010. Stručni dio posla predvodili su prof. mr. sc. Tihomir Glavaš te forenzičarka prof. dr. sc. Marija Definis-Gojanović. Iskopavanje su izvodili ljudi iz Javnog komunalnog poduzeća Ljubuški uz stalnu fra Miljenkovu nazočnost, kao i čestu nazočnost vodećih ljudi iz vodstva općine.

Svjesno društvo i Crkva zajedno traže pobijene. Nije ljudski i kršćanski da njihova žrtva padne u zaborav.
Bili su to vrući ljetni dani, ali radilo se zdušno i prije i poslije radnog vremena. Svatko je želio da se posao odradi dobro i u što kraćem vremenu. Kroz sve te dane dolazili su članovi obitelji onih za koje se zna ili se misli da su tu ubijeni. Dolazili su mnogi fratri iz samostana na Humcu, okolnih župa i iz daljeg, jer se zna da u tom grobištu leže posmrtni ostatci i (najmanje) dvojice fratara. Jedan od njih je vjerojatno fra Slobodan Lončar, a drugi bi mogao biti ili fra Paško Martinac ili fra Martin Sopta, ili sva trojica. Saznat će se tko je pokopan u ovom grobištu, kao i drugima, kad stručnjaci naprave DNK analizu posmrtnih ostataka pobijenih.

Dolazili su ljudi iz političkog života i sredstava javnog priopćavanja koja su svakodnevno izvješćivala o rezultatima rada. Više posjetitelja donosilo je vodu i sokove da ublaže žeđ i vrućinu onima koji rade, a neki bi došli i s velikim pijetetom gledali hrpu kostiju i probali shvatiti osjećaje tih ljudi u trenutku kad su ovdje gledali smrti u oči, a vjerujem da su poneki pokušali barem donekle dokučiti dubinu mržnje onih koji su naredili i izvršili to i takva zlodjela. Radilo se to u ime komunizma i pod znakom crvene petokrake za koju nedavno reče nitko manje nego predsjednik Hrvatske da je ona »simbol ljubavi i mira«! Kakve li perverzije! Ovo grobište, kao i druga te vrste, prava su slika te ideologije i simbola ne ljubavi nego mržnje prema svima i svemu što nije bilo ideološki podobno.

Grobište na Tomića njivi nalazi se unutar jednog škripa, a po svemu izgleda da su ga prije pogibije kopali sami pogubljenici. Veličina mu je 5,10 x 4,18 x 2,54 m. U tom je prostoru pronađeno 26 cijelih tijela i 2 djelomična kostura. Ta dva tijela zacijelo su bila slabo zakopana te su im gornji dio raznijele životinje. Netko je to morao zamijetiti te je, srećom, nabacio zemlju na ono što je preostalo pa su ipak očuvani donji dijelovi njihovih tjelesa. Slaže se to s pričom svjedoka koji je kao dječak vidio ruku u fratarskom habitu koja, kao ruka pravde, viri iz zemlje. Također je vidio i ptice kako kljucaju lubanju jednog od ubijenih. Oko šaka i mišica tih naših nevino pobijenih pronađeni su ostatci telefonske žice kojom su očito bili vezani. Jedan je bio vezan oko vrata, a drugome su vezane i noge. Možemo samo nagađati zašto su ih baš tako vezali. Ubijani su na rubu jame i u nju gurnuti. Nekima, dok su bili okrenuti licem prema jami, pucali su u zatiljak pa su naglavačke pali na hrpu već mrtvih ili umirućih žrtava. Njihove suhe kosti i danas punim glasom govore o tim strašnim trenutcima.

Među hrpom kostiju nađeni su razni predmeti: dijelovi krunica, češalj, naočale, okviri za naočale, nožić, puce, ostatci rukavica na rukama dva tijela, kopče na remenu, ostatci obuće i odjeće, krojačke škare, pribor za pušenje, gumeni potplati za opanke. Među svim tim predmetima, uz ostatke telefonske žice, ponajviše je čahura i naboja. Ubojice nisu žalili streljiva! Sve te osobne stvari svjedoče o stvarnim ljudima, s imenom i prezimenom, o njihovu životu i zvanju. Također, žica, naboji i čahure dovoljno, i previše, govore o onima koji su ih ubijali.

Grobište Bare

ljub2Ovo se grobište nalazi iznad starog komunalnog, istočno od nekadašnje duhanske stanice i nedaleko od današnjeg autobusnog kolodvora. Radovi na pronalaženju i otkopavanju ovog masovnog grobišta otpočeli su 27. rujna 2010. Trebalo je očistiti teren veličine 43 x 28 metra te skinuti asfaltni sloj. Tek se tada moglo početi s otkopavanjem. Jesenske kiše počesto su ometale rad te iskopavanje nije teklo ni blizu onako brzo kao na »Tomića njivi«. No, nije se posustajalo. Iskopano je mnoštvo probnih rupa dok se konačno nije došlo do grobišta koje se nalazi samo 5-6 metara istočno od bunara koji je pravljen za vrijeme austro-ugarske vlasti u ovoj zemlji. Meni, nestručnjaku za bunare i vodu, izgleda da se u ovaj bunar sabire podzemna voda koja ispod brda kroz propusni teren uvijek pomalo teče, a otud se kroz cijev, ili kanalić, prirodnim padom prelijevala u česmu Gujista. Kako nam natpis na česmi svjedoči, ona je napravljena 1900. i nalazi se uz cestu nedaleko od bunara. Ako je to tako, onda počinitelji zločina nisu marili ni za zdravlje živih jer su pokopali ljude u neposrednoj blizini bunara iz kojeg se pila voda.

Tek nakon dva tjedna rada i iščekivanja, 12. listopada 2010., pronađeni su ostatci devet ubijenih osoba. Za neke se žrtve znaju imena, kao i za imena nekih ubijenih na Tomića njivi, ali se sa sigurnošću ne može ništa tvrditi dok stručnjaci ne završe svoj dio posla. I na ovom stratištu ljudi su pobijeni na sličan način kao i na Tomića njivi. Poslije strijeljanja bačeni su na hrpu u postojeći cik-cak rov koji je iskopan za Drugog svjetskog rata. Kosturi su isprepleteni žicom kojom su mučenici bili vezani, a čahura i naboja i ovdje ima napretek. U ovom grobištu nije nađeno puno predmeta. Tu su kutija za duhan, ogledalo, puce. Forenzičarki prof. dr. sc. Mariji Definis-Gojanović prilikom vađenja tijela pridružio se asistent Pero Bubalo. Oni su došli kao stručna pomoć arheologu prof. mr. sc. Tihomiru Glavašu koji je vodio radove.

Dok ovo pišem, iskopavanje na lokalitetu Bare još nije dovršeno. Ako budu povoljne vremenske prilike, možda sve bude gotovo do izlaska ovog broja Stopama pobijenih. Misli se da je ovdje ubijeno i zakopano još ljudi. Nitko nije siguran u broj pobijenih i točno mjesto zakopavanja. Uglavnom se govori o 4-5 mjesta na kojima su ubijani i zatrpavani. Istraživat će se dok ne bude procijenjeno da je učinjeno sve što se, ljudski govoreći, moglo učiniti da bi se pronašli ostatci komunističkih žrtava pobijenih na ovom lokalitetu. Dakle, radovi na ovom i drugim ljubuškim grobištima nastavljaju se.

Svjedoci i usmena predaja

Općinsko povjerenstvo već je od početka njegova ustrojstva molilo, i dalje moli, sve one koji su bili svjedoci, ili su od svojih najbližih čuli o stratištima i grobištima iz Drugog svjetskog rata i poraća na području ove općine, da se jave bilo kojem članu Povjerenstva i daju svoj iskaz, a anonimnost im je, ako tako žele, zajamčena. To je građanska i moralna dužnost svakog od nas. Nadamo se da će Povjerenstvo, odnosno općina, ustrojiti i posebnu sekciju Povjerenstva za prikupljanje i obradu svih prikupljenih svjedočenja da bi se mogla dobiti što potpunija slika o svemu što se dogodilo tijekom tog kobnog vremena iz naše ne tako davne povijesti.

Žiro-račun

Nakon iskopavanja, posmrtni ostatci pobijenih pojedinačno su odloženi u kutije te će se u limenim sanducima poslati Sveučilišnoj kliničkoj bolnici Mostar gdje će se DNK analizom obaviti identifikacija. Kako rekosmo, taj proces predvodi prof. dr. sc. Marija Definis-Gojanović. Za sve ove radove, posebice za identifikaciju, trebat će velika novčana sredstva. U tu svrhu Povjerenstvo, uz potporu vicepostulature i vicepostulatora fra Miljenka Stojića koji je njegov član, obraća se za pomoć svima koji su u mogućnosti pomoći ovaj human i povijesno važan pothvat. Radi toga je, u sklopu općinskog žiro-računa kod UniCredit banke – poslovnica Ljubuški, otvoren račun za troškove iskopavanja i identificiranja pronađenih posmrtnih ostataka i onih koji će zacijelo još biti pronađeni. Broj računa je 3381602276734328. Svaki i najmanji prilog dobro je došao na čemu unaprijed zahvaljujemo.

Zločin i pravda

Dužnost Povjerenstva je pronaći, istražiti, obilježiti i urediti stratišta i grobišta iz Drugog svjetskog rata i poraća na području općine Ljubuški. Zakonska istraga vezana za počinitelje ovih i sličnih zločina te pokretanje pravnog procesa kojim bi se došlo do saznanja o naredbodavcima i izvršiteljima ovih zlodjela, te eventualno kažnjavanje onih koji su još živi, nije u nadležnosti općinskog povjerenstva nego pravne države. Za vrijeme iskopavanja na Tomića njivi dva tehničara iz županijskog MUP-a Zapadnohercegovačke županije obavila su svoj dio stručnog posla. Je li to znak da će pravosuđe ove županije i države ipak pokrenuti pravni proces protiv poznatih i nepoznatih počinitelja zlodjela? Nadajmo se!

Moralo bi svima biti jasno da ovdje nije riječ o traženju osvete i o nečijem zatvaranju i progonu nego o želji da se sazna povijesna istina, da naši mrtvi ne ostanu prešućeni, da ih se pokopa na dostojanstven način i da im se oda dužno poštovanje. Ako se to napravi, bit će lakše djeci i rodbini pobijenih. Bit će mirniji i oni koji su doprinijeli i sudjelovali u ovim zločinima. Traži se samo da istina već jednom ugleda svjetlo dana, a istina oslobađa. Oslobađa sve! Na taj ćemo način i mi kao društvo i kao narod, kao hrvatski narod, konačno moći zatvoriti to žalosno poglavlje svoje povijesti.

Objavljeno u Stopama pobijenih – Glasilo Vicepostulature postupka mučeništva „Fra Leo Petrović i 65 subraće. Godina IV., broj 1 (6), siječanj-lipanj 2011. st. 13-15.

ASSOCIATION FOR CROATIAN STUDIES (ACS) 30TH ANNIVERSARY

ASSOCIATION FOR CROATIAN STUDIES (ACS)
30TH ANNIVERSARY

Founding

On October 15, 1977, a small number of Croatian scholars in America, gathered at the Annual Convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies (AAASS) at Capital Hilton Hotel, Washington D.C., and laid the foundation to the Association for Croatian Studies. The idea for such organization was circulated among Croatian scholars participating at the AAASS Convention in Atlanta a year earlier, but someone had to take the initiative and do the work.

For those who are not familiar with the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, suffice to say that the AAASS was established in 1948 and it is a leading private organization dedicated to the advancement of knowledge about Russia, Central Eurasia, and East and Central Europe. It publishes the quarterly Slavic Review, the leading journal in Slavic studies.

The provisional name of the new Croatian scholarly organization was “Society for Croatian Studies.” Its first officers were: Dr. Joseph T. Bombelles, President; Dr. George J. Prpić, Secretary-Treasurer, Dr. Ante Kadić and Dr. Francis H. Eterović, Vice Presidents. Drs. Bombelles and Prpić were entrusted to affiliate the Society with the AAASS and to register the organization in the State of Ohio as a scholarly not-for-profit society.

On November 27, 1977, during the Twelfth Annual Seminar of the American Croatian Academic Society at Case-Western Reserve University in Cleveland, the name of the newly formed “Society for Croatian Studies” was changed to “Association for Croatian Studies” (ACS).

At the beginning of 1978, a proposed Constitution and By-Laws of the ACS were submitted to the membership for approval and a request was sent, with the necessary documentation, to the AAASS for acceptance as an affiliate scholarly society. At the same time, Dr. Prpić issued the first ACS official bulletin, called the “Announcement.”

The affiliation process was not so easy as one might assume. Actually, the AAASS officials at the time implemented delaying tactics, in order to dampen the desires of Croatian scholars to affiliate their organization with the AAASS. We can probably guess what might have been the reasons for not welcoming the ACS to this large association of Slavic scholars, but we have to move on, just as the ACS officers at the time did. They persisted, and the Association was officially affiliated with the AAASS in October of 1978, and the ACS was allotted an official panel session for that year’s National Convention in Columbus, Ohio.

The ACS’ first panel was entitled “Croatia and the Croatians in the 1970s”. The participants were : Dr. Joseph Bombelles, Chair; Prof. Mirko Vidović (France), Dr. Ante Kadic, Dr. George J. Prpic, Presenters, and Dr. Thomas F. Magner was a discussant. Dr. Prpić later reported: “The meeting was attended by more than sixty people of whom about a dozen were American Croatians.” A day later (October 13), the Provisional Executive Committee of the ACS was elected to serve a year term and the Constitution and By-Laws were unanimously accepted, under the condition that they may be revised, if necessary, in order to make them acceptable to the AAASS and the State of Ohio.

The Association was incorporated in the State of Ohio on June 8, 1983, and on November 14, 1984, the ACS became “exempt from Federal income tax under Section 501 9c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.” In December of the same year the name of the ACS’ official publication was changed from Announcement to the Bulletin of the ACS.

Purpose and Activities

The main purpose of the Association for Croatian Studies, as defined in its Constitution, is “to foster closer communication among scholars interested in Croatian Studies” and to “promote the dissemination of scholarly information on Croatia and Croatians through the organization of meetings, conferences, and panels at conventions devoted to Slavic and East European Studies.” Its particular and most important mission, however, is to organize scholarly panels at the AAASS National Conventions dealing with Croatian issues. Furthermore, the ACS encourages its members to organize and/or participate in scholarly panels that foster comparative studies with other affiliates of the AAASS and scholars from other countries and backgrounds. It also promotes scholarly activities and cooperation among its members, especially the younger scholars. Moreover, the Association often serves as a resource hub where various scholars and institution turn for assistance and information dealing with Croatian subjects and issues.

The ACS Bulletin, besides informing the members of AAASS convention activities, brings news about the association and its members, and it often publishes relevant articles and/or book reviews. It frequently includes selective bibliography of new titles and Ph dissertations dealing with Croatia and the Croatians. For this reason, a number of academic libraries receive the Bulletin, and it has been included in some bibliographies as a resource publication.

The ACS founders have established a wonderful tradition, according to which during every AAASSS convention ACS members, their friends, and individuals from the local Croatian community, get together for a “Croatian Dinner.” We all look forward to this annual event in order to meet new scholars and friends, and to renew old friendships and acquaintances. It is in such gatherings that quite often new ideas for work and cooperation are born. We are pleased to announce, that this year’s “Croatian Dinner” will be at the famous Drago’s Seafood Restaurant, in the Hilton Hotel, New Orleans. It will be Croatian style and hospitality with New Orleans flavor! In 1986, the ACS enjoyed its “Croatian Dinner” at Drago’s restaurant, but at that time it was at the original location in the city’s suburbia. This year, it will be at the downtown Hilton hotel.

Panels

Since its inception, the ACS and its members have organized numerous panels dealing with a wide range of topics. Just to mention a few: Renaissance in Croatia, Marko Marulić, Faust Vrančić, Ivan Gundulić, Bartol Kašić, Rudjer Bošković, Juraj Križanić, Illyrian Movement, Kačić Miošić, Ivan Mažuranić, Krleža, Budak, Ujević, Film, History of Music, Theater, Croatian Dissent in the 1960s and 1970s, History of Dubrovnik, Croatian Language, Economic issues, Croatians in America, Croatian History, Vojna Krajina, Radić Brothers and HSS, Croatian Nationalism, Jews in Croatia, Religion, US Foreign Policy and Croatia, Croatians in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Independence and War of Liberation, Regionalism in Croatia, International War Crimes Tribunal, Dayton Accords, BiH Constitution, Geography, Politics, Ideologies, Croatia and European Integration, and many other topics. The list of participants at ACS panels is very long. It includes almost all Croatian scholars in the West, and also many non-Croatians who study Croatia or the region. Many of such scholars are also members of the ACS, and some of them have served or are serving as officers of the association.

Looking back at the three decades of ACS activities, one might divide the life and work of the association into three main periods. First, from its beginnings to 1989. This was the era of the Cold war. The AAASS was seen by the East as an instrument of Western interests and, as they would put it, scholarly propaganda. The ACS was seen in a similar, but worse light not only by the Yugoslav regime but also by Yugoslav sympathizers among American scholars. Furthermore, it was not permissible for scholars from Croatia to participate on ACS panels or Croatian scholarly institutions to be in touch with the Association. For example, the late Ivan Supek came to the 1987 Convention to participate on a panel about Ruger Bosković, but he was told by the regime’s officials he better stay away. He was actually in the convention hotel while his paper was read by an American Croatian colleague. This might sound bizarre today, but it happened not so long ago!

The second period began in 1989. For the first time scholars from Croatia began to participate at the ACS activities and panels. The guests from Croatia at the Chicago convention of that year were: Ivan Supek, Franjo Tudjman, Dalibor Brozović, Ivo Smoljan, and Vladimir Konšćak. The Iron Curtain was cracking and the dawn of freedom was on the rise. However, the early 1990s brought not only freedom but, unfortunately, also war to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the war years, the ACS and its members in their panels and presentations made an effort to clarify the causes and issues dealing with the wars of aggression, that most often, intentionally or not, were portrayed even in scholarly circles and by “experts” in a twisted light.

During the post-1995 era, scholarly activities of the ACS and its members have been oriented toward a variety of subjects and scholarly interests. In the last few years there is an increase of interest in Croatian studies among young scholars who are not of Croatian ethnic background. The ACS encourages such scholars to join the association, as well as those of Croatian heritage, so that in cooperation with each other we may contribute to the understanding of the Croatian past and present.

Although there are no more political, ideological or other barriers that might prevent cooperation of the ACS with cultural and scholarly institutions in Croatia, the bridges between the ACS and the homeland are not as strong as they could and should be. It seems to us that the homeland institutions, and (too) many scholars, don’t realize the importance of participating in scholarly activities on this side of the ocean. There has been an improvement, but both sides must cooperate in order to advance knowledge and understanding of our Croatian heritage and culture.

Anniversary

Thirty years have passed, and, one might say, passed too fast. But a lot has been accomplished, thanks to the ACS founders and members, living and those who have passed away. At the present, the ACS is healthy, doing well, and it is fulfilling its mission as defined by its Constitution. A good indicator that it “promotes and disseminates scholarly information on Croatia and Croatians,” are a number of panels and lectures that are on the program of this year’s AAASS National Convention in New Orleans. As long as there is Croatia and the Croatians there will be an interest and need to study the country and the people. The ACS’ mission, therefore, continues. We hope and believe that the younger scholars of Croatian and non-Croatian heritage will have interest, will, and stamina to carry on and build on the foundations that were laid thirty years ago, and keep the ACS young forever.

Ante Čuvalo

Executive officers

The following have served as executive officers of the ACS:

Presidents:

Joseph T. Bombelles

Joseph Čondić

Ivo Banac

Ante Čuvalo

Secretaries:

George J. Prpić

Elinor M. Despalatović

Paula Lytle

Ante Čuvalo

Ivan Runac

Treasurers:

George Prpić

Tia Paušić

Sarah Kent

Ellen Elias Bursać

Aida Vidan

At the present (2007), the ACS officers are:

Ante Čuvalo – President (cuv@gmail.com)

Jasna Meyer – Vice-President (jmeyer@mcdaniel.edu)

Ivan Runac – Secretary (ivan.runac@gmail.com

Aida Vidan – Treasurer (avidan@fas.harvard.edu)

Anton E. Basetić (1879-1921) The First Victim of Yugoslav Terror among Croatian Émigrés

Anton E. Basetić (1879-1921)

The First Victim of Yugoslav Terror among Croatian Émigrés

by

Dr. Ante Čuvalo

The assassination of Croatian patriots in the ranks of émigrés was a trait of the infamous Yugoslav secret police, namely, the UDBA, during the time of Tito’s regime (1945-1990).  Actually, the liquidation of Croatian patriots began long before Tito’s time—that is, from the very founding of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918 (Yugoslavia after 1929).  Persecution of every sort was one of the historical links that bridged the time of the bloody founding of the Kingdom until the even bloodier end of the Yugoslav State.  In fact, Greater-Serbian terror in Croatian lands began even before unification.  It started on the 9th of September, 1918, in the city of Vukovar, and we can still feel the ugly stench of death during and after the demise of Yugoslavia.  The primary subject of Serbian terror was to be found not only among the Croatians, but also among all those who were doomed to perish for sake of the “Greater Serbia” project.  That megalomania nightmare that swallowed so much blood and lives is, to our regret, alive and well even to this day and it is evidenced daily with equal insolence!
It is only recently that knowledge of those Croatians liquidated in the Diaspora (at the very least 69 of them) after the end of the Second World War is beginning to come to light in the Homeland.  Although “official” Zagreb shows little interest for these and other victims, truth is slowly seeing the light of day—thanks to the Courts of foreign lands, most notably German Courts, that are attempting to solve at least some of the assassination that took place in those countries.  In the meantime, little or nothing is known of the terror waged against the Croatian Diaspora prior to 1945.  Here we are talking about a portion of Croatian history that is yet to be investigated and waiting for the Homeland to eventually remember it.
The very first victim of Yugo-terror in America—and, I believe, among the Croatian Diaspora in general, that followed the fateful union of Croatian Lands with Serbia and Montenegro, was Anton E. Basetić.  He was the editor of the Croatian newspaper Glasnik Istine (The Herald of Truth) that was published in Chicago.  Because of his explicit Croatian patriotism and anti-Yugoslav political stance, he was perfidiously liquidated “in full daylight” in Chicago on the 5th of November, 1921.  This was not only the murder of a journalist, but also an attempt to frighten into submission all those who were not willing to link hands and dance the new “Yugo-dance” as accompanied by a “Serbian flute.”
The Life and Work of Anton E. Basetić
antonAnton Basetić was born in Primošten on the 17th of September, 1877.  Church records show the date as being the 20th of June in one instance, and the 20th of September, 1877 in another.  His father was Ivan, and his mother was Ana, nee Makelja.  Anton’s family numbered ten children.  Originally, his name was Ante Emilio Bolanča but upon arriving in America, he changed it to Anton E. Basetić/Basetich. It is unclear as to why he changed his surname (and, to some extent, his first name), or why he chose the name Basetić, but we found out that his brother Leon (born the 11th of April, 1883) also changed his surname to Basetić or Bolanča-Basetić some time after his arrival to America on October 24, 1907.
Ante Emilio Bolanča set sail into the world from Genoa on the steamship The Spartan Prince. He arrived in New York harbor on the 23rd of July, 1898.  He was received by his friend, Stjepan Baković, who lived at 177 Atlanta Avenue in New York.  As of the present writing, it is unknown as to what schooling Ante had, or where that schooling took place; what is known is that he was considerably more literate than the vast majority of Croatian émigrés of that time.  So, whether he had a formal education or he was self-schooled is still unknown.
From the information thus far gathered about Ante after his arrival in America, and after a period of time spent in New York City, we see he stayed in Butte, Montana in 1910 and was known as Anton Basetich.  The American Census documents from 1910 confirm that Anton was married at the time to 19-year-old Elsie, nee Coffin, from South Dakota.  From the same Census report, we learn that Anton was a journalist by profession. (The 1910 Census document erroneously records Anton as having arrived in the U.S. in 1903. Perhaps he came to Minnesota in that year.)

A year later, Anton and Elsie were living in Salt Lake City, Utah.  He was the editor of the Croatian Newspaper Radnička Obrana, (The Workers’ Defense). The Salt Lake City Directory of 1911 records that Anton was the Editor and Manager of the aforementioned newspaper, and that Emil Basetich was the President of the Slavonian Publishing Company. It is obvious that in both instances we are dealing with one and the same person.  Sadly, Anton’s wife Elsie died on the 16th of December, 1912.  According to the memory passed on in the family, Elsie died in childbirth of their firstborn, a girl.  It is not known with any certainty what became of the little girl.  It is thought that she was taken in by Elsie’s parents.
Following the death of his wife Elsie, most likely during 1913, Basetić moved from Salt Lake City to Duluth, Minnesota.  The Duluth City Directory of 1913-1914 indicates that the Slavonian Publishing Company‘s manager was Anton Basetich, while Milan Knezevich was the editor of Radnička Obrana. The newpaper was published in that city every Thursday.  That same directory of 1915-1916 indicates that Basetich continued to be the publisher of the newspaper, but was located at a new address.  As gleaned from the newspaper itself, the title of the publishing company was no longer known as the Slavonian Publishing Company, but as the Croatian Publishing Company. Clearly, Anton Basetić assumed ownership and editorial management of the Radnička Obrana. The newpaper had branch offices in Salt Lake City, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Gary. Indiana.
Though many Croatian newspapers saw the light of day in America, few of them survived for any length of time.  One of the rare numbers of Radnička Obrana to be found is the number dated March 11, 1916.  That edition indicates that it was the twelfth year of publication for that newspaper.  Clearly, this newspaper managed to survive longer than most Croatian publications in America at that time.
It would seem that around 1916, the Radnička Obrana ceased being published and that Anton moved from Minnesota to Chicago.  That same year, Basetić purchased the newspaper known as Hrvatski Rodoljub, (Croatian Patriot).  The paper was founded in 1915 and was published by B.F. Tolić in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Basetić transferred publication of the paper to Chicago.  This would indicate that he already lived in the city.
Between Yugoslavia and Croatia
This period of time was froth with war and was an especially worrisome time for Croatians in America as well as those in the homeland.  Aside from the wartime adversity, a deep political division and separation began to take shape among Croatians: there were those who were prepared to abrogate their national heritage and rights and eagerly accept unity with the Serbian Kingdom, and there were those who stood in defense of the right to Croatian Statehood.  Those in the first group were more vociferous, and political conditions then present stood in their favor.  The second group had to contend not only with the pro-Yugoslav element, but also with the burden of trying to prove to America and their fellow citizens (especially so after America’s entrance into the war in 1917) that they were not champions of Austria and the Central Powers, but simply desired freedom for their Croatian homeland.  So as to bring a shred of light into the political fog that overshadowed the time, a well-known and respected priest, Rev. Ivan Stipanović, established and published a Croatian journal, Rodoljub (Patriot), in Chicago in January of 1915.  Shortly thereafter (August of 1915), the journal’s name was changed to Hrvatski Katolički Glasnik, (The Croatian Catholic Messenger).  It assumed a newspaper format and became the voice of (almost all) Croatian Catholic priests in America.  Before the end of that same year, the paper established editorial links with Narodna Obrana that was published in Duluth, Minnesota, as well as with Hrvatski Rodoljub in Chicago.  With such combined forces, a group of Croatian patriots now began to publish Glasnik Istine (The Herald of Truth).  The editorial board resided at 2979 S. Wentworth Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.  Anton Basetić was chosen as its editor.  It appears that in 1916, Basetić’s Radnička Obrana changed it name to Narodna Obrana and subsequently melded into Glasnik Istine. Thus, he became its new editor.
While wartime blood flowed across the European front, a ferocious ideological war raged among the Croatians in America.  One group aligned with the Jugoslavenski Odbor, (The Yugoslav Committee) and welcomed, extolled, and aided the members of that committee on their arrival in the U.S., sending monetary aid and war volunteers.  Others were supporters of Croatian independence and warned about Greater-Serbian ideology and its future evil effects on the Croatian people.  A third group followed socialist ideas and also caused national and religious discord among Croatian émigrés across the world.  Under such conditions, Anton Basetić assumed editorship of the publication which by its orientation was Croatian and Catholic, and served as the representative and voice against the Yugoslav forces in Chicago and America.
Even prior to his assumption of the role as editor of the Glasnik Istine, Basetić wrote and spoke against the union with Serbia.  A significant event in the Croatian Community of Chicago serves as a primary example of his role among Croatian-American émigrés: on the 10th and 11th of March, 1915, in the LaSalle Hotel located in downtown Chicago, a Yugoslav Congress was held.  More than 550 delegates and guests to the congress were in attendance.  At the congress they spoke of the “homogeneity of the Yugoslav people” (naturally, the well-known Serbian in America delegate to the Congress, Dr. Paul Radosavljević, a professor at the University of New York, considered all Yugoslavs to be Serbs) and of the soon-to-be created Kingdom of the Serbs, Croatians, and Slovenes.  At the same time, a group of Croatians, mostly located around Wentworth Avenue in Chicago, held a massive counter-demonstration.  Some 3,000 Croatians gathered for that massive anti-Yugoslav counter-demonstration to hear one of its main speakers, namely, Anton Basetić.  Clearly, then, upon his move to Chicago and his undertaking of the role of editor of the Glasnik Istine, Basetić became a person of importance among Croatians not only in this metropolis but across all of America.
Before touching on his tragic death, it is appropriate that we say a bit more about his family.  Following the death of his first wife, Elsie (at the end of 1912), Anton married Sandra (Allessandra, Sanda) F. Herska while residing in Chisholm, Minnesota.  Sandra was from Severin na Kupi, located in the Gorski Kotar region of Croatia.  Two children were born from their union: Vera, a daughter, was born in 1916, in Minnesota, while Ivan (John) was born in 1919 in Chicago.

anton1

(The photograph of Anton Basetić and the drawing of the assassination are taken from the Chicago Daily Tribune, from November 6, 1921.)


The Assassination of Anton Basetić
On November 5, 1921, around 8:15 a.m., Anton Basetić left his home at 140 West 31st Street and arrived at the real estate office of Cannizzo, Jurko, and Company that was located on 2927 Wentworth Avenue, not far from his home.  Although the Glasnik Istine was printed by the Croatian Printery located a short distance away, Basetić, from all that can be garnered, chose, out of fear, to receive his mail at the aforementioned real estate office.  He picked up his mail on a daily basis.  That fateful morning, Marie Pullano, a 19-year-old clerk, was already at work in the office.  Upon the entrance of Anton Basetić, she alerted him that two unknown men were loitering aimlessly across the street from the office.  He thought she was frightened by them, and his response was: “Never mind, I’m here.  Don’t be afraid.”  Soon after, these two scoundrels entered the real estate office.  Marie and Anton went toward the door.  Marie opened one of the double-doors and asked what they wanted.  They remained silent.  One of the men stepped into the office, drew his pistol, and fired six rounds at Basetić as he stood alongside the young lady.  Two of the bullets struck their target—one in his shoulder and another in his neck.  A few short minutes later, Anton expired.  Marie, the clerk, fainted, while the two thugs dissapeared without a trace.  The entire tragic drama unfolded in a few short minutes.
All the newspapers in Chicago reported the incident and death of Anton Basetić.  They stressed that his death was of a political nature.  One of the newspapers cited the thinking of the police officials, namely, that his murder had the mark of international political intrigue.  In the meantime, the news reports fostered the erroneous suggestion that Anton Basetić was a fervent pro-Austrian partisan rather than stressing that he was an ardent patriot for the Croatian cause.  Even then, the well-known “logic” was in place: all who were not Yugophiles clearly had to be Austrophiles—later, after World War II, to be labeled as “fascists.”  Naturally, the police and newspaper reports of the incident failed to engage the question of who was behind the loathsome crime.  No serious police investigation of the murder ensued: the police did not concern themselves with who it was that wanted him dead.  They simply decided that the murder was “an accounting among the émigrés,” hence, the loss of a young Croatian life was of no consequence and not investigated, despite the fact that it occurred in the metropolis of Chicago and in broad daylight.
To this very day, Anton’s descendants hold to the passed-down conviction that his murder was the work of the notorious “Black Hand;” it is known only too well what sort of a bloody role that terrorist organization played in Serbia and beyond.  Although the organization was “officially” suppressed in 1917, it adherents continued their criminal work and Anton Basetić, at the very least, was a victim of their ideology.
Basetić was only 44 years of age when he was murdered.  He left behind a young wife, Sandra, and two infant children, as well as his child from his first marriage.  Out of fear, Sandra, along with her children, moved to Minnesota and spent the next six months there.  She returned to Chicago and struggled to raise her children.  Among other jobs, she worked as a cook in a student cafeteria at the University of Chicago.  According to the stories passed on by members of her family, she simply would not speak of the murder of her husband or of any political matters: she had her fill of such talk.  Her goal in life was to raise her children and set them on their way to success in life.  By all accounts, she was successful in that goal as were many other Croatian widows of her time and later.
In Conclusion
The martyrdom of Ante Emilio Bolanča, namely, Anton Basetić, was supressed and silenced at the time of his murder.  Silence about him and his assassination has endured for some 90 subsequent years.  This silence would have continued had not his two granddaughters, Sarah and Ann, the daughters of his son, Ivan, wished to know the truth about Anton, their grandfather.  Sarah succeeded in interesting me in this tragic incident as well.  She shared a good deal of facts about her grandfather that I relate in this article.  I am sincerely grateful to Sarah for having acquainted not only me, but Croatians in general, about her grandfather.  All the evidence indicates that he was the very first political martyr among the Croatian émigrés following the portentous and fateful year of 1918.
The assassinations of Anton Basetić and of other Croatian patriots across the world, remain largely unknown to us.  They await further investigation, so that we might give them honorable mention in the history of our Croatian Diaspora, as well as in the history of our homeland.

(English translation of the article „Anton E. Basetić – prva žrtva jugoterora u hrvatskoj emigraciji,“ published in Hrvatsko slovo (Zagreb), Year XVI, No. 817, December 17, 2010, p.16-17.)

ANTON E. BASETIĆ Prva žrtva jugoterora u hrvatskoj emigraciji

ANTON E. BASETIĆ

Prva žrtva jugoterora u hrvatskoj emigraciji

Hrvatsko slovo

17. prosinca 2010

Piše: Ante Čuvalo
Likvidacije Hrvata počele su već osnutkom Kraljevine Jugoslavije.  Prvom žrtvom drži se Anton Basetić, ubijen u Chicagu 1921.
Progon, svakovrsni progon, bio je jedna od povijesnih poveznica koja premošćuje vrijeme od krvavog rođenja do još krvavije smrti Jugo države.  No, velikosrpski teror u hrvatskim zemljama počeo je i prije ujedinjenja (počeo je u Vukovaru 9. rujna 1918.), a još osjećamo zadah smrti koja je harala i poslije njezine službene smrti.  Primarni srpski teror je također bio uzrokom terora na teror, ne samo među Hrvatima, nego i kod drugih koji su trebali nestati radi velikosrpskog projekta.  Ta megalomanska mora, koja je progutala toliko krvi i života, nažalost je i danas živa i svakodnevno je očitija i hrabrija!
O Hrvatima koji su ubijeni u emigraciji poslije Drugog svjetskog rata (najmanje 69) konačno se saznaje i u domovini.  Premda službeni Zagreb za ove (i druge) žrtve puno ne haje, ipak istina pomalo izlazi na svjetlo zahvaljujući i sudstvu drugih država, u prvom redu Njemačke.  Ali o teroru nad Hrvatima u emigraciji prije 1945. zna se vrlo malo, gotovo ništa.  Riječ je o još neistraženom dijelu hrvatske povijesti koji čeka da ga se domovina sjeti.
Prva žrtva jugoterora u Americi, a vjerujemo i u hrvatskoj emigraciji općenito, nakon ujedinjenja hrvatskih zemalja sa Srbijom i Crnom Gorom bio je Anton E. Basetić, urednik hrvatskih novina „Glasnik Istine“ u Chicagu.  Zbog svojih hrvatskih domoljubnih, odnosno protujugoslavenskih političkih stavova bio je mučki likvidiran „u sred bijela dana“ u Chicagu 5. studnog 1921.  Bilo je to ne samo ubojstvo novinara, nego i pokušaj zastrašivanja svih koji nisu bili voljni uhvatit se u novo jugo-kolo i zaplesati uz srpsku frulu.
Život i rad
antonAnton Basetić rođen je u Primoštenu 17. rujna 1877. (u crkvenim knjigama stoji 20. lipnja na jednom mjestu, a 20. rujna 1877. na drugom) od oca Ivana i majke Ane, rođene Makelja.  Obitelj je imala desetero djece.  Njegovo izvorno ime i prezime bilo je Ante Emilio Bolanča, koje je po dolasku u Ameriku promijenio u Anton E. Basetić/Basetich.  Nije jasno iz kojih razloga je promjenio prezime (donekle i ime) i zašto baš u Basetić, ali nalazimo da se i njegov brat Leon (rođen 11. travnja 1883., došao u Ameriku 24. listopada 1907.) po dolasku u Ameriku također služio prezimenom Basetić ili Bolanča-Basetić.
Ante Emilio Bolanča u svijet je odplovio iz Genove brodom „Spartan Princ“ i u New York stigao 23. srpnja 1898.  Išao je k prijatelju Stjepanu Bakoviću, 177 Atlanta Ave. u New Yorku.  Zasad nam nije poznato gdje, kada i koje škole je Ante pohađao, ali je zaisgurno bio pismeniji i učeniji od velike većine hrvatskih emigranata tog vremena.  Koliko je to bila formalna naobrazba ili se sam „u hodu“ doškolovavao ostaje nepoznanica.
Po onom što se dosad može pronaći, nakon dolaska i, vjerojatno, neko vrijeme boravka u New Yorku, Antu E. Bolanču 1910. surećemo kao Antona Baseticha u gradu Butte, Montana.  Američki dokumenti o popisu pučanstva iz te godine potvrđuju da je Anton tada bio oženjen devetnaestogodišnjom Elsie, rođenom Coffin u South Dakoti.  Iz istih dokumenata se vidi da je Anton po profesiji novinar.  (U ovom dokumentu se krivo tvrdi da je u SAD došao 1903.  Možda je te godine došao u Minnesotu.)
Godinu dana kasnije Anton i Elsie žive u Salt Lake Cityju, Utah.  Tu je bio urednik hrvatskih novina „Radnička Obrana“.  Naime, Salt Lake City Directory za 1911. navodi da je Anton urednik i manager spomenutih novina, ali i da je Emil Basetich predsjednik „Slavonian Publishing Co.“  Očito je da se radi o istom čovjeku.  Nažalost, 16. prosinca 1912. Elsie je umrla.  Po obiteljskoj predaji, umrla je rađajući prvo dijete, curicu.  Nije sigurno što je bilo od djeteta. Vjeruje se da su ga preuzeli majčini roditelji.

Među Hrvatima nastala je politička podjela,

između onih koji su htjeli jedinstvo sa Srbima

i onih koji su branili hrvtsku državnost

Nakon ženine smrti, vjerojatno tokom godine 1913., Basetić je preselio iz Salt Lake Cityja u Duluth, Minnesota.  Naime, Duluth City Directory za 1913.-1914. navodi da su „Slavonian Publishing Co.“, Anton Basetich manager, Milan Knezevich izdavač i urednik „Radničke Obrane“ u tom gradu.  Novina je izlazila svakog četvrtka. Directory za 1915.-1916. godinu piše da je Basetich sada izdavač istoimenih novina i adresa uredništva je drugačija nego godinu dana prije.  Iz novina se vidi da je izdavač ne više Slavonian, nego „Croatian Publishing Co.“.  Očito je da je Anton preuzeo vlasništvo i uređivanje „Radničke Obrane.“  Novina je imala povjerenštva u Salt Lake City-u, Chicagu, Milwaukee i u Gary, Indiana.
Puno je hrvatski novina u Americi pokrenuto, ali malo ih se održalo na životu dulje vremena.  Jedan od rijetko sačuvanih brojeva „Radničke Obrane“ je broj od 11. ožujka 1916. i tu čitamo da je to bilo dvanaesto godište tog tjednika, što znači da se ovo glasilo uspjelo održati dulje nego mnoge druge tadašnje hrvatske publikacije u Americi.
Moralo je to biti negdje tokom 1916. kad je „Radnička Obrana„ prestala izlaziti i Anton je preselio iz Minnesote u Chicago. Te godine Basetić je kupio novine „Hrvatski rodoljub“ (utemeljio 1915. i izdavao B. F. Tolić) u Pittsburgh-u i prenio uredništvo u Chicago, što znači da je on već tamo živio.
Između Jugoslavije i Hrvatske
Bila su to ratna vremena, posebice bremenita za Hrvate ne samo u domovini, nego i u Americi.  Osim ratnih nedaća, među Hrvatima je nastala duboka politička podjela, između onih koji su bili spremni odreći se hrvatskog državnog prava, i prigrliti jedinstvo sa Srbima i onih koji su stali u obranu hrvatske državnosti.  Prvi su bili grlatiji i svjetske prilike su im išle na ruku, a drugi su, osim borbe protiv projugoslavena, imali teret ukazivati Americi i svojim sugrađanima (posebice nakon američkog ulaska u rat 1917.) da oni nisu pobornici Austrije i Centralnih sila, nego samo ljubitelji hrvatske slobode.  Da bi u tu političku maglu unio zračak svijetla, poznati svećenik Rev. Ivan Stipanović počinje (siječanj 1915.) u Chicagu izdavati časopis „Rodoljub“.  Uskoro (kolovoz 1915.) časopis mijenja ime u „Hrvatski Katolički Glasnik“, poprima novinski oblik i postaje glasilo (gotovo svih) hrvatskih svećenika u Americi.  Još prije konca godine ova novina se udružuje s „Narodnom Obranom“, koja je izlazila u Duluth, Minnesota, i „Hrvatskim Rodoljubom“, te zajedničkim snagama počinju izdavati „Glasnik Istine.“  Uredništvo se nalazilo na 2979 S. Wentworth Ave., Chicago, a za urednika je izabran Anton Basetić.  Izgleda da je tokom 1916. Basetićeva „Radnička Obrana“ promjenila ime u „Narodnu Obranu“ i zatim se utopila u „Glasnik Istine“, kojem je on postao urednik.
Dok se krv prolijevala po europskim bojišnicama, među Hrvatima u Americi vodio se vrlo žestok ideološki rat.  Jedni su slijedili „Jugoslavenski odbor“, dočekivali, veličali i pomagali ljude iz Odbora te slali materijalnu pomoć i dragovoljce u rat.  Drugi su bili pobornici čuvanja i jačanja hrvatske državnosti te upozoravali na velikosrpsku ideologiju i njezine posljedice za hrvatski narod.  Treći su pak bili sljedbenici socijalizma i ubacivali dodatnu nacionalnu i vjersku smutnju među hrvatske emigrante.  U tim prilikama Anton Basetić postaje urednik glasila koje je bilo po orijentaciji hrvatsko i katoličko, te jedan od glasnogovornika protujugoslavenskih snaga u Chicagu i Americi.
Još i prije preuzimanja uredništva „Glasnika Istine“, Basetić je pisao i govorio protiv ujedinjenja sa Srbijom.  Jedan važan događaj dobro ilustrira njegovu ulogu u zajednici.  U Chicagu je 10. i 11. ožujka 1915. u hotelu LaSalle održan Jugoslavenski kongres na kojemu je sudjelovalo  preko 550 delegata i uzvanika.  Dok se tamo govorilo o jedinstvenom jugoslavenskom narodu (naravno, tad poznati Srbin u Americi dr. Paul Radosavljević, profesor na University of New York i delegat, sve ih je smatrao Srbima) i budućoj zajedničkoj državi, u hrvatskoj naseobini oko Wentworth ulice održan je masovni protuskup.  Na tom antijugoslavenskom okupljanju, koje je okupilo oko 3000 Hrvata, jedan od glavnih govornika bio je i Anton Basetić.  On je dakle poslije dolaska u Chicago i preuzimanja uredništva zasigurno postao osoba od velikog utjecaja među Hrvatima tog velikog grada ali i u cijeloj Americi.
Prije opisa njegove tragične smrti, red je još nešto reći o njegovoj obitelji.  Naime, poslije smrti njegove prve žene Elsie (krajem 1912.), Anton se 18. srpnja 1914. vjenčao sa Sandrom (Allessandra, Sanda) F. Herska u mjestu Chishlom, Minnesota.  Sandra je bila rodom iz Severina na Kupi u Gorskom kotaru.  U braku se rodilo dvoje djece.  Vera je rođena 1916. u Minnesoti, a Ivan 1919. u Chicagu.
Atentat u Chicagu
anton1Dana 5. studenog 1921. oko 8:15 Antun Basetić je iz svog doma na 31. ulici došao u ured trgovine nekretnina „Cannizzo, Jurko & Co.“, koji je bio na Wentworth ulici, nedaleko od njegove kuće.  Premda je „Glasnik Istine“ tiskan nedaleko u „Hrvatskoj tiskari“, Basetić je, po svemu sudeći iz opreza, poštu primao u uredu spomenute tvrtke i tamo danomice po nju dolazio.  Toga kobnog jutra u uredu je već bila mlada činovnica Marie Pullano i po Antonovu ulasku u ured upozorila ga da se dvojica nepoznatih muškaraca motaju na drugoj strani ulice ispred ureda, na što joj je odgovorio: „Ne boj se, ja sam tu“, misleći da ih se ona boji.  Ubrzo su ta dva (ne)čovjeka došla na vrata ureda, a Marie i Anton su pošli prema vratima.  Marie je otvorila jedno od dva staklena krila i upitala ih što žele.  Ništa nisu rekli, a jedan je zakoracio unutra, potegao pištolj i ispucao šest naboja prema Basetiću koji je stajao kraj djevojke.  Pogodila su ga dva hica,  jedan u rame, a drugi u vrat i Anton je za nekoliko minuta izdahnuo.  Mlada činovnica pala je u nesvijest, a ubojice su bez traga pobjegle. Tragična drama odigrala se u nekoliko minuta.
Sve chicaške novine objavile su izvješća o smrti Antona Basetića, naglašujući da je to bilo ubojstvo političke naravi.  Jedne novine citiraju mišljenje ljudi iz policije i kaže da ovo ubojstvo ima međunarodno zaleđe i da je to kulminacija međunardnih političkih trzavica.  Ali u tim izvješćima se provlači netočnost da je Anton bio zagrijani pro-Austrijanac, a ne da je bio hrvatski domoljub.  Slijedila se i tad već dobro nam poznata „logika“: svi koji nisu bili jugofili bili su austrofili (a kasnije fašisti).  Naravno, policija i novinska izvješća i ne ulaze u pitanje tko bi mogao stajati iza tog gnusnog zločina.  Nije bilo nikakve ozbiljnije istrage.  Za policiju su to bila „emigrantska posla“ i nikome nije bilo stalo istražiti zašto je izgubio život jedan Hrvat usred Chicaga i tko ga je ubio.
Među Antonovim potomcima i danas se čuva predaja da je atentat izvršila „Crna ruka“.  Oni i ne znaju što je bila „Crna ruka“, ali zna se dobro kakvu je krvavu ulogu ta teroristička organizacija odigrala u Srbiji i dalje.  Premda je ona bila službeno ugušena 1917., njezini sljedbenci su nastavili zločinački rad i, najvjerojatnije, Anton Basetić je bio žrtva u najmanju ruku njezine ideologije.
Basetiću je bilo samo 44 godine kad je ubijen.  Iza njega je ostala mlada žena Sandra s dvoje nejake djece i još dijete iz

Sve chicaške novine objavile su izvješća

o smrti Antona Basetića, naglašujući

da je to bilo ubojstvo političke naravi

prvog mu braka.  Sandra je od straha pokupila djecu, otišla u Minnesotu i tamo provela šest mjeseci.  Ponovo se vratila u Chicago, radila i mučila se da bi odgojila svoju djecu.  Među ostalim, radila je i kao kuharica u studentskom domu na University of Chicago.  Po pričanju članova njezine obitelji, nikad nije htjela govoriti o muževu ubojstvu ni o politici.  Bilo joj je svega dosta.  Njezin životni cilj bio je svoju djecu „na noge podići“ i u tome je bila vrlo uspješna, kao i mnoge druge hrvatske udovice.
Prešućena žrtva
Mučeništvo Ante Emilia Bolanče, odnosno Antona Basetića, bilo je prešućeno u vrijeme njegove pogibije, a o njemu se šutjelo i sljedećih 90 godina.  Bilo bi i potpuno zaboravljeno da ne bi njegovih dviju unuka (Sarah i Ann), kćeriju sina Ivana, koje su htjele doznati istinu o svom djedu.  Sarah je i mene zainteresirala za ovaj tragičan slučaj i sa mnom podijelila dosta podataka koje sam ovdje iznio.  Zahvaljujem joj što je upoznala ne samo mene, nego i hrvatsku javnost s djelovanjem i žrtvom svojeg djeda koji je, po dosadašnjim spoznajama, prvi politički mučenik u hrvatskoj emigraciji poslije zlokobne 1918.
Nedavno smo u „Hrvatkom vjesniku“ iz Melbourna (14. listopada 2010.) mogli pročitati svima nama iznenađujuće otkriće kako je 1. veljače 1942. „poludjeli“ četnik eksplozivom ubio 14 i osakatio još 15 Hrvata u Kalgoorlie-Boulder-u u Zapadnoj Australiji.  Ubojstva Antona Basetića 1921. i Hrvata u Australiji 1942., kao i druga po svijetu za koja još ne znamo treba istražiti i dati im dužno mjesto u povijesti hrvatske emigracije i domovine.

An incomplete list of recent Ph. D. dissertations dealing with Croatia(ns) and Bosnia-Herzegovina

An incomplete list of recent Ph. D. dissertations dealing with Croatia(ns) and Bosnia-Herzegovina

Prepared by Ante Čuvalo

CROATIA

Adeli, Lisa M. From Jasenovac to Yugoslavism: Ethnic persecution in Croatia during WWII. University of Arizona, 2004.
Anic, Rebeka. Die Frauen in der Kirche Kroatiens im 20. Jahrhundert. Universität Wien, 2001.
Augter, Steffi. Negotiating Croatia’s recognition: German foreign policy as two level game. University of London, 2002.
Babinka, Slavica. Multi-tracer study of karst waters and lake sediments in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina Plitvice Lakes National Park and Bihac area. Bonn, University, 2007.
Baric, Daniel. La langue allemande en Croatie, 1815-1848 étude interculturelle. Université de soutenance. 2007.
Bogojeva Magzan, Masha. Music as an ideological construct prevailing ideology in the music curricula in Croatia before and after its independence. Kent State University, 2005.
Bozic-Roberson, Agneza. The politicization of ethnicity as a prelude to ethnopolitical conflict: Croatia and Serbia in former Yugoslavia. Western Michigan University, 2001.
Božić-Vrbančić, Senka. Celebrating Forgetting: The Formation of Identity and Memories by Tarara in New Zealand. University of Auckland, 2004.
Cann, Sarah. The politics of ethnic identity in everyday life at the local level in Croatia. University of Edinburgh, 2006.
Caspersen, Nina Fallentin. Intra-ethnic competition and inter-ethnic conflict : Serb elites in Croatia and Bosnia, 1990-1995. University of London, 2006.
Cavka, Majda. Mental health and coping strategies in war and post-war time in Croatian [i.e. Croatia]: A longitudinal study. Univ. Zürich, 2002.
Çela, Arijana. Estimating the economic impact of tourism: A comparative analysis of Albania, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece. University of Northern Iowa, 2007.
Chaveneau, Emmanuelle. La Croatie, nouvel Etat européen. Essai de géographie politique. Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2004.
Clewing, Konrad. Staatlichkeit und nationale Identitätsbildung: Dalmatien in Vormärz und Revolution. Universität München, 1997.
Dalbello, Marija. Croatian diaspora almanacs: A historical and cultural analysis. University of Toronto, 1999.
Dedaic, Mirjana N. Discursive construction of national identity in American, South African, and Croatian 1999 state of the nation addresses. Georgetown University, 2004.
Domic, Dino. The historically situated Croat: A critical ethnographic investigation of post-war consumer behaviour in relation to museum/heritage consumption as linked to individual identity re-construction in Croatia. University of Wolverhampton, 2004.
Dominikovic, Katarina Laura. Traditional agriculture and rural living in Croatia
compatible with the new common agricultural policy?
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2007.
Donohue-Davutovic, Angela. Adolescents’ attitudes to and experiences of growing up in post-conflict Croatia. University of Melbourne, 2008.
Dvarskas, Anthony. The role of water quality in beach visitation decisions in Croatia
implications for development of the tourism industry
. University of Maryland, College Park, 2007.
Elfers, Ann Marie. Education policy and practice in the new Croatian state: Responses from the private sector. University of Washington, 2000.
Ercegovac, Peter Anthony. Competing national ideologies, cyclical responses: The mobilisation of the Irish, Basque and Croat national movements to rebellion against the state. University of Sydney, 1999.
Faivre, Sanja. Formes de relief et tectonique dans la montagne de Velebit (Dinarides externes, Croatie). Université de Clermont-Ferrand II, 2000.
Feldman, Andrea. Imbro Ignjatijevic Tkalac and Liberalism in Croatia. Yale University, 2009.
Fisher, Sharon Lynne. From nationalist to Europeanist: Changing discourse in Slovakia and Croatia and its influence on national identity. University of London, 2003.
Gal, Diane G. Making meaning in a changing society: A study of teachers and democratic education in Croatia. Columbia University, 2001.
Gitman, Esther. Rescue and survival of Jews in the independent state of Croatia (NDH) 1941-1945. City University of New York, 2005.
Glicksman, Kristina. The Economy of the Roman province of Dalmatia. University of Oxford. 2009
Hofman, Nila Ginger. The Jewish community of Zagreb: Negotiating identity in the new eastern Europe. Purdue University, 2000.
Iskra, Annette. Nobody wins : Psychological effects of war and repatriation in Croatia. University of Chicago, 2007.
Jakelic, Slavica. Religion and collective identity: A comparative study of the Roman Catholic Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia. Boston University, 2004.
Johnson, Jill Ann. Teaching culture: Experience in a Croation diaspora. University of Washington, 2009.
Kayfes, John Anthony. Imagining the Balkans: Croatia and Greece in the political imagination of its political leadership during the interwar years. University of Minnesota, 2004
Kekez, Lovorka. ICCAT, NGOs and Bluefin tuna – Special focus on Croatia. Budapest, Central Europe Univ., 2007.
Kotar, Tamara. Political liberalization in post-communist states: a comparative analysis of church-state relations in Croatia and Slovenia. Carleton University, 2009.
Kusic, Sinisa. Privatisierung im Transformationsprozess: Das Beispiel der Republik Kroatien. Universität, Frankfurt (Main), 2000.
Layton, Katherine S. Education and development for refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina in Croatia: “Participation” in oppositional contexts. Florida State University, 2000.
Leaning, Marcus. Contributions to a sociology of the Internet: A case study of the use of the Internet in the Republic of Croatia in the 1990s. University of Luton, 2004.
Leutloff-Grandits, Carolin. Claiming ownership in post-war Croatia: The dynamics of property relations and ethnic conflict in the Knin region. Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg, 2005.
Lindstrom, Nicole Renee. Rethinking sovereignty: The domestic politics of Europeanization in Europe’s southeastern periphery (Croatia, Slovenia). Syracuse University, 2002.
Manzin, Gregoria. Torn identities: Istro-Dalmatian contemporary women’s writing.
University of Melbourne, 2007.
Martinovic, Dean. Das kroatische Deliktsrecht auf dem Weg zur europäischen Integration. Tübingen Universitat, 2006.
Masson, Diane. La construction des systèmes politiques en Serbie et Croatie (1989-1995). Institut d’estudes politiques, Paris, 2000.
Matic, Igor. Digital divide in Istria. Ohio University, 2006.
Meharg, Sarah Jane. Identicide in Bosnia and Croatia: The destruction, reconstruction, and construction of landscapes of identity. Queen’s University, 2003.
Memeti, Lendita. L’Etat candidat à l’Union européenne Translated Title: The State candidate to the European Uion. Eng. Université du droit et de la santé (Lille).; Université de soutenance, 2008.
Morrissey, Christof Nikolaus. National socialism and dissent among the ethnic Germans of Slovakia and Croatia, 1938-1945. University of Virginia, 2006.
Muhic, S. Establishing production in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina: External influences for companies approaching an appropriate engagement. Technical University of Denmark, 2002.
Munk, Ana. Pallid corpses in golden coffins: Relics, reliquaries, and the art of relic cults in the Adriatic Rim. University of Washington, 2003.
Neill, Debra Renee. Jasenovac and memory :Reconstructing identity in post-war Yugoslavia. Arizona State University, 2007.
Palmer, Peter. The Communists and the Roman Catholic Church in Yugoslavia, 1941-1946. University of Oxford, 2000.
Pavlakovic, Vjeran. Our Spaniards: Croatian communists, fascists, and the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939. University of Washington, 2005. University of California, Berkeley, 2005.
Peskin, Victor. Virtual trials: International war crimes tribunals and the politics of state cooperation in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. University of California, Berkeley, 2005.
Razsa, Maple John. Bastards of utopia: An ethnography of radical politics after Yugoslav socialism. Harvard University, 2007.
Reed, Laurel Elizabeth. Approaches to fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century painting in Dalmatia. University of California, San Diego, 2009
Rötting, Michael. Das verfassungsrechtliche Beitrittsverfahren zur Europäischen Union: und seine Auswirkungen am Beispiel der Gotovina-Affäre im kroatischen Beitrittsverfahren. Univ. Frankfurt am Main, 2008.
Segvic, Ivana. Government and the freedom of the press: An 11-year content analysis of three Croatian newspapers. University of Texas at Austin, 2003.
Silic, Dario. Dynamiques de l’intégration régionale de l’économie croate. Université Lumière (Lyon), 2004.
Silovic Karic, Danja. Neither centralism nor federalism : The social democracy in Croatia, 1918-1941. Yale University, 2005.
Smiljanic, Rajka. Lexical, pragmatic and positional effects on prosody in two dialects of Croatian and Serbian: An acoustic study. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2002
Spehar, Andrea. How women’s movements matter: Women’s movements strategies and influence on gender policy formation in post-Communist Croatia and Slovenia. Göteborgs universitet, 2007.
Troude, Gilles. La question nationale en République fédérative socialiste de Youcoslavie de la fin des années cinquante à la fin des années soixante-dix. Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle (Paris). 2003.
Uzelac, Gordana. Perceptions of the nation: A sociological perspective on the case of Croatia. University of London, 2002.
Vrbetic, Marta. The delusion of coercive peacemaking in identity disputes: The case of the former Yugoslavia. Tufts University, 2004.
Vujinovic, Marina. Forging the Bubikopf nation: A feminist political-economic analysis of Zenski list, interwar Croatia’s women’s magazine, for the construction of an alternative vision of modernity. University of Iowa, 2008.
Vuletic, Dean. Yugoslav Communism and the Power of Popular Music. Columbia University, 2010.
Wallace, Richard. The Croatian public sphere and the journalistic milieu. University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2007.
Weber, Joachim. Kroatien: Regionalentwicklung und Transformationsprozesse. Univ. Hamburg, 2000.
Wichmann, Nina. Democratization without societal participation? :The EU as an external actor in the democratization processes of Serbia and Croatia. Bremen, Univ., 2006.
Yeomans, Rory. Ideology, propaganda and mass culture in the Independent State of Croatia, 1941-1945. University of London, Year: 2005.
Zanki Alujevic, Vlasta. Energy use and environmental impact from hotels on Adriatic Coast in Croatia: Current status and future possibilities for HVAC systems. Stockholm: Kungliga tekniska högskolan, 2006.
Zivkovic, Sasa. Capital requirements and measuring market risk in EU new member states and Croatia in light of Basel Committee guidelines. Univ. of Ljubljana, 2007.
Znaor, Darko. Environmental and economic consequences of large-scale conversion to organic farming in Croatia. University of Essex, 2008.
Zühlke, Dietmar. Reforms and foreign direct investment possibilities and limits of public policy in attracting multinational corporations ; a multiple case study of Romania and Croatia. Hohenheim University, 2008.

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Andjelic, Neven. Bosnia-Herzegovina: Politics at the end of Yugoslavia. University of Sussex, Jun 2000.
Arsenijevic Damir. The politics of poetry in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Re-assessing tradition since the late 1980s. De Montfort University, 2007.
Babinka, Slavica. Multi-tracer study of karst waters and lake sediments in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina: Plitvice Lakes National Park and Bihac area. Bonn University, 2007.
Batic, Goran. The question of national identity of Bosnia and Herzegovina: A micro study of non-Muslim soldiers in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Municipality of Kakanj. Central European University, 2009.
Buyse, Antoine Christian. Post-conflict housing restitution: The European human rights perspective with a case study on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Leiden, 2007.
Cilliers, Jaco. Local reactions to post-conflict peacebuilding efforts in Bosnia-Herzegovina and South Africa. George Mason University, 2001.
Coles, Kimberley Anne. The object of elections: International workers, electoral practices, and the government democracy in post-war Bosnia-Herzegovina. University of California, Irvine, 2003.
Corpora, Christopher A. Connections, conundrums, and criminality: Understanding local perceptions about and attitudes toward organized crime and corruption in Bosnia and Herzegovina. American University, 2005.
Coward, Martin Philip. Urbicide and the question of community in Bosnia-Herzegovina. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 2001.
De la Haye, Jos. Missed opportunities in conflict management:Te case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1987-1996. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2001.
Dimova, Guinka. Crises, conflits et leur resolution: Le cas des Balkans. Université Robert Schuman (Strasbourg), 2008.
Dodds, Shona Elizabeth Helen. The role of multilateralism and the UN in post-cold war U.S. foreign policy: The Persian Gulf, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Australian National University, 2001.
Dulic, Tomislav. Utopias of nation: Local mass killing in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1941-42. Uppsala University, 2005.
Du Pont, Yannick. Bringing civil society to Bosnia and Herzegovina: OSCE measures to develop civil society. Amsterdam, 2000.
Edmonds, Lorna Jean. The historical account of the context and process of the introduction of CBR and integration of persons with disabilities in Bosnia-Herzegovina 1993-2001. University of East Anglia, 2002.
Eralp, Ulas Doga. The effectiveness of the EU as a peace actor in post-conflict Bosnia Herzegovina: An evaluative study. George Mason University, 2009.
Evans-Kent, Bronwyn. Transformative peacebuilding in post-conflict reconstruction: The case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. University of Queensland, 2003.
Ford, Curtis. The (re- )birth of Bosnian: Comparative perspectives on language planning in Bosnia-Herzegovina. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2001.
Freizer, Sabine. What civil society after civil war?: A study of civil society organizations’ effect on peace consolidation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Tajikistan. University of London, 2004.

García García, Ángel. Otra mirada sobre Yugoslavia: Memoria e historia de la participación de las Fuerzas Armadas Españolas en Bosnia-Herzegovina. Universidad de Murcia, 2004.
Gilbert, Andrew. Foreign authority and the politics of impartiality in postwar Bosnia-Herzegovina. University of Chicago, 2008.
Goodwin, Stephen R. Fractured land, healing nations: A contextual analysis of the role of religious faith sodalities towards peace-building in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Edinburgh, 2005.
Gordon, Stuart. Providing emergency humanitarian assistance in war: An evaluation of the relationship between and operations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the humanitarian NGO community and the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Bosnia Herzegovina 1992-1995. University of Lancaster, 2003.
Gosztonyi, Kristóf. Negotiating in humanitarian interventions: The case of the international intervention into the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Berlin, Freie University, 2003.
Halilovich, Hariz. Forced displacement, popular memory and trans-local identities in Bosnian war-torn communities. University of Melbourne, 2010.
Hamourtziadou, Drosili. National truths: Justifications and self-justifications of three nationalisms in Bosnia-Herzegovina. University of Keele, 2000.
Hansen, Annika S. International security assistance to peace implementation processes :
the cases of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Angola.
University of Oslo, 2000.
Hasenclever, Andreas. Die Macht der Moral in der internationalen Politik: Ltärische Interventionen westlicher Staaten in Somalia, Ruanda und Bosnien-Herzegowina. Tübinger Eberhard-Karls-Universität, 2001.
Herrmann-DeLuca, Kristine Ann. Beyond elections: Lessons in democratization assistance from post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. American University, 2002.
Holicek, Reima Ana Maglajlic. Cross-national co-operative inquiry into social work education in England and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Anglia Ruskin University, 2006.
Huh, Jae-Seok. Rethinking the practices of UN peacekeeping operations in the early post-Cold War era: The implications of the cases of Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosovo. University of Sheffield, 2008.
Ivanov, Ivan Dimov. Public concerns and perceptions about environment and health in post-communist Muslim societies. Michigan State University, 2004.
Jahic, Galma. Analysis of economic and social factors associated with trafficking in women: Thinking globally, researching locally. Rutgers University, 2009.
Jakelic, Slavica. Religion and collective identity: A comparative study of the Roman Catholic Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia. Boston University, 2004.
Jeffrey, Alexander Sam. Democratization , civil society and NGOs: The case of Brcko District, Bosnia-Herzegovina. University of Durham, 2004.
Jonsson, Inger M. Family meal experiences: Perspectives on practical knowledge, learning and culture. University of Örebro, Sweden, 2004.
Juncos García, Ana E. Cometh the ‘hour of Europe’, cometh the institutions?: Coherence and effectiveness of the EU’s common foreign and security policy in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991-2006). Loughborough University, 2007.
Keane, Rory. Creating space in which to live deconstructing binary opposition: The case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. University of Limerick, 2000.
Keyes, Emily Fay. The experience of Bosnian refugees living in the United States. University of Virginia, 2000.
Kolouh-Westin, Lidija. Learning democracy together in school?: Student and teacher attitudes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Stockholm University, 2004.
Kostic, Roland. Ambivalent peace: External peacebuilding threatened identity and reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Uppsala University, 2007.
Layton, Katherine S. Education and development for refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina in Croatia: “Participation” in oppositional contexts. Florida State University, 2000.
Lindvall, Daniel. The limits of the European vision in Bosnia and Herzegovina. An analysis of the police reform negotiations. University of Stockholm, 2009.
McCulloch, Allison. Seeking stability amid deep division: Consociationalism and centripetalism in comparative perspective. Queen’s University (Kingston, Ont.), 2009.
Muhic, S. Establishing production in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina: External influences for companies approaching an appropriate engagement. Technical University of Denmark, 2002.

Mulvey, Janet Dagmar. Rebuilding a society and its schools: Reconstruction of the primary education system in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Fordham University, 2004.
Nettelfield, Lara. Courting democracy: The Hague Tribunal’s impact in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Columbia University, 2006.
O’Halloran, Patrick Joseph. The role of identity in post-conflict state-building: The case of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Dayton Agreement. York University, 2001.
Ohanyan, Anna. Winning global policies: The network-based operation of microfinance NGOs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1996-2002. Syracuse University, 2004.
O’Hayon, Gregory Laurent Baudin. Big men, godfathers and zealots: Challenges to the state in the new middle ages (Russia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France). University of Pittsburgh, 2003.
Oluic, Steven. Bosnia and Herzegovina: Identity, nationalist landscapes and the future of the state. Kent State University, 2005.
Osorio Ramírez, María Amantina. La transformation du lien social: Les parcours migratoires et d’établissement des réfugiés de l’ex-Yougoslavie à la ville de Saguenay et à Joliette. Université de Montréal, 2009.
Owen-Jackson, Gwyneth Ann. Bosnia and Herzegovina: A study of the effects of social and political change on primary schooling, 1878-2002. Open University, 2006.
Palmer, Louis Kendall. Power-sharing extended: Policing and education reforms in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Northern Ireland. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2005.
Parish, Matthew T. Reconstructing a divided society: Learning from northeast Bosnia. University of Chicago, Law School, 2007
Perry, Valery. Democratic ends and democratic means: Peace implementation strategies and international intervention options in Bosnia and Herzegovina. George Mason University, 2006.
Pouligny, Béatrice. Les Missions polyvalentes de maintien de la paix de l’ONU dans leur interaction avec les acteurs locaux sociologie comparative de différentes situations: El Salvador, au Cambodge, en Haiti, en Somalie, au Mozambique et en Bosnie-herzegovine. Paris, Institut d’études politiques : 1999.
Rakic, Svetlana. Serbian icons from Bosnia-Herzegovina (16th-18th century). Indiana University, 1999.
Sadic, Adin. Communication regulatory agency in Bosnia and Herzegovina; 1998 – 2005: History and development. Ohio State University, 2006.
Sahovic, Dzenan. Socio-cultural viability of international intervention in war-torn societies: A case study of Bosnia Herzegovina. Umeå University, 2007.
Segvic, Branimir. Petrologic and geochemical characteristics of the Krivaja-Konjuh ophiolite complex (NE Bosnia and Herzegovina) petrogenesis and regional geodynamic implications. Heidelberg, 2010.
Soule, Suzanne Ruby. The crucible of democracy: Civic education in Bosnia and Herzegovina. University of California, Santa Barbara, 2003.
Starcevic-Srkalovic, Lejla. The democratization process in post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina and the role of the European Union. University of Hamburg, 2009.
Thorel, Julien. La France, la République fédérale d’Allemagne et la politique européenne de sécurité à l’épreuve de la question yougoslave. Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle (Paris), 2004.
Tiplic, Dijana. Managing organizational change during institutional upheaval: Bosnia-Herzegovina’s higher education in transition. Oslo University, 2008.
Torsti, Pilvi. Divergent stories, convergent attitudes: A study on the presence of history, history textbooks and the thinking of youth in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. Helsinki, 2003.
Troude, Gilles. La question nationale en République fédérative socialiste de Youcoslavie de la fin des années cinquante à la fin des années soixante-dix. Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle (Paris), 2003.
Tsoundarou, Paul. NATO’s eastward expansion and peace-enforcement role in the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia,1994-2004. University of Adelaide, 2007.
Turkovic-Hrle, Semra. The construct of power: Bosnia and Herzegovina post-cold war. Deakin University, Victoria, 2003
Tyers, Caroline. Hidden atrocities. The forensic investigation and prosecution of genocide. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2009.
Vanderwerf, Mark. A missiological examination of national identity in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Western Seminary, Portland, OR, 2008.
Vrbetic, Marta. The delusion of coercive peacemaking in identity disputes: The case of the former Yugoslavia. Tufts University, 2004.
Whitaker, Kelly Lyn. The new politics of occupation: Lessons from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Yale University, 2003.
Willigen, Niels. Building sustainable institutions?: The results of international administration in Bosnia & Herzegovina and Kosovo: 1995-2008. Universiteit Leiden, 2009.
Youssef, R. Multilateral Crisis Resolution Process. Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2009
Zelizer, Craig Mitchell.The role of artistic processes in peacebuilding in Bosnia-Herzegovina. George Mason University, 2004.

Josip Jelačić – Ban of Croatia

JOSIP JELAČIĆ – BAN OF CROATIA

Ante Čuvalo – Chicago

(Published in: Review of Croatian History, IV. no. 1, 2008, pp. 13-27)

This year (2008) marks the 160th anniversary of the 1848 revolution in which Ban Jelačić played a significant role. The short survey of Jelačić’s life that follows is written mainly for young Croatians around the world so that they may have a better understanding of Jelačić, the times in which he lived, and Croatian history in general.

Introduction

In 1848, a revolutionary wave swept across Europe, except in England and Russia. In England, the revolutionary pressures were deflated by reforms; in Russia, no action could be undertaken because of the cruelty of the tsarist regime.

A mix of severe economic crisis, romanticism, socialism, nationalism, liberalism, raw capitalism, growing power of the middle class, the misery of the workers and peasants (that still included the serfdom), the slipping power of the nobility and, in some countries, royal authoritarianism bordering with absolutism, created a volatile blend that brought about the Year of Revolution! The prelude to the 1848 events began among the Poles in Galicia in 1846, a civil war in Switzerland in 1847, and an uprising in Naples in January of 1848. However, in February 1848 the French ignited a fire that spread rapidly across the continent.

In the Austrian Empire liberals demanded a written constitution, which meant a quest for greater civil liberties by curbing the power of the Habsburg regime. When such attempts failed, popular revolts ensued, especially among the students and urban workers. At the beginning there was an alliance of students, middle-class liberals, workers, and even peasants. Under such pressure, the monarchy gave in to the demands and ultimately collapsed. But because of disunity among the revolutionaries, the traditional forces and the military establishment regained courage and strength, and in the end crushed the revolution.

The Hungarians were at the forefront of the revolution in the Habsburg Empire and in March 1848 promulgated a liberal constitution in their part of the monarchy. However, what Hungarians demanded for themselves they were not willing to give to non-Hungarians. Namely, they stood firmly for a unitary Hungary in which Croatians and other non-Hungarians would not have political and cultural rights. It should be remembered that Croatia was a separate kingdom united with Hungary under the crown of St. Stephen, and not a Hungarian province. But Hungarian imperialists, including Lajos Kossuth, the key man of the revolution, were liberals only for themselves. Because of their narrow-mindedness the Hungarians pushed the revolution over the edge and turned it into a disaster for themselves and others.

***

Revolutions bring out an array of forces and passions and produce both heroes and villains. Depending on the perceptions, interests, and judgments of the observer. One example of such a revolutionary is Josip Jelačić, Ban of Croatia. To the Croatians, and to other Slavs in the empire, he was a hero, as he was to the supporters of the Habsburg monarchy. To the Hungarians and other anti-Habsburg forces, Jelačić was a villain. He fought the Hungarians to get more independence for his native Croatia. He also championed national and individual rights of Slavs to be equal with those of Hungarians and Germans within the empire. Thus, his goals were progressive and noble. But by fighting the Hungarians and revolutionaries in Vienna he supported the Habsburgs, whom he saw as the lesser of two evils. Because the Hungarian revolutionaries were portrayed as liberals and had the sympathy of the West, Jelačić was depicted as a reactionary. But the same pro-Hungarian forces outside the empire did not want to see the sinister side of Lajos Kossuth and his bogus liberalism.

Josip Jelačić Before 1848

Ban Jelačić came from a family deeply rooted in the Habsburg military tradition. For two hundred years it had given officers to the empire, especially to the Military Frontier region in Croatia. He was the oldest son of Baron Franjo Jelačić Bužimski, a Field-Marshal,1 who distinguished himself in the war against Napoleon.2 His mother was Anna Portner von Höflein.

Josip was born on October 16, 1801 in the fortress of Petrovaradin, which was one of the well-known forts in the long struggle against the Turks. Military spirit and smell of gunpowder were a part of Josip’s life from the time of his birth; it was no wonder then that he kept the family tradition and became an officer.

As an eight-year-old boy Josip had the honor of being presented to Emperor Francis I, who recommended he be accepted at the Theresianum in Vienna. Shortly after his father’s death in 1810, Josip entered the famous Theresianum, where new military and administrative personnel of the empire were trained.

Jelačić was an excellent student with a variety of talents. Because of his eloquence his teachers advised him to become a lawyer, but he preferred being a soldier.3 Besides Croatian, he spoke German, Italian, French, and Magyar.4 In 1819, he graduated from the academy with honors, and as a Sub-Lieutenant he was sent to Galicia. Jelačić was loved by his peers, respected by his soldiers, and recognized as an excellent officer by his superiors. He loved army life and it seems that he fascinated everyone around him. His vigor, exuberance, good temper, wit, bravery, and even his talent for poetry brought him fame, good fellowship and popularity in the military circles.5

Jelačić’s joyous and carefree military spirit was interrupted, however, by a sudden and serious illness in 1824. For a year he recuperated at his mother’s house in Turopolje, near Zagreb. During that year he wrote a book of poems, which was published in 1825 and reissued in 1851. Suffering added to the depth of his character without affecting his vigor and love of life.

In 1825, Jelačić returned to his friends and comrades in arms, who were at this time in Vienna. He was again “the beginning, middle, and end of all proceedings” among his peers.6 After a short stay in Vienna, he was sent again to Galicia. In 1830, he became a Lieutenant Captain in the Ogulin regiment at the Croatian Military Frontier, where he was stationed. One year later he and his regiment were in Italy, where he served under the renowned General John Joseph W. Radetzky. About Jelačić the General once stated: “I expect the best of him; never yet have I had a more excellent officer.”7 After his return from Italy in 1835, Jelačić stayed permanently in Croatia. In 1837, he became a Major and was assigned as adjutant to the military Governor of Dalmatia, where he gained much valuable administrative experience and also had a chance to learn more about his native land and its people. Four years later he became a Colonel and returned to the Frontier troops.

At the Frontier territory, Jelačić had military and administrative responsibilities. In both areas he became not only very efficient but also popular. With his soldiers he was fair, and he cared for their well being. He even abolished corporal punishment. As an administrator, he would hear complaints of the local people and proved to be a fair arbitrator. He was well-known in the villages, attending various community gatherings and celebrations, including dancing the kolo (circle dance) at weddings.8 Such demeanor contributed to his fame among the soldiers and civilians.

A German officer in the Habsburg armed forces, who served under Jelačić in 1848, gives the following personal and vivid account of Jelačić:

The impression which this distinguished officer made upon me at the very first moment was most prepossessing; and it has since become stronger and stronger, the more I have had occasion to observe him in all the situations of life—in battle, and in cheerful society. He is an extraordinary man; and Austria may deem herself fortunate in possessing him and Radetzky precisely at the same moment.

Jellachich is of the middling height and size. His bearing is upright and truly military; his gait quick, as indeed are all his motions. His face, of a somewhat brownish tinge, has in it something free, winning, and yet determined. The high forehead, under the smooth black hair, is very striking. The eyes are large, hazel, and full of expression. In general, there is something extremely calm and gentle in their glance; but, when the Ban is excited, they flash, and have so stern—nay, so wild—a look as to curb even the most daring fellows. At the same time he is the mildest and kindest of officers. When but captain, he had almost entirely abolished blows in his company; and, while commanding the second Banat regiment as Colonel, there were not so many punishments in it in a year as there were formerly in a month.

Here is just one instance of the care which the Ban takes of his men. Last winter, when he was still Colonel, Lieutenant Field-marshal D——, Who commanded on the frontier, fixed a certain hour for inspecting the regiment. There was a piercing frost, and the soldiers shook with cold; but the Lieutenant Filed-marshal sat enjoying himself over his bottle at the tavern, leaving the regiment exposed to the cutting wind on the parade, to be frozen or petrified, for what he cared.

Jellachich waited nearly an hour beyond the appointment time; and the General not yet making his appearance, he ordered the regiment to disperse quietly. No sooner had it obeyed, than the General appeared upon the ground; but it was then too late, and the inspection could not take place.

This affair is said to have produced a great sensation, and, when reported to Vienna, to have been entered in the black book. But March has expunged this, like many other matters; and the Ban was in a few weeks promoted from Colonel to Lieutenant Field-marshal. The whole army, some antiquated nobs perhaps excepted, rejoiced at it. But this was nothing to the rejoicing with which, on the appointment of Jellachich to the office of Ban, he was received in Croatian and Slavonia, and which is said to have defied description.

Never was general more beloved by his troops. Wherever he shows himself in a military village, all—old and young, little boys and aged men, ay, and pretty girls, too—all rush out to see him, to shake hands with him, and to greet him with one Zivio! [Long live!] after another. In battle, after the most fatiguing march; in bivouac, exposed to pouring rain; wherever and whenever the border-soldier espies his Ban, he joyously shouts his Zivio! and for the moment, bullets, hunger, weariness, and bad weather, are nothing at all to him.

The scene that I witnessed when the Ottochans, who had been with me in Peschiera, and who arrived a few days after me in Croatia, were reviewed by the Ban, I shall never forget. Old border-soldiers—who had often braved death, and not flinched when the bombs at Peschiera fell in their ranks—wept for joy, when Jellachich praised them for their good behaviour. And yet he told them at once that the repose at their own homes which they had so richly earned and hoped to enjoy could not yet be granted to them; that, after a few days’ rest, they must start for Hungary, to engage in fresh conflicts.

… His voice is soft and pleasing, but perfectly distinct when giving the word of command. He is unmarried; has not much property; lives simply and frugally, applying almost all that he can spare to the support of his soldiers.9

The above biographical account, even if from a friendly officer, is impressive for any individual and it supports other first-hand accounts about Jelačić.

The Political Situation in Croatia in the 1840s

The political and cultural life in Croatia was very vibrant during the 1840s. Young intellectuals were full of enthusiasm for national revival. National newspapers began to appear, book publishing flourished, and even the first Croatian national opera premiered in Zagreb in 1846. Political life was dynamic and exciting, especially after use of the “Illyrian” name was forbidden in 1843. The language question became one of the major issues. The Magyars decreed their language to be the only official language in the kingdom; the Croatians, however, rejected this resolution of the Hungarian Diet (Parliament). The question of language was in the forefront of the policies of Magyarization by which Lajos Kossuth and other nationalists demanded an integrated Hungary stretching from the Carpathian Mountains to the Adriatic Sea. Hungarian pseudo liberalism denied others what Hungarians were demanding for themselves. On the other hand, nationalism in Croatia, and other non-Magyar regions was not less intense then that of the Magyars. It was inevitable that these forces and passions would clash sooner or later.

The Military Frontier and the army did not play a significant role in the national movement. But it had not been isolated from the spirit of the time either. There were demands from the Frontier for better living conditions, for reduction of military obligations, and even for the abolition of the region as a separate political unit from the rest of Croatia.10

Jelačić himself was under the influence of the leaders of the “Illyrian” movement, like Ljudevit Gaj and others. However, this did not prevent him from being a loyal officer of the empire.

Jelačić and the Events of 1848

Scene from Jelačić’s ceremonial installation on the position of Croatian ban in Zagreb, June 4, 1848 (Contemporary engraving published in Zagreb’s weekly Svijet on May 19, 1928)

Scene from Jelačić’s ceremonial installation on the position of Croatian ban in Zagreb, June 4, 1848 (Contemporary engraving published in Zagreb’s weekly Svijet on May 19, 1928)


With Ferdinand’s approval of Magyar self-rule in March 1848, a new situation developed in the relationship between Hungary and Croatia. From that moment, Hungarians were responsible to their Diet (Parliament) and not to the emperor/king. (The official title of the Austrian emperor in Hungary and Croatia was king, not emperor.) The king would no longer be able to veto resolutions and laws passed by the Diet in Hungary even if such laws were directed against other nations and nationalities in the kingdom. Therefore, non-Magyars were thrown at the mercy of the ruling nation. The results of this development were soon felt. The Hungarian Diet passed legislation by which Croatian political and cultural distinctions were to be obliterated. In one of his speeches Kossuth declared that there had never been a Croatian name or a Croatian nation.11

A provisional national assembly was called in Zagreb on March 25, 1848 in order to respond to the dramatic changes in Hungary and their effects on Croatia. This was done on the initiative of some leading Croatian liberals. However, only a few days earlier one of the conservative nationalists, Franjo Kulmer, who had good relations with the Court, went to the capital to advocate the Croatian cause among influential circles in Vienna. Interestingly enough, Croatian nationalists of both liberal and conservative political persuasions, wanted Jelačić to lead the nation through this growing crisis. They believed that a man with his popularity and character, who had also the army behind him, could make a stand against the Magyars and their imperialistic appetite. He was a nationalist but a Habsburg loyalist who believed that the only way to stop the Hungarians was to be on the side of Vienna. On March 23, 1848, Kulmer succeeded in Vienna to get Jelačić nominated as the new Croatian Ban (Viceroy); two days later the provisional assembly in Zagreb unanimously acclaimed him for that position without knowing about the Vienna nomination.

However, no one asked Jelačić if he would accept the nomination. On the contrary, he was not eager to get involved in the political arena. On March 26, 1848 he wrote to his brother: “Indeed we live in extraordinary days. That I am Ban, Privy Councilor, and General you will know already…. I can forbid no one to nominate me; but if they ask me whether I wish to be Ban, then decidedly I say No!”12 He was at the same time promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Field-Marshal and Commanding General in Croatia, including the Military Frontier.

Jelačić, therefore, became Ban without the approval of the government in Hungary, so in the Magyar eyes it was an illegal appointment. This defiance made the new Ban completely independent from Pest. Hungarians began giving orders to the Frontier regiments and to local governments in Croatia, but Jelačić issued a proclamation forbidding anyone to take orders from anyone except himself. He officially broke all relations with Hungary, leaving it to the new Croatian Sabor (Parliament) to renegotiate Hungarian-Croatian relations.

The Hungarian government tried to stop the meeting of the Sabor. Due to Magyar pressure, the Habsburg emperor ordered Jelačić to call off the meeting. But Jelačić declared that “he could not obey the order of his sovereign who does not have his free will.”13 The Sabor was solemnly opened on June 5, 1848. It confirmed all the decisions made by Jelačić since he took office, among them abolition of serfdom and the law of equal taxation. This finally ended feudalism in Croatia. The Sabor then proposed a structural change of the Habsburg empire. It advocated federalism, in accordance with the wishes of other Slavs in the realm. This Sabor deliberated in full freedom and independence from Vienna and Pest. It proved itself to be a capable political body of free representatives.14

Jelačić’s political views, one could say, were shaped by the spirit of the time and by his military and family background. He desired to make a big step forward for his Croatian and other peoples in the empire by advancing federalism, but he was against any radical revolutionary undertakings in this process. His national feelings can be seen already in his first proclamation as Ban of Croatia, which states:

The good of the people and country; that is my wish and my sole aim. I desire that our country may be strong and free…. In all my thoughts and deeds I will be the true expression of the nation’s will and thoughts. Therefore I intend to walk and continue in the path, which shall lead our country to happiness and glory.

The revolution has shattered and overthrown the old foundations of social life and the national and governmental relations, especially those with our old ally, Hungary—therefore, remembering our ancient league with the crown of Hungary, it is necessary to renew the connection in spirit of freedom, self respect, and equality, and to form a basis worth of a free and heroic nation, though on our side all relations with the present Hungarian Ministry must be broken off….15

In his speech on the day of the opening of the new Sabor Jelačić reiterated his position:

Brothers, all the relationships between governments and the people, between state and state, between nation and nation have to be based on freedom, equality and fraternity. That demands the powerful spirit of the time in which mankind is progressing toward its perfection. On this basis we too will base our relationship with the Magyars…. In an unfortunate case, if the Magyars show themselves to be not like our brothers toward us our kinsmen in Hungary and assume the role of oppressor, let them know that we said it, the time has passed when one nation ruled over another. We are ready to prove this to them even with a sword in our hand, keeping in mind the words of our honorable Ban Ivan Erdedi: ‘Regnum Regno non praescribit leges.’ [Kingdom does not prescribe the laws to another kingdom.]16

Jelačić stressed national rights very strongly, but on the other hand he believed that the Habsburgs would respect the liberal “spirit of the time” and help to achieve the equality of various nations in the empire. He had perhaps too much faith in the Habsburgs’ good will and willingness to change. In May of 1848, Jelačić wrote to the Archduke Karl; “Is it possible that all will get their freedom and only we Croatians and Slavonians will be left to the despotism of the Magyar Ministry?… We ask you to respect us now or never!”17 He was looking for help from Vienna. It seems, however, that he already suspected help would not be forthcoming.

On June 12, 1848, Jelačić and his Council arrived in Innsbruck to present the emperor the Sabor’s recommendations; but two days earlier Hungarians had persuaded Ferdinand to dismiss the Ban. However, Jelačić did not know this when he met with the emperor. Magyar representatives were present at that audience. Furthermore, Archduke John was appointed to mediate between the Magyars and the Croatians.

Jelačić’s visit to Innsbruck was a turning point in his policies toward Vienna. Kulmer and his friends at the Court gave the impression that Vienna was fully behind the Croatian cause. One of Jelačić’s companions in Innsbruck, F. Žigović, wrote to Zagreb: “…from the highest to the lowest [person] here is disposed with the friendliest spirit toward us.”18 Jelačić agreed to call upon the Croatian soldiers in Italy to continue the fight for the empire there. He began to think as a Habsburg general again. But the contradictory situation of Croatia and her Ban became more and more evident.

To look for the reason of Jelačić’s support of the dynasty in Archduchess Sophie’s weeping on his shoulders, as some do,19 is naïve, or that the only freedom he knew was “that which he proclaimed with his sword”20 is perhaps a willful misjudgment of his character. He definitely had a high vision for Croatia and the freedom of its people, as can be seen from his speeches. He must have had honorable political goals — perhaps even assurances — in mind when he decided to support the dynasty. Even Camillo Cavour of Piedmont recognized that Jelačić’s demands were in accordance with the demands of other Slavs and not based on Habsburg reactions.21

Jelačić learned about his dismissal as Ban while returning from Innsbruck, but he ignored it and continued to function as though nothing had changed. The Court in Vienna did press the case. Hungary, however, took the emperor’s order seriously by trying to get some anti-Jelačić support in Slavonia. But this did not bring the desired results. In Slavonia Jelačić was received as a national hero. The imperial commissioner, who was to replace Jelačić’s authority as military commander, at Magyar urging, attacked the town of Srijemski Karlovci and a general fight broke out with the local Serbian population. The Sabor in Zagreb passed a resolution to send immediate help to the Serbs, but Jelačić did not rush to engage the fight.

There was another attempt to solve the Hungarian-Croatian crisis by peaceful means. Archduke John called a meeting of Jelačić and Hungarian Prime Minster Battyanyi in Vienna in July of 1848. It is said that Jelačić asked for the impossible because he did not want peace with the Hungarians.22 However, his demands were misinterpreted “in respect of their spirit and intention.”23 The meeting with Battyanyi did not bring any results because the Magyars demanded a total submission on the part of Croatians. It actually ended with a threat of war. Battyanyi declared to Jelačić: “Then we meet on the Drava [river].” “Say rather on the Danube,” responded Jelačić.24 On this occasion in Vienna, Jelačić told the “immense multitude” that came to greet him “I wish a great, a strong, a powerful, a free, an undivided Austria.”25 In response to the Magyar threat he sought to save the Monarchy and Croatia with it.

Soon after, the Habsburg war machine started to move, and Jelačić with it. On September 4, 1848, the emperor restored Jelačić to his rightful position as Ban. Three days later he was on his way from Zagreb toward the Drava, or rather toward the Danube. In his manifesto to the people before he moved into Hungary he declared: “We want a strong and free Austria…we want equality, and the same rights for all nations and nationalities living under the Hungarian crown. This was promised by the words of our sovereign to all nations in the Monarchy in March [1848].”26 Obviously he had taken Ferdinand’s promises seriously.

On September 11, Jelačić crossed the river Drava. His army, however, was not a unified fighting force. The volunteers were undisciplined and not of much help. He sent 12,000 volunteers home after the battle of Pákozd on September 29.27 The battle had been fought to a draw, and neither Jelačić nor the Hungarians were eager to renew the fight. Jelačić waited for 7,000 more Graničars (men from the Military Frontier), but they never arrived. Meanwhile revolution broke out in Vienna and Jelačić turned his forces toward the capital.

There are indications that Vienna had not wished Jelačić to enter Pest after he crossed the Drava. For example, the material support given him by the Court had not been significant. Also, the seven thousand Graničars under General Roth did not follow Jelačić’s plan. Meanwhile, Count Lamberg was in Pest seeing if things could be worked out between Hungarians and the Court. It seems that Jelačić was being used to put pressure on the Magyars, while Croatian interests were simply ignored.28 One interpretation of these events is that Hungarian conservative forces had planned this “little war” in order to stop their Hungarian liberal colleagues in their radical pursuits.29

Ban Jelačić leading his troops during the battle of Schwechat near Vienna, October 30, 1848 (Contemporary engraving published in Zagreb’s weekly Svijet on May 19, 1928)

Ban Jelačić leading his troops during the battle of Schwechat near Vienna, October 30, 1848 (Contemporary engraving published in Zagreb’s weekly Svijet on May 19, 1928)


Jelačić’s march to Vienna signified a major change of purpose in his struggle. He began fighting the Hungarian oppression and now he found himself fighting Austrian revolutionaries and also a war of the Habsburgs against the Magyars. He was appointed the Royal Commissioner of the Hungarian kingdom, but this did not mean much in reality. As soon as General Windisch-Gratz and his troops joined him near Vienna, his role became secondary. From then on, Windisch-Gratz commanded the army and events. Jelačić did win a few victories for the Habsburgs in Hungary, but these were the exploits of a Habsburg General, not of a Croatian Ban. In August 1849, Jelačić fought for Petrovaradin, his native town. It surrendered to him on September 6, 1849, ending his last military campaign and his military career as well.

Tragic Ending

Soon after the revolutionaries were pacified, Jelačić learned about the “rewards” for his loyal service. Oppression, centralization, and Germanization were equally applied to the loyalists and to the revolutionaries. This was a bitter disappointment to Jelačić. His popularity at home declined. The former pro-Magyar forces in Croatia came to power again. He was Ban in name only. From 1849 to 1851, he attended all the meetings of the government in Vienna. He resisted oppressive measures but seeing that he could do nothing about them, he stopped going to Vienna. At his last meeting he told the emperor: “Highness, there is not a single man satisfied in the country.”30 But things did not improve. Jelačić himself was under police surveillance. Even his wife’s chamber maid was in the police service.31

A contemporary English diplomat, Sir Robert Morier, who visited Croatia soon after the revolution and even took private crash-courses in Croatian, states the following about the Habsburg treatment of Jelačić, whom he describes as “a most remarkable man:”

If ever, since the foundation of the Order of Maria Theresa, an Austrian subject deserved the Grand Cross of the Order by the fulfillment on the largest scale of the conditions originally stipulated by the rules of the Order, it was the Ban. Those rules, as is well known, recognize by preference the claims of those who have successfully achieved some great exploit either without or in contradiction to orders received from their superiors. Now, this latter was achieved by the Ban upon a scale rarely seen in history. As an outlaw he places himself at the head of an entire nation, declares war on his own responsibility, marches successfully into the very heart of the enemy’s country, and then by a brilliant maneuver, after a doubtful battle, comes to the rescue of the capital of the Empire. Nevertheless, the Chapter of the Order (on the very same day, if I am not mistaken) awarded to Prince Windishgrätz, for his successful putting down of the émeute at Prague, the Grand Cross of the Order; and to the Ban, for the services by him rendered, the Commander’s Cross only. Again, Prince Windishgrätz was named Field-Marshal, the Ban General; but two years later it was retrospectively stipulated that he should not advance towards the grade of Field-Marshal, otherwise than if he had become General by seniority.32

The main reason for such treatment of the Ban and the Croats, according to Morier, was “the contempt which the Austrian German” has for the Austrian Slav “combined with the very real fear with which the numerical superiority of the latter inspires him.” Furthermore, the Englishman describes the Habsburg ungratefulness as follows: “…I must confess that, with every wish to make allowance for the difficulties of the situation, it yet seems to me that a more wholesale act of injustice, ingratitude, and bad faith, a display on a large scale of mean and paltry spirit, grosser fraud, more clumsily veiled, it would be difficult to meet with in all the pages of history.”33

Jelačić was politically active until 1853. His policy was to save what could be saved. By his efforts the Zagreb diocese became an archdiocese, independent from the Hungarian church hierarchy. He organized the National Theatre in Zagreb, in which only Croatian was used. He succeeded in getting Juraj Strossmayer nominated as bishop of Djakovo. And a number of other cultural advances are also attributed to him.

In 1850, Jelačić married Countess Sophie von Stockau. He was forty nine and she was sixteen years old. On the occasion of the marriage in 1854, he received the title of Count from Francis Joseph, the emperor. But already at that time his health was waning. A year later his only child died. His public life was ended and he was tormented by all that had happened since the euphoric days at the beginning of 1848. He told one of his closer friends: “The Austrian government is killing me. I do not have any organic sickness. I am healthy. I have full strength of the body, but I am dying. Austria, in which I have believed, is destroying me.”34

Jelačić died on May 20, 1859, a man whose ideals were destroyed by a regime which he helped to save. He was buried in his Novi Dvori, near Zagreb, by the side of his only child.

Conclusions

Ban Jelačić’s equestrian monument in Zagreb on original position at Ban Jelačić’s Square (on the postcard from late 1920s). The monument was erected in 1866. Removed by communist authorities in 1947, it was returned to the square after the collapse of communist regime in 1990.

Ban Jelačić’s equestrian monument in Zagreb on original position at Ban Jelačić’s Square (on the postcard from late 1920s). The monument was erected in 1866. Removed by communist authorities in 1947, it was returned to the square after the collapse of communist regime in 1990.


Jelačić was a product of both national and pro-Habsburg feelings and loyalties which he did not perceive to be contradictory. When he entered Zagreb on his inaugural day, the whole city came out to greet him. It was an historic occasion. Croatians and many other Slavs looked at him as the only hope for a better future in the Monarchy. He declared that his only goal was the good of the people and his native land.

On the other hand, when he came to Vienna to meet Battyanyi, he was greeted again as a hero, but now by the Vienna crowd. He declared to them “I wish a great, strong, powerful, free, and undivided Austria.” He tried to synthesize these two conflicting goals. He believed that the first could be achieved through the second one. But the Habsburgs had other aims and plans for him, Croatia, and the empire.

Jelačić has been attacked from many sides, as a Panslavist, as a pro Russian, as an Austrophile, and a reactionary, among other and often contradictory labels. Even after his death, he was a hero to some and a villain to others. To Croatians he became a symbol of the struggle against the Magyars and a martyr of the devious Austrian regime. A monument was erected in the main square in Zagreb to his honor and patriotic songs about him carried his name to the younger generations. After the Second Word War, however, he was condemned once more as an antirevolutionary and reactionary figure. His monument was removed from public eye and the songs were banned. But his name could not be obliterated from the memory of the Croatian people. As soon as the communist regime in Croatia collapsed his monument was returned to its rightful place and Zagreb’s main city square bears Jelačić’s name again. He continues to be a symbol of Croatian enthusiasm for freedom and independence.

Der kroatis che Banus Josip Jelačić

Zusammenfassung

Der Autor verfasste diesen Überblick über Jelačić“ Leben anlässlich des 160-jährigen Jubiläums der 1848-er Revolution und seines Antritts in den Amt des kroatischen Banus in demselben Jahre. Dieser Überblick ist vor allem den jungen Kroaten zugedacht, die außerhalb Kroatiens leben und die grundsätzliche Informationen über das Leben und politische Tätigkeit des Banus Jelačić erfahren wollen. Der Aufsatz ist hauptsächlich aufgrund zugänglicher Literatur geschrieben und bezieht sich größtenteils auf die wichtigste Periode in der politischen Tätigkeit des Banus Jelačić – auf die Revolutionsjahre 1848-1849. Zu dieser Zeit war Jelačić nicht nur die hervorragendste Person der kroatischen Politik, sondern auch ein wichtiger Teilnehmer an den Geschehnissen in der Habsburgermonarchie im Ganzen.

1 Jellachich, Ban of Croatia,” Eclectic Magazine 16 (March 1849), p. 359.

2 E. F. Malcom Smith, Patriots of the Nineteenth Century. New York: Longmans and Green, 1928, p. 55.

3 Ibid., p. 56.

4 “Jellachich,” Eclectic Magazine, p. 359.

5 Ibid., p. 359.

6 Ibid., p. 360

7 Smith, Patriots, p. 58.

8 Ibid., p. 59.

9 W. baron. Scenes of the Civil War in Hungary in 1848 and 1849; with the Personal Adventures of an Austrian Officer. Philadelphia: E.H. Butler & Co., 1850, pp. 19-23.

10 Gunther E. Rothernberg, “Jelačić, the Croatian Military Border, and the Intervention against Hungary in 1848.” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 1, 1965, p. 50.

11 Lovre Katić, Pregled povijesti Hrvata. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1938, p. 218.

12 Smith, Patriots, p. 61.

13 Josip Horvat, Politička povijest Hrvatske. Zagreb; binoza, 1936, p. 182.

14 Vaso Bogdanov, Historija političkih stranaka u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: NIP, 1958, p. 300.

15 Smith, Patriots, pp. 62-63.

16 Horvat, Politička povijest, p. 184.

17 Enciklopedia Jugoslavije, Vol. IV, S. v. “Jelačić, Josip.”

18 Ibid.

19 Perscilla Robertson, Revolutions of 1848: A Social History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967, p. 281. Sophie was mother of Emperor Franz Joseph I.

20 Ibid., p. 282.

21 Josip Nagy, “Smjernice pokreta g. 1848.” Hrvatsko kolo 14, 1933, p. 27.

22 Robertson, Revolutions of 1848, p. 282.

23 C. Edmund Maurice. The Revolutionary Movements of 1848-9. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1887, p. 383.

24 Smith, Patriots, p. 65.

25 “Jellachich,” Eclectic Magazine, p. 365.

26 Horvat, Politička povijest, p. 193.

27 Ibid., 195.

28 Ibid., 196.

29 Bogdanov, Historija, p. 309.

30 Horvat, Politička povijest, p. 212.

31 Ibid., p. 207.

32 Rosslyn Wemyss. Memoirs and Letters of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Morier, G.C.B. From 1826 to 1876. London: Edward Arnold, 1911, pp. 150-151.

33 Ibid. p. 150.

34 Antonija Kassowitz Cvijic, “Grofica Sofija Jelačic,” Hrvatsko kolo 13, 1932, p. 105.ć

Jottings about Croatians in America

Josip F. Mikulec

Tireless World Hiker

Some one-hundred years ago, the American press (and, I’m sure, elsewhere as well), reported on the then young, and I must say, very brave Croatian adventurer, Joža Mikulec.  He set out to circumnavigate the globe on foot in the span of five years.  With the start of this journey, Joža, one might say, became a perpetual wanderer.  Mostly hiking, he traveled the world some 28 years and achieved a degree of fame for having collected more than 30,000 autographs of world-famous people.  From time-to-time, some of the more notable American newspapers kept track of his wanderings across this globe of ours.

I haven’t noticed that this interesting, if not especially notable Croatian was mentioned among his fellow Croatians—at least not through the past decades or so.  I haven’t investigated as to how much was written about him in the Croatian press of the time.  I’ll leave that to those in Croatia who might be interested in his story.  Let this brief glance at Mikulec serve as my contribution to a fuller biography of this American Croatian who, by all accounts, was a restless soul who was always ready to break-in a new pair of shoes.

Joža Mikulec first caught my eye as I was searching trough some microfilm images of the Chicago Hrvatska Zastava  (The Croatian Banner), dated the 24th of January, 1908. The Banner carried a translation of an article that appeared in the Star Journal from Pueblo, Colorado, dated the 23rd of November, 1908.  Joseph Mikulec came through Pueblo at the time, and the Journal carried the story of his journey from Zagreb to Pueblo.

Among other facts, the article stated that Mikulec, a “young Croatian,” had arrived in Pueblo.  He had entered into an agreement with Matica Hrvatska (Croatian Cultural and Publishing Society) in Zagreb to hike 25,000 miles in the course of five years, and, upon completion of his trek that he would set to paper his journey for them. Matica, in return, would award him 50,000 crowns (c.$10,000 at the time) and also publish his account. The Star Journal stated that Josip was to have sent his report to Matica each and every week updating his journey.

Mikulec departed Zagreb on the 5th of February, 1906 and by the time he arrived in Pueblo, he had walked 15,800 miles. He had already exceeded his plan by 800 miles. Mikulec set out on his journey without any sort of material support. He simply sold picture postcards along the way so that he could have enough cash to feed himself. One could add, he found many kind and generous people along the way who were willing to come to his aid.

The Mikulec’s path took him across Italy, France, Spain and Portugal. He set out from Portugal by way of boat to Cape Town in Africa. From Cape Town he set sail for Argentina. He intended to cross from Mendoza into Chile, but, because of intense cold and snow in the Andes, he set out for Buenos Aires instead. Mikulec encountered particular difficulties when crossing the Argentinean Pampas. Besides the unfavorable terrain for hiking, and the lack of food and water, he was beset by robbers as well. That was toward the end of 1907. While in Buenos Aires, Mikulec came into contact with the richest Croatian in Argentina, namely, the ship-owner, Nikola Mihanović. Mihanović was most welcoming to him.

From Buenos Aires, Mikulec set out for Montevideo and then on to the North through Brazil (Santos, Rio de Janeiro, Vitoria, and Bahia). Once again, he was robbed while in Brazil, however, it was the mosquitoes that gave him the biggest pain. He set out from Brazil as a deckhand on a steamer bound for the U.S. He arrived in Philadelphia and from there, he set out for Baltimore and Washington. Leaving Washington, he set out through Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, part of Ohio, onto Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, and into Colorado. Wherever he traveled, he sought out the autograph of important people and state and civic officials. He would ask that they affix the official seal of their jurisdiction to the signed autograph. He had a special book made just for that purpose, and he guarded it against loss faithfully.

Colorado’s Star Journal article printed his comments of praise for America and the Americans. They mentioned that he arrived in Springs, Colorado on the 22nd of November, 1908, and that he would temporarily reside with Nikola Badovinac. After leaving the company of Badovinac, Mikulec continued his journey toward the western shores and on into Portland. From Portland he planned to set out for Australia and from there to Japan, across Asia, and on through Siberia by way of train to St. Petersburg, Russia.

I have not succeeded in finding a description of Mikulec’s journey to Portland and beyond. However, I did find an article in the Chicago Daily Tribune, dated the 29th of July, 1910, wherein they report that the world traveler, Mikulec, arrived in Chicago on the 27th of July, and that the local Croatians were preparing a welcoming party for him on the 30th of July, in the National Hall on 18th Street. Mikulec would then set out for Springfield, capital city of Illinois, so as to obtain the autograph of the Governor just as he had done in all the states that he had traversed. The article also mentioned that he had an authentic autograph of President Taft. The article went on to say that Mikulec had worn out 42 pairs of shoes and that his journey was on schedule as he had planned and agreed to with Matica Hrvatska. In fact, he had said, he was 19 days ahead of his planned schedule.

From this “encounter” with Mikulec in Chicago, I was unable to thus far learn anything more about his journey until his reappearance in Chicago. The Tribune once again on the 21st of February, 1917—a full seven years later—writes that Mikulec once again arrived on foot in Chicago, and that his agreement with Matica Hrvatska was abrogated because he failed to fulfill his promise to journalize his travels as promised. They said that instead, he wrote what might be seen as a romanticized novel. This time they asserted that he had worn out 36 pairs of shoes. This would mean that Mikulec, despite his disagreement with Matica, continued his journey nonetheless and that he started anew to record how many shoes he had worn out. Meanwhile, the more important announcement in the article was the fact that Mikulec, adorned the length of his body with various medals of honor that he had received, had made a visit to the City Clerk’s Office of Marriage Registrations so that he could marry his fiancée, Mary Medrić. Mary was 36 years old at the time, and Mikulec was three years her senior. The author of the article notes that Mikulec, at the time of his registration, “is now plain Chicago ‘Joe’ instead of Croatian ‘Joža’,” and that the young couple would now reside at 1332 W. 18th Street, in Chicago. At the time, that part of Chicago had a very large Croatian community. One would think that Joe Mikulec, now married, would have settled down to a “normal” life among his fellow Croatians in Chicago. However, the newsman deceived himself: Mikulec remained the “Croatian Joža” and continued his adventurous journey across the world.

The New York Times, dated the 2nd of September, 1923, carried an article about Joseph Mikulec, the “collector of autographs.” The article goes on to relate that Mikulec had already traversed the globe twice, and had gathered autographs of important personages wherever he traveled. He found himself in New York city at the time of the article along with his leather-bound Autograph Book. The book, at the time, weighed a full 57 pounds. John F. Hylan, the mayor of New York, had signed Mikulec’s book as well as those who were well-known persons among the industrialists, artists, politicians, and others. The signatures of American Presidents, T. Roosevelt, W. H. Taft, W. Wilson, W. G. Hardy, C. Coolidge, along with other notables such as Lloyd George, Lord Curzon, the Prince of Wales, the President of China, Admiral Togo, J. Pierpont Morgan, and various senators, governors, ambassadors, etc. The article goes on to give a brief account of Mikulec’s first journey across the world, and adds that Joža’s full time residence was now (September, 1923) in Philadelphia. It goes on to say that he became a naturalized citizen in December of 1910, and that from 1910 through 1923 he journeyed through Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, India, Egypt, the Holy Land, and South Africa. Mikulec told the press that he was quite exhausted and that he wished to settle down into a “normal” life on some farm in the plains of America that has fertile soil. Along with this wish, he hoped to see his book of autographs in some appropriate museum. Meanwhile, wanderlust, and, perhaps, a new pair of shoes, won out again, and Mikulec set out from New York for the West.

Within two months time, (20th of November, 1923) the New York Times once again carried a somewhat longer article about Mikulec. The article goes on to say that Mikulec arrived once again in New York along with his 58 pound, 2,896 page book of autographs. Upon entering the city, Joža immediately set out for the Rosenbach rare book store so as to attempt to sell his book of autographs. His main reason for doing so was that he was exhausted of lugging that heavy book around. It is interesting to note that the New York Times newsman accompanied Mikulec to Rosenbach’s firm. The newsman reports that Mikulec bemoaned the fact that he had not succeeded in gathering so much as a single autograph of any monarch. He sought $10,000 for his collection. Dr. Rosenbach felt the collection was worth at least that amount, but that he did not traffic in such books. He, however, did suggest that Mikulec seek out Henry E. Huntington in California who, perhaps, might be interested in buying his collection. Hand on forehead, Mikulec bemoaned the fact that he had collected Huntington’s autograph but that it had not occurred to him to offer Huntington his collection.

We meet Mikulec once again on the pages of the New York Times, on the 30th of October, 1927. This time, the paper simply published a picture of Mikulec showing his book of autographs to admirers on the streets of Berlin. Clearly, Joža did not find a buyer for his collection of autographs as he had hoped to do in New York some four years earlier. Instead, Mikulec continued his wandering across the world.

The last article I was able to find about Mikulec was also in the New York Times, dated the 29th of April, 1928. The headline read: “Man 28 Years on Tour Collects Autographs.” The sub-head read: “Wheels 55-Pound Volume Containing 30,000 Signatures in a Special Carriage.” The article says that Mikulec was 50 years old at the time, that he was from Croatia, that he set out across the world some 28 years ago and gathered autographs of renowned people along the entire way including the autographs of several European rulers, and nine American Presidents as well as those of well-known artists, writers, actors, scientists, politicians, religious leaders, etc. He lugged his collection in a specially designed cart, but had to haul the book on his back as he visited various offices of those whose autograph he sought. Mikulec said that he had traversed hundreds of thousands of miles on foot gathering these autographs and that he would continue his journey.

Thanks to the internet (boards.ancestry.co.uk) we found the following facts: Josip Franjo Mikulec was born on the 15th of January, 1878, in the village of Krušljevo selo, Croatia, near Zagreb. His father was Josip Mikulec, and his mother was Kata Novosel from the same village. The internet also informs us that Mikulec arrived in America in 1905, that he married Anna Stiopu on the 20th of June, 1908 in Westfield Chautauqua County, NY, and that on his application for citizenship (September, 1910) he indicated that he was not married.

The New York Times article dated the 2nd of September, 1923 states that he was born in Stubice, Croatia. Krušljevo selo is near Stubičke toplice.  What is more, the article of 1928 states that Mikulec had been on his journey for the past 28 years. If that is accurate, then we must assume that he could have arrived in America even before 1905 and then returned to Croatia to enter into his agreement with Matica Hrvatska. He set out on that agreed-to journey on the 5th of February, 1906. It is reasonable to assume that Mikulec was somewhat acquainted with the world prior to his setting out on his hike across the world. As far as his marriage is concerned, if he did in fact enter into a union with the Rumanian poetess, Anna Stiopu, who also set out on foot across the world in May of 1905, it would seem that the marriage of these two world-travelers did not last long; meanwhile, we are told that Josip married in Chicago in 1917.

As I said at the start, this is no more than a small excerpt of the life of a Croatian who wandered the world endlessly. Many questions arise such as those that ask: where and how did he die; did he have any children; what all lands did he hike through; do any reports that he was to have sent to Matica Hrvatska exist, that is, if they ever existed at all; and especially pertinent, whatever happened to his book of collected autographs? Should all the details of Joža’s travels ever become know, and the whereabouts of his book of collected autographs, the name of Josip Mikulec would and should find its way into the Guinness Book of World Records.

It is my hope that this article will arouse the interest and attention of its readers about this tireless Croatian adventurer and hiker, and that this article will inspire someone to seek out, record, and publish a fuller biography of Josip Franjo Mikulec, as well as to discover where and when he ended his life and what became of his treasured book of autographs gathered over so many years.

Ante Čuvalo—Chicago

Translated by Duško Čondić from Croatian into English

****

* Picture 1 – in possession of Ante Čuvalo
* Picture 2 – taken from the web: boards.ancestry.co.uk
* I am grateful to the staff of the Robert Hoag Rawlings Public Library in Pueblo for providing me with a copy of the Mikulec article from Star Journal, November 23, 1908.

Crtice iz povijesti Hrvata u Americi

JOSIP F. MIKULEC

NEUMORNI PJEŠAK KUGLOM ZEMALJSKOM

Unazad oko stotinu godina američke (vjerujem i drugdje) novine pisale su o tad mladom, moramo reći i veoma hrabrom, hrvatskom pustolovu Joži Mikulcu, koji se uputio pješice za pet godina obići kuglu zemaljsku. Tim putovanjem, moglo bi se reći, Joža postaje vječiti putnik. Putovao je širom kugle zemaljske, najviše pješice, barem 28 godina i proslavio se prikupljanjem preko 30.000 autografa raznih svjetskih uglednika. Neka važnija američka glasila pratila su, s vremena na vrijeme, njegov hod kroz ovaj naš bijeli svijet.

Nisam zapazio da se ovog, ako ne baš znamenitog, ali svakako zanimljivog Hrvata spominjalo među nama u Americi, svakako ne zadnjih desetljeća. Koliko se o njemu pisalo u Hrvatskoj u njegovo vrijeme i kasnije, nisam imao prigodu istraživati. To ostavljam znatiželjnima u domovini. Ovo moje upoznavanje s Mikulcem nek bude doprinos budućoj potpunijoj biografiji toga američkog Hrvata nemirna duha i uvijek spremna derati đonove novih cipela.

Joža Mikulec mi je prvi put „zapeo za oko“ kad sam pretraživao mikrofilmove čikaške Hrvatske Zastave i u broju od 24. prosinca 1908. pročitao prijevod članka iz dnevnika Star Journal od 23. studenog 1908 iz Pueblo, Colorado. Naime, koncem studenog 1908. Josip Mikulec je boravio u tom gradu i novine su donijele podulje izvješće o njegovu putovanju pješice od Zagreba do Puebla.

Među ostalim se veli, da je tih dana u grad Pueblo stigao Mikulec „mlad Hrvat“, koji je napravio ugovor s Maticom hrvatskom u Zagrebu (njezinim nakladnim zavodom) da će za pet godina proći 25.000 milja pješice i nakon putovanja napisati putopis, a Matica će mu isplatiti 50.000 kruna i izdati knjigu. Zato je Josip, veli novina, tokom putovanja svaki tjedan slao izvješće Matici o prevaljenom putu.

Mikulec je pošao iz Zagreba 5. veljače 1906. i do dolaska u Pueblo prevalio 15.800 milja, te da je nadmašio svoj plan i raspored putovanja za 800 milja. Putovao je bez ikakvih materijalnih sredstava, jedino je prodavao razglednice i od toga kupovao hranu. A moglo bi se zasigurno dodati, da je bilo uvijk dobrih i darežljivih ljudi koji su mu priskakali u pomoć.

Put iz Hrvatske našeg je Jožu vodio preko Italije, Francuske i Španjolske do Portugala. Otud je brodom otplovio u Cape Town, a odatle je otputovao u Argentinu. Htio je preći iz Mendoze u Čile, ali zbog hladnoće i snijega u Andama, pošao je prema Buenos Airesu. Posebice je imao problema preko provincije Pampa; osim neprikladna terena za hodanje, trpio je nestašicu hrane i vode, a usput su ga orobili i razbojnici. Bilo je to 1907. godine. U Buenos Airesu Mikulec se susreo s najbogatijim Hrvatom u Argentini, brodovlasnikom Nikolom Mihanovićem, koji ga je vrlo gostoljubivo primio.

Iz Buenos Airesa je otišao u Montevideo, zatim prema sjeveru kroz Brazil (Santos, Rio de Janeiro, Vitoria, Bahia). I u Brazilu je bio orobljen, ali su mu tamo najviše jada zadavali komarci. U Brazilu se, kao radnik, ukrcao na parobrod i stigao u Philadelphiu, a odatle je pošao u Baltimor i Washington – kroz Virginiju, Zapadnu Virginiju, Kentucky i dio Ohia, Indianu, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas do Colorada. Kamo god je prolazio, tražio je razne uglednije osobe da mu dadu autograf i, u slučaju državnih i drugih službenika, da udare pečat grada, općine ili države u njegovu knjigu napravljenu za tu svrhu, a koju je pažljivo čuvao.

Članak iz Puebla donosi i Josipove pohvale Americi i Amerikancima, te veli da je Mikulec 22. studenog stigao u mjesto Springs, Colorado, i da će odsjesti kod Nikole Badovinca, te zatim nastaviti put prema zapadnoj obali, a iz Portlanda je trebao poći u Australiju, pa preko Japana (Azije), te sibriskim vlakom preko Rusije do St. Petersburga.

Opis Josipova putovanja do Portlanda i dalje još nisam uspio pronaći, ali sam pronašao članak u Chicago Daily Tribune (29. srpnja 1910.) u kojem piše da je svjetski putnik Mikulec stigao u Chicago 27. srpnja, da Hrvati za njega priređuju doček za nedjelju 30. srpnja u Nacionalnom domu na 18. ulici, te da zatim odlazi u Springfield, glavni grad države Illinois, da bi od guvernera mogao dobiti autograf, kao što je dobio od drugih guvernera kroz čije države je prolazio. Također se navodi da je imao autentičan autograf predsjednika Amerike Tafta. Članak završava da je Mikulec dotad poderao 42 para cipela i da mu putovanje ide po planu kako je ugovorio s Maticom, i čak da je je 19 dana ispred planiranog vremena.

Iza ovog mog „susreta“ s Mikulcem u Chicagu, nisam mogao ništa pobliže saznati o nastavku njegova putovanja do njegove ponovne pojave u Chicagu. Gore spomenuta čikaška novina od 21. veljače 1917. (znači blizu sedam godina kasnije) piše da je Mikulec ponovo dopješačio u Chicago, da mu je propao ugovor s Maticom hrvatskom jer nije ispunio obećanja, da je počeo pisati putopis, ali se to izrodilo u romantični roman. Ovaj put se navodi da je poderao 36 pari cipela, što bi značilo da je Mikulec, premda nije ispunio Matičine uvjete, nastavio pješačiti i dalje, te valjda iznova počeo brojati koliko je poderao cipela. Ali najvažnija vijest u članku je ta da je Mikulec dan prije, „nakićen duzinom“ raznih odličja na grudima, sa svojom zaručnicom Mary Medrić posjetio gradski ured za vađenje vjenčanih dozvola. Ona je tada imala 36, a on 39 godina. Pisac članka veli da je Mikulec tad postao „obični čikaški ‘Joe’, umjesto hrvatskog ‘Jože’“ i da će mladi par živjeti na adresi 1332 W. 18. ulica, Chicago. Usput, u tom dijelu grada bila je jedna od tadašnjih velikih hrvatskih naseobina. Dakle, bilo bi za očekivati da se sad Joe Mikulec oženio, smirio i nastavio „normalan“ život među Hrvatima u ovom gradu. Ali, novinar se prevario, on je i dalje ostao „hrvatski Joža“ i nastavio putovati svijetom.

Naime, New York Times od 2. rujna 1923. donosi članak o Josephu Mikulcu, „sakupljaču autografa“. Članak ističe da je Mikulec dva puta obišao svijet pješice, sakupljajući autografe uglednijih osoba kamogod je prolazio. Tih dana je bio u New Yorku i njegovu ogromnu, kožom uvezanu knjigu s autografima (koja je tad težila 57 funti) potpisao je gradonačelnik John F. Hylan, kao i važnije osobe iz poslovnih krugova, kazališta, politike i drugi. U knjizi su bili potpisi američkih predsjednika T. Roosevelta, W.H. Tafta, W. Wilsona, W.G. Hardya i C. Coolidgea, kao i mnogih drugih uglednika: Lloyd George, Lord Curzona, Princa od Walesa, predsjednika Kine, admirla Togoa, J. Pierpont Morgana, raznih senatora, guvernera, ambasadora itd. Članak donosi sažetak priče o njegovu prvom putovanju i dodaje da je Jožin stalan boravak u to vrijeme (rujan 1923.) bio u Philadelphiji i da je u prosincu 1910 postao američki državljan, te da je otada, to jest od 1910. do 1923. obišao slijedeće zemlje: Australiju, Novi Zeland, Kinu, Japan, Indiju, Egipat, Svetu Zemlju i Južnu Afriku. Mikulec je za novine izjavio da je već umoran, da se želi smiriti i otpočeti „normalan“ život na kakvoj manjoj farmi u američkim plodnim ravnicama, a da bi knjigu sa autografima želio vidjeti u kakvu muzeju. Ali, ipak je želja za putovanjem pobijedila pa je Joža tada iz New Yorka krenuo prema zapadu.

Samo dva i pol mjeseca kasnije (20. studenog 1923.) New York Times opet donosi članak o Joži, ovaj put malo podulje štivo. Veli se da je Joža ponovo stigao u New York noseći svoju kjigu od 2.896 stranica i tešku 58 funti. Joža je došao u grad i odmah posjetio tvrtku Rosenbach, trgovinu rijetkih knjiga, da bih unovčio dragocjene autografe. Glavni mu je razlog za prodaju bio umor od nosanja te velike knjižurine. Zanimljivo je da ga je u trgovinu pratio novinar New York Timesa, koji opisuje Jožu i njegovo podrijetlo. Novinar dalje piše da je Joža vječiti putnik, nabraja iskupljene autografe znameniti ljudi, kako se Joža žali da nije uspio dobit autograf ni jednog kralja, itd. Mikulec je tražio 10.000 dolara za knjigu a vlasnik Dr. Rosenbach je prosudio da je to realna cijena, ali da se on ne bavi takvim knjigama, nego mu je preporučio posjetiti Henry E. Huntingtona u Kaliforniji, koji bi možda otkupio knjigu ove vrste. Mikulec se uhvatio za glavu i kazao da ima Huntingtonov autograf, ali da mu nije palo na pamet ponuditi mu knjigu kad je bio kod njega.

Jožu Mikulca ponovo susrećemo u New York Timesu 30. listopada 1927., ali ovaj put novina donosi samo njegovu fotografiju na kojoj znatiželjnim prolaznicima na ulicama Berlina pokazuje svoju ogromnu knjigu autografa. To znači da Joža nije prodao knjigu i da se nije smirio, kako je priželjkivao dok je bio u New Yorku četiri godine ranije, nego je nasatavio putovati svijetom.

Zadnji članak o njemu kojeg sam mogao pronaći u New York Timesu je od 29. travnja 1928., a naslovljen je „Čovjek 28 godina na turneji skupljanja autografa“. Podnaslov glasi: „Vozi u posebnim kolicima 55 funti težak svezak koji sadrži 30.000 potpisa.“ Članak navodi da je Joža tada imao 50 godina, da je iz Hrvatske, da je prije 28 godina pošao po svijetu skupljajući autografe poznatih osoba i da knjiga sadrži potpise nekoliko europskih vladara, devet američkih predsjednika i mnogobrojnih glasovitih umjetnika, pisaca, glumaca, znanastvenika, poltičara, vjerksih uglednika itd. Knjigu je vozio na posebno sagrađenim kolicima, ali ju je ipak morao na leđima nositi u urede osobama od kojih je tražio potpis. Josip izjavljuje da je prošao stotine tisuća milja i da nastavlja svoje putovanje svijetom prikupljajući autografe.

Zahvaljujući internetu (boards.ancestry.co.uk) nalazimo slijedeće podatke: Josip Franjo Mikulec rođen je 15. siječnja 1878. u selu Krušljevu od oca Josipa Mikulca i majke Kate r. Novosel iz istog sela. Također se, u istom izvoru, navodi da je Mikulec došao u Ameriku 1905. i da je oženio Annu Stiopu 20. lipnja 1908. u Westfield, Chautauqua County, NY, a da na molbi za američko državljanstvo (rujan 1910.) piše da nije oženjen.

U članku u New York Timesu od 2. rujna 1923. se kaže da je rođen u Stubici, a Krušljevu selo je nedaleko od Stubičkih toplica. Nadalje, članak iz 1928. navodi da Josip putuje već 28 godina, ako je to točno onda je on mogao biti u Americi i prije 1905., a zatim se vratiti u Hrvatsku i dogovarati s Maticom putovanje oko svijeta, koje je otpočeo 5. veljače 1906. Vjerovati je da je Joža ipak bio barem malo upoznao svijet prije nego se poduzeo poći pješice oko kugle zemaljske. Što se tiče ženidbe, ako je sklopio brak sa Annom Stiopu, rumunjskom pjesnikinjom koja je iz Rumunjske krenula pješice u svijet u svibnju 1905., izgleda da brak dvoje svjetskih lutalica nije trajao dugo i Josip se ponovo ženi 1917. u Chicagu.

Kako rekoh na početku, ovo je samo mali doprinos biografiji jednog Hrvata, vječitog pješaka lutalice po svijetu. Nameću se mnoga pitanja na koja bi trebalo odgovoriti, kao na primjer: gdje i kada je umro, da li je imao potomstvo, koje je sve zemlje propješačio, da li postoje izvješća koja je slao (ako je slao) Matici, a posebice gdje i kako je završila ta ogromna Jožina knjiga s autografima? Ako se pronađu detalji o Jožinim putovanjima i autografima, vjerujem da bi njegovo ime moglo i trebalo biti u knjizi Guinnes World Records.

Nadam se da sam člančićem barem malo probudio pozornost čitatelja na ovoga hrvatskog neumornog svjetskog putnika pješaka, te da će ovaj dopis nekoga ponukati istražiti, napisati i objaviti potpuniji životopis Josipa Franje Mikulca te pronaći gdje je i kako su završili on i njegovo blago kojeg je sakupljao toliko godina.

Ante Čuvalo – Chicago

***

* Slika 1.- u vlasništvu A. Čuvalo
* Slika 2. – uzeta sa web-a: boards.ancestry.co.uk
* Zahvaljujem osoblju u Robert Hoag Rawlings Public Library in Pueblo za kopiju clanka o Josipu Mikulec iz Star Journal, 23. studenog, 1908.

Our Declaration – A 1916 declaration by Croatian and Slovene Priests in America

Our Declaration

(A 1916 declaration by Croatian and Slovene Priests in America)

As Croatians and sons of the nation of Croatia, and of our fraternal Slovene lands, from the very start, we hereby announce and confirm our political stance as regards our homeland during these bellicose times—times which hold seen and unforeseen consequences.

We stand on the national, state, historical, and written rights of the Nation of Croatia and her people, which are contained, among others, in the Coronation Oaths taken by Croatian rulers as far back as 1490 and beyond, in fact, up to this very day; these rights are also contained in the Electoral Charter from the year 1527, as well as in the Pragmatic Sanction dated 1712. In short, we stand by the program as represented by the Party of Right from the year 1894 and as developed and promulgated long since by the apostle of Croatianism, Dr. Ante Starčević, and as adopted by our Slovene brothers at the gathering in Trsat.

We believe in the strength, national awareness, and patriotism of the Croatian and Slovene Peoples whom much more powerful enemies were unable to crush, as witnessed by 14 centuries of our history. In that already realized past, we look to our freedom and independence.

We believe that the Croatians and Slovenes, who are bound by faith, history, culture, and a contemporary national consciousness, factors that are powerful features in the nation of all peoples, comprise one whole group of peoples in southern Europe, and, as such, have all the necessary prerequisites for independence.

We know that from its inception in 924, the Croatian Nation, stretching from Mt. Triglav to the Drina and from the Danube to the Adriatic has never ceased to be, not even in its darkest days in the past, nor in more recent times from 1790 to the present. She has remained as a Nation and as a People, and will continue to remain so. Her loyal sons will not traffic with her rights.

We know that official Austria and Hungary, Turkey and Italy, aided by Great Britain, have, through the centuries, encroached and truncated the sacred rights and freedom of the Croatian People. The past history of the Croatians and Slovenes has condemned publicly and continues to condemn those very same peoples for all the wrongs and violations of their rights. Through the centuries we have fought and stood firm for our rights, rights which we will continue to value and honor, and which we ourselves must and will ultimately accomplish. Those who doubt the abilities of people to free themselves, thereby deny existence to them. Peoples who gain their freedom at the hands of others soon become their subordinates.

In the name of humanity and the right of a People to exist, we strongly condemn Hungary’s politics of force, and Austria’s approval of such politics. We seek the right to freely develop and will continue to seek the right for Croatians to retain their own lands and sea, as well as all their other rights. In the name of all the Croatian and Slovene blood spilt on the battlefields of Europe, we will seek that all wrongs against us be corrected, for that spilt blood cries out for revenge from God who is the avenger of all wrongs.

Herein we assert that the so-called Serbian element which was born and lives in the nation of Croatia during the past fifty years, or, better said, since they emerged on the political scene in Croatia, has always and faithfully stood on the side and at the service of the enemies of Croatia—especially the Hungarians, Austrians, and Italians. As to the question of the Slavs in general, and the South-Slavs in particular, our thoughts are guided by those expressed in the writings of our Croatian statesmen—patriots in life and work—Eugen Kvaternik and Ante Starčević, as well as by the mournful experience related to this question which befell our great Bishop Strossmajer from the very founding of the Jugoslav Academy and up to the very year 1885. When Bishop Strossmajer wanted to visit Serbia, the response of the Serbian government was that it could not guarantee his life or safety if he were to visit his flock which lived in Serbia. The fanatcism of the Serbs, a particular characteristic of theirs, was previously seen as being strong, as based on their oft repeated syntagm: “Serbians all and everywhere.” That fanaticism is now even stronger. According to their notion and teaching, all the Balkan Peoples should be subsumed by Serbia. We do not wish to become Serbs, or Yugoslavs, nor Serbo-Croatians, but we will remain Croatians, brothers to all remaining Slavs; however, each in his own house, in his own land, and within the scope of his own rights. From the time our forefathers settled in our present homeland, we have evolved and we have created our own history in this manner.

With Italy’s entrance into the present war, she commended the insane Austrian politics against the Croatians and Slovenes as related to their Littoral and Dalmatia. By being favorable to the Italian minority, Austria prepared the way for the Italian aggression. The French, English, and Russian Trilateral Memo of Understanding promised Italy ownership of the Adriatic and possession of our shore and the lands between Trieste and beyond. We most strongly condemn this traitorous act carried out by the great powers. England did not offer the Island of Malta to Italy as a reward for entering the war—an island she rules but which is inhabited only by Italians; nor did she offer them greater rights in the Mediterranean wherein she and the French rule, and even less, dominion in Egypt. France did not grant Italy the territories of Savoy or part of Tunisia where more than one and one-half million Italians live. Russia, which has interests in the Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro, acceded to the promises made to Italy such that no one asked Serbia or Montenegro at the time the promise was made to Italy; rather, they simply informed it (Serbia) of what they sold to Italy. These who thunder and rule in Europe did not offer that which, by virtue of the principles governing nationhood, they should have offered; rather, they gifted the very eyes and door of Croatian state and people to treacherous and enemy Italy, so that she might close the door and eyes of the Croatian Nation forever. They offered the bones and flesh of the Croatian and Slovene Peoples at the marketplace so as to buy Italy’s entrance into the war, a war where Croatian and Slovene heroes are dying while defending their home and hearth from the treachery committed against their Peoples by France, England, and Russia. In the announcements to their peoples, these powers stated that they are going to war for sake of freeing small nations. Their history belies such an announcement since they never freed so much as one People. To the contrary, they, in fact, always opposed such freedom; nor should they castigate Germany or Austria in that regard. They promised foreigners a full two-thirds of Croatian lands such that one-third of its 110,000 square kilometers will cease to remain part of Croatia once the fundamentals of the Trilateral Agreement and Italy take place…“They divided my garments and cast lots for them.”

A free and united Croatia will order its international and political relationships, and will enter into agreements and laws according to the principle which states: “regnum regno non praescribit leges”—“One nation does not prescribe laws to another.”

Previous [pro-Yugoslav] declarations, starting with that from the gathering in Chicago on the 10th of March, 1915, fail to mention any sort of guarantees sought by an independent People as a condition of their independence; quite to the contrary, they obliterate the basis for individual and national existence for the Croatians. They divest Croatia of its past, its rights, its national name, and its national significance.

Thus far, there is no authoritative declaration on anyone’s part that Croatia will remain independent in “Yugoslavia”; to the contrary, representatives of the parties that have the authority to issue such a declaration made pronouncements at their gatherings and in their speeches in favor of a monarchical Serbia. We do not want the nation of the Croatian People to be swallowed by a unitary “Yugoslavia,” or better said, a Greater Serbia, a Croatia that is at least three centuries older than the nation of Serbia. We remain loyal to God, to our People and Homeland, and to him to whom our people conveyed their sovereign right to rule, and which persists to this day, and is sustained through the Crown of Croatian rulers.

In conclusion, and in the uncertain position in play on these shores wherein our immigrants live, let the tried and tested words of the defenders of our People’s rights, namely, Dr. Matko Laginje from Istria, representative Stjepan Zagorac from the province of Croatia, Rev. Ivo Prodan from Dalmatia, Bishop Šarić from Bosnia, and Dr. I Kreka, from Kranjska in Slovenia, serve as our guiding beacon.

Let the war end as it will, we do not abrogate our stand; rather, we will seek an Independent Croatian Nation along with all those rights possessed by a sovereign people.

Rev. Dr. E. Kajić

Rev. Pet. Čančarević (after signing the document, he withdrew his name)

Rev. Bosiljko Bekavac

Rev. Ivan Raab

Rev. Ambroz Širca

Rev. D. Krmpotić

Rev. A. Živić

Rev. Leon Josip Medić

Rev. Anton Sojar

Rev. Francis Podgoršek

Rev. Irenej Petričak

Rev. Mihael Tušek

Rev. Fr. Racinger

Rev. M. Hranilović

Rev. Valentin Mihelić

Nasa izjava 1916 – Izjava skupine hrvatskih i slovenskih svećenika u Americi

NAŠA IZJAVA“

I

K NAŠOJ IZJAVI“

STANOVIŠTE HRVATSKOG I SLOVENAČKOG SVEĆENSTVA

U AMERICI GLEDOM NA JUGOSLAVENSKU,

BOLJE VELIKO-SRPSKU PROPAGANDU U AMERICI.

CINE 25 CENTI

TISAK „NARODNOG LISTA“, NEW YORK, N.Y.

NAKLADA: CROATIAN PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO. N.Y.

1916

PREDGOVOR

Odkada je rat u Evropi započeo, nije hrvatsko svećenstvo izjavilo nigdje otvoreno svoje stanovište gledom na jugoslavensku, bolje veliko-srbsku propagandu, koja je u ovoj zemlji medju Hrvatima operirala punom parom, da prikže svojim gospodarem i najamnikom, e su Hrvati voljni i željni, da se odreknu Hrvatskog imena i povijesti, te da su voljni postati Jugoslaveni, bolje Srbi i podanici dinastije Karagjorgjevića.

To isto svećenstvo je dapače bilo prikazivano s jedne strane po Grškoviću, kao da je solidarno s njime, — dok se s druge strane tvrdilo za njeke svećenike, da su za Švabu i Magjare.

To je prisililo pod izjavu podpisane Hrvate i Slovence svećenike u Americi, da izadju sa „Našom Izjavom“, i kašnje „K našoj izjavi“.

NAŠA IZJAVA

Na prvom mjestu kano Hrvati i sinovi domovine Hrvatske i bratskih slovenačkih zemalja naglasujemo i ovim utvrdjujemo ovdje naše političko stanovište prema našoj domovini u ova ratna vremena, koja nose u sebi vidljive i nevidljive jošte posljedice.

Mi stojimo na narodnim, državnim, povjesnim i pisanim pravima države Hrvatske i njezinog naroda, koja se sadržavaju medju ostalim u krunidbenim zavjernicama hrvatskih vladara sve od god. 1490., i dalje sve do današnjega doba; zatim u izbornoj diplomi od god. 1527., te u pragmatičkoj sankciji od god. 1712. U kratko: mi stojimo na programu stranke prava od god. 1894., koga je u svojim spisima i govorima odavno razvio i dokazao apostol hrvatstva Dr. Ante Starčević, i koga na trsatskoj skupštini prihvatiše braća Slovenci.

Vjerujemo u snagu, narodnu svijest i domoljublje hrvatskoga i slovenačkoga naroda, za što nam svjedoči njegova prošlost od 14 vijekova, u kojoj ga mnogo jači neprijatelji skršiti nisu mogli, i na toj prošlosti ostvarenu gledamo njegovu slobodu i nezavisnost.

Vjerujemo, da Hrvati i Slovenci, koje veže vjera, povjest, kultura i suvereni narodni osjećaj, što su moćni faktori u državi svakoga naroda, sačinjavaju jednu cjelovitu skupinu naroda na jugu Europe, i kao takovi imaju sve preduvjete za samostalnost.

Znademo, da hrvatska država od Triglava do Drine, od Dunava do Jadrana, nije nikada od postanka svoga g. 924., prestala, pa niti u najcrnijim vremenima u dalekoj prošlosti ni u bližoj sadašnjosti od god. 1790. do danas. Ona je ostala kao država i kao narod, a takova će i ostati. Vjerni sinovi njezini neće pazariti sa njezinim pravima.

Znademo, da su službena Austrija i Magjarska, Turska i Italija, kojima je pomagala i Velika Englezka, kroz vjekove navaljivale i krnjile sveta prava i slobodu hrvatskog naroda. Prošlost Hrvata i Slovenaca odsudila je, odsudjuje neprestano i danas jošte živući narod sve krivice i oskvrnjivanja prava njegovih javnom odusdom i borbom za ista, zato uz sve ove nepravde i krivice ovaj narod ne traži osloboditelja niti ih očekuje izvana, nego iz samoga sebe, jer vjeruje u sebe da imade jakosti i samopouzdanja u radu i ustrajnosti u borbi za slobodu, koju vodi kroz stoljeća, koju će cijeniti i štovati, jer će ju sam izvojštiti. Oni, koji dvoje o sposobnosti naroda, da bi se sam oslobodio, niječu njegov opstanak. Narodi, kojima drugi dadu slobodu, postaju njihovi malodobnici.

Postupak magjarske nasilne politike i austrijsko odobravanje ove politike odsudjujemo najoštrije, i u ime čovječnosti i prava jednog naroda na opstanak i slobodan razvitak tražimo i tražiti ćemo, da Hrvatima ostanu njihove zemlje i more, njihova prava; sve krivice da se isprave, jer sadanja prolita hrvatska i slovenačka krv na bojnim poljima Europe vapi za osvetom Bogu osvetniku svake krivice.

Tvrdimo ovdje, da je takozvani srpski elemenat, koji živi i koji se je rodio u državi Hrvatskoj, kroz zadnjih pedeset godina, ili bolje odkada je stupio na političko polje u Hrvatskoj, uvijek i vjerno [je] stajao na strani i u službi neprijatelja Hrvatske, osobito Magjara, Austrije i Talijana. U pitanju Slavenstva uopće, Jugoslavenstva napose, vode nas misli izražene u spisima hrvatskih političara, patriota životom i radom, vrlih pokojnika Eugena Kvaternika i Ante Starčevića, te žalostno iskustvo koga je doživio u ovom pitanju veliki vladika Strossmajer od vremena osnutka Jugoslavenske akademije pak do god. 1885., kad je htio pohoditi Srbiju kano biskup svojih ovaca, koje živiše u Srbiji, no srpska vlada mu je pisala, da ne jamči za njegov život ako u pohode dodje. Fanatizam Srba, koji je njihovo osobito obilježje, bijaše prije jak, jer „Srbi svi i svuda“, sada je još jači; u njemu bi se morali po njihovoj nauci utopiti svi narodi na Balkanu. Mi ne idemo ni u Srbe, ni u Jugoslavne, ni u Srbo-Hrvate, nego ostajemo Hrvati, braća ostalim Slavenima, ali svaki u svojoj kući, i na svojoj zemlji i u opsegu svojih prava, jer smo se tako razvijali i povijest svoju stvarali od početka naseljenja pradjedova naših u sadanju domovinu našu.

Italija je svojim ulaskom u sadanji rat odsudila nepravednu, ludu austrijsku politiku, koju je Austrija vodila proti Hrvatima i Slovencima u Primorju i Dalmaciji, jer pogodjujući talijanskoj manjini Austrija je poripravila polje talijanskoj navali. Trojni sporazum, Franceska, Engleska i Rusija obećaše Italiji gospodstvo u Jadranu i posjed naše obale i zemlje od Trsta dalje. Ovaj prodajni rad koga izvedoše ove velevlasti mi najoštrije osudjujemo. Engleska nije Italiji ponudila za nagradu ulaza u rat, otoke Maltu u Sredozmenom moru, kojim ona gospodari, a na kome stanuju sami Talijani; niti većega prava u Sredozemnom moru, kjim vladaju Englezi i Francuzi, a još manje posjeda u Egiptu. Franceska ne dade joj pokrajine Savoie, niti Dijela Tunisa, u kojoj žive više od milijun i pol Talijana. Rusija, koja imade interesa u kraljevinama Srbiji i Crnoj Gori pristala je na obećanje Italiji, tako, da Srbije ni Crne Gore nitko ni pitao nije, kad je obećanje učinjeno, nego joj javiše što su Italiji prodali. Ovi koji sada grme i vedre u Europi ne ponudiše onoga, što bi po načelu narodnosti morali, nego su nevjernoj i neprijateljskoj Italiji dali vrata i oči hrvatske države i naroda, da ih ona zatvori i zasliepi za uvijeke. Kosti i meso hrvatskog i slovenskog naroda iznesoše na pazar, da kupe Italiju za rat, u kome pogibaju hrvatski i slovenski junaci braneći prag svoj od izdaje, koju počiniše Franceska, Engleska i Rusija na njihovom narodu. U svojim proglasima narodu za rat oglasiše one, da idu u rat za oslobodjenje malenih naroda. Povijest njihova jest protivna ovom proglasu, jer nijednoga naroda nikada oslobodile nisu, nego protivno, slobodu im uništile, te ne trebaju Njemačke i Austrije koriti radi toga. Obećaše tudjinu pune dvije trećine hrvatskih zemalja, tako da od 110.000 četvornih kilometara zemlje neće ostati Hrvatskoj niti jedna trećina, kada se izvede osnova ili ugovor izmedju trojnog sporazuma i Italije. „Razdijeliše haljine moje, i kockaše se za nje“.

Slobodna i ujedinjena Hrvatska u uredjivanju svojih medjunarodnih pravnih i političkih odnošaja ugovarati će i sklapati će ugovore i zakone po načlu: „regnum regno non praescribit leges“. Država državi ne propisuje zakona.

Dosadanje rezolucije počamši sa onom na sastanku u Chicagu od 10. ožujka 1915. ne spominju nikakvih garancija, koje samostalan narod kano uvjete svojoj samostalnosti traži, nego naprotiv držimo, da one ruše temelj hrvatskog individualnoga i državnoga opstanka, Hrvatsku lišavaju njezine prošlosti, njezinih prava, narodnoga imena i njezinoga državnoga značaja.

Autoritativne izjave do sada nema od nijedne strane, da će u „Jugoslaviji“ ostati samostalna Hrvatska, nego naprotiv izaslanici jedne strane, koja imade autoritet da to izjavi, izjavljivaše se na sastancima i u njihovim govorima, za monarhičnu veliku Srbiju. U jedinstvenoj državi „Jugoslaviji“ ili točnije Velikoj Srbiji nećemo da se gubi država hrvatskoga naroda, koja je barem tri vijeka starija od države Srba. Vjerni Bogu, narodu i domovini svojoj, te onomu, na koga je narod prenesao svoje suvereno pravo vladati, koje se odrazuje u kruni hrvatskih vladara.

Na koncu u ovom nejasnom položaju, koji se nalazi u ovim našim stranama, gdje mi iseljenici živimo, nama neka budu luči vodilicom patriotizam i riječi prokušanih boraca za narodna prava gg. Dra. Matka Laginje iz Istrije, zastupnika Stjepana Zagorca iz Hrvatske, don Ive Prodana iz Dalmacije, biskupa Šarića iz Bosne, te Dra. I. Kreka iz Kranjske.

Svršio se rat kako mu drago, mi se ne odričemo, već ćemo tražiti hrvatsku samostalnu državu sa svim njezinim pravima, koja imade suvereni narod.

Rev. Dr. E. Kajić

Rev. Pet. Čančarević (opozvao)

Rev. B. Bekavac

Rev. Ivan Raab

Rev. Ambroz Širca

Rev. D. Krmpotić

Rev. A. Živić

Rev. Leon Josip Medić

Rev. Anton Sojar

Rev. Francis Podgoršek

Rev. I. Petričak

Rev. Mihael Tušek

Rev. Fr. Racinger

Rev. M. Hranilović

Rev. Valentin Mihelić

Gornja „Izjava“ je podpuno jasna, nu, pošto je naravno, da se u takvim izjavama ili rezolucijama gleda biti što kraći, pokazala se potreba, da se „Našoj Izjavi“ dodade njeki komentar ili tumač. Tim više bila je to potreba, što protivnički listovi nas objedjuju, da mi ne želimo slobodu; da hoćemo ropstvo i slično. Pod naslovom „K Našoj Izjavi“ donosimo takovi komentar, u kojem neprijateljima političke samostalnosnosti naše Hrvatske domovine i trgovcima, njezinih prava dokazujemo, kako će izgledati sloboda naša drage domovine, koju naši politički protivnici očekuju od Četvrtoga Sporazuma (Entente).

K NAŠOJ IZJAVI

Hrvatski i slovenski svećenici i podpisani na „Našoj Izjavi“, izdali su tu „Izjavu“ skroz spontano bez ikakvih debata, sastanaka, poticanja, mamljenja, obećavanja ili prijetnja. Predložilo se pismeno, u kojemu smislu treba da izdamo izjavu i svi jednoglasno rekoše, da je takova izjava nuždna i da je svaki osjećao nuždu i dužnost slične izjave. Poznati izmamljivač političkih izjava, Don Niko Gršković, znade ponajbolje, da se od hrvatskih svećenika ne izmamljuju tako lahko jugoslavenske bolje slavosrpske izjave. To ga je poučio naš chicažki sastanak, na koji je došao sa svim svojim aparatima i spremama, kojemu su prisustvovali svi oni, na koje je on mogao računati, pa je ipak otišao duga nosa. Doista je bilo žalostno i tragično za toga trgovca političkih izjava, kada morade otići sa sastanka bez željno željkovane izjave, za koju već bio siguran i za koju je već bio sastavio kabelgram na londonski komite, što je glasio: Svi hrvatski svećenici su za jugoslaviju. To je moja zasluga. Molim da se uvaži, pa da bude što obilnija nagrada itd.

Jest, reći će kogod, al Gršković je ipak izmamio izjavu i s njom se pohvalio. Na ovaj prigovor mora se svakako ogovoriti. Gršković i njegova dva trabanta gg. Relić i Medin su najprije iznijeli čisto slavosrpsku rezoluciju, u kojoj traže ujedinjenje troimenoga naroda (srpskog, hrvatskog i slovenačkog) u jednu jedinstvenu državu — Jugoslaviju, dakako pod žezlom Karagjorgjevića.

Kad je ta rezolucija s indignacijom odbijena, da se oslabi utisak blamaže, trebalo je ma što poduzeti, jer inače s bogom ugled Don Nike pred cijelim Srpstvom i Slavosrpstvom; do vraga dinari, rublje pa i lire, kano i obećane časti u „njihovom kraljevstvu“ — Jugoslaviji. I Don Niko se dade na posao, da nas „uhvati u rijči“.

Donio drugu rezoluciju tako kapcioznu, da je mislio i u sebi uskliknuo: „eureka“! Ali i opet razočaranje, jer se rezolucija kljaštrila sve dotle, dok nije iz nje odstranjen svaki trag i miris Slavosrpštine.

U usvojenoj rezoluciji mi tražimo: 1. podpunu slobodu vjere; 2. ekonomsko osobodjenje i 3. ujedinjenje hrvatskog naroda.

Po sebi se razumije, da nismo mislili na ovaku vjersku slobodu, koju imadu katolici u Rusiji, Francuzkoj ili Srbiji. Takvu vjersku slobodu si mogu želiti naši katolički Slavosrbi, ali nikada pravi Hrvati katolici. Mi znamo, da je u Austro-Ugarskoj Monarhiji pdpuna sloboda vjerska, ali nije podpune slobode u upravi ckve, a osobito baš katoličke, u koju se država mješa. Samo takvu slobodu smo razumjeli u toj rezoluciji i nju zahtjevamo.

Ekonomičku t. j. financijalnu i gospodarstvenu slobodu traže svi pošteni i rodoljubni Hrvati, a osobito podpuno financijalno oslobodjenje od Magjarske, u koje nas je bacila nesretna nagodba sa Magjarskom.

To je program, odnosno esencijalni dio programa stranke prava, na koji mi prisižemo; dočim glavni korifeji naših Slavosrba rekrutiraju se iz koalicije, koja je magjarofilska i koja taj sistem naše financijalne podredjenosti brani i podržava. Zato Don Gršković nije s tim učinio nikakve usluge Potočnjaku magjaronu-koalicinašu i njegovoj prodajničkoj družbi.

Pod ujedinjenjem hrvatskog naroda rekli smo izrično i mislili ujedinjenje svih hrvatskih i slovenačkih zemalja u jednu nezavisnu i slobodnu državu, koja će si sama gospodariti, kojoj neće biti gospodarom ni Austrija, ni Magjarska, pa makar imala s njima zajedeničkog vladara (personalnu uniju). Eto, to je čisti program hrvatske stranke prava.

Eto, to je naš ideal, to znači ona naša izjava sastavljena na chikažkom sastanku. Na ovu rezoluciju je pristao i Gršković i njegova družba, osim Rev. Relića, kojemu je bilo prevruće na sastanku pa se izgubio prije vremena.

Rev. Gršković se pohvalio u svojoj novini, kako nas je naveo da se zamjerimo Austriji i veselo si tro ruke, a ne vidi sjerotinja, da se on blamirao prama svojim gospodarima. Da se mi ne bojimo zamjeriti Austro-Ugarskoj, predbaciti joj i najstrožije odsuditi njezine griehe počinjene na hrvatskom narodu, to mu je najrječitiji dokaz „Naša Izjava“.

ZAŠTO SMO IZDALI „NAŠU IZJAVU“?

Lovac i trgovac političkih izjava i rezolucija Don Niko Gršković i družina — tutti quanti — Slavosrbi neprestance nas trpali u slavensku torbu, da nas, kad dodje tome vrijeme, iztresu pred kralja Petra, a traže onda nagradu; da cijeli svijet vidi, da su se Hrvati odrekli svoje političke eksistencije i svakoga prava na nju, te se zadovoljuju s time da smiju pod dinastijom Karagjorgjevića zvati se Jugoslaveni. Tako su to zamislili „Srbi svi i svuda“; tako se imala ostvariti srpska „zavetna misao“. U tu svrhu se drže skupštine, stvaraju rezolucije, plaćaju mnogobrojne novine pisane ćirilicom i latinicom. Sve to vode i provode prodani Slavosrbi i Srbi.

Skupe po 200-300 ljudi (većinom svagdje Srbi) i onda se deru kao cirkuski pelivani: evo vidite ljudi, čujte narode, počujte Alirci, sav hrvaski narod se odriče svoje političke individualnosti i eksistencije i prelazi u jugoslavenstvo i jugoslavensku državu pod dinastijom Petra Mrkonjića. Takove se izjave dobro rentiraju kristalizirajući se u zlatne rublje i dinare, a bogme i u lire.

To je njima svejedno! Eksistencija je majke Hrvatske dobro unovčena. Dobije li još kogod mitru i prefekturu u kojme „Srezu“ velike Srbije (n. pr. Boduliju), onda je trud nagradjen. Dušo moja, šta hoćeš više!

Kad se započeo grozni rat mislili su naši handl-tandleri: ode Austrija k vragu, Hrvatsku će dobiti Srbija i posrbiti će nas istim načinom i sredstvima kano i macedonske Bugare, drži se Veljo, pametan budi, Veljo, ugrabi što možeš, unovči, što se dade unovčiti. Oni isti, koji su prije dvije godine prodavali (za peštanske tiz korone) hrvatsku morsku obalu Magjarima, stavljaju se na čelo toj izdajničkoj trgovini sa eksistencijom naše hrvatske domovine, koja jim ne bi smjela nikada ni kosti primiti.

Ne traže i ne tražiše izdajice svoje domovine, da jim Srbi poštuju prava i integritet domovine, da ne tiču u njezinu samostalnost. Ne, oni ne smjedoše o tome ni pisnuti, jer znaju kakva bi jih plaća čekala od „braće“ Srba (naime onaka, kakva i bugarske rodoljube u Macedoniji), kad bi „vrag odnio Austriju“ (to je njihov obljubljeni izraz) a hrvatske zemlje došle pod Srbiju. Ne, oni to ne traže, nego se odriču slobode i samostalnosti svoje domovine za Judinu plaću.

Jedanput sam rekao, Don Niki Grškoviću ovo: deder Ti poruči Srbima, da ne tiču u naše hrvatske zemlje, deder reci Srbima, da ćemo samo onda biti prijatelji i sretni, kad bude cielokupna ujedinjena Hrvatska slobodna uz slobodnu Srbiju, pa da čuješ odgovor! I on mi reče: „hoću, sutra ću to napisati“. Dobro, onda ću Ti skinuti kapu, rekoh ja. Ali Don Niko nije držao svoje obećanje; njemu se nije izplaćalo ovakovo stanovište. U slučaju, da je Austro-Ugarska doista propala, kao što smo i mislili na početku rata, onda bi svaki rodoljub Hrvat stavio se na gornje stanovište i pred cijelim svijetom to tražio za svoju domovinu; ali to se ne slaže sa srpskom zavetnom misli, kojoj se dadoše u službu naši prodani Slavosrbi ovdje i u domovini.

Mi smo u „Našoj Izjavi“ to stanovište zauzeli u slučaju pobjede Aliiraca, onim riječima: „Svršio rat kako mu drago, mi se ne odričemo, već ćemo tražiti hrvatsku samostalnu državu sa svim njezinim pravima, koja imade suvereni narod.“ Mi smo govorili iz duše i srca svih rodoljubnih Hrvata, koji neće pazariti sa pravima svog naroda i svoje domovine; mi smo u „Našoj Izjavi“ govorili iz duše stotina hiljada junačkih hrvatskih vojnika, koji se bore i ginu kano lavovli sa Talijanom, kojeg su pozvali u pomoć na račun naših hrvatskih i slovenačkih zemalja, oni isti, od kojih se naši prodani jugoslaveni nadaju spasu, a da budu još veće i smješnije budale, pišu i govore narodu, da će Velika Srbija uzprkos cijeloj Ententi iztjerati Talijane iz naših zemalja, ni pedlja, a ma baš ni pedlja joj neće dati od naših zemalja. Ako to nije vrhunac budalaštine i pljuska zdravom razumu hrvaskog naroda, onda nemože drugo ništa na svijetu biti. Organ Don Nike Grškovića je čak i to pisao, da je austro-talijanski rat samo finta, jer da su oni u zdogovoru kako će nas (Jugoslavene) zajednički uništiti.

„Jugoslavenski odbor u Londonu“ neće dopustiti, da Talijani dobiju ma jednu stopu naših zemalja“, pišu i govore bez prestanka naši Slavosrbi; a sami znaju, da taj jugoslavenski odbor nevrijedi obsolutno ništa, da on nema upliva na vlade entente ni koliko zadnji fakin na londonskoj ulici.

Kad bi oni što vrijedili, dala bi jim bogata Englezka bar kruha da se najedu i da ga neprosjače od amerikanskih siromašnih radnika. Sav rad njihov je prosti humbug i mamipara. Oni bi sigurno razvikali svaki svoj uspjeh na sve strane svijeta, ali sav njihov rad i uspjeh sastoji se u varanju sirmonašnog naroda i mamljenju dolara od njega.

Ententa bi dala ne samo hrvatske nego i srpske zemlje i istome Kinezu, ako bi ju samo htjeo i mogao spasiti iz kaše, u kojoj se nalazi.

I tomu odboru je poslao Don Niko Gršković novac „Hrvatskog Saveza“, koji su rodoljubni hrvatski radnici smetali u korist Hrvatske, a nipošto za fakine, koji nam prodavaju domovinu Srbima i Talijanima.

Jest, oni nas prodavaju upravo i Talijanima, jer biti uz Ententu, koja nas prodaje Talijanima i onda od nje spas očekivati znači direktno prodavati svoju domovinu. Od ovoga se nemožete oprati, Vi Slavosrbi i izdajice Hrvatske, i kad bi još toliko gnjusoba na nas mogli izbaciti u svojim stovarištima laži i prostote, koliko ste jih dosada izbacitli. Vi to niste nikada ni pokušali s kakvim dokazom, nego samo gnjusobama i glupim rekriminacijama. Vaša Jugoslavenska — bolje velikosrpska — politika jest politika mrcinaša i vi leaderi te politike ovdje i u Londonu jeste pravi mrcinaši. Činilo Vam se da je Austro-Ugarska Monarkija a dosljedno i u njoj i naša mila domovina Hrvatska mrcina, na koju će se, na sada, spustiti srpski i talijanski orlovi strvinaši, da joj raznesu izmučeno tijelo. Da vam zapane koji komad toga tijela, Vi ste se s njima skupa sletili na tu umišljenu strvinu. Vama dovikuje hrvatski narod, koji se bori kano div proti svojima mrcinašima, dovikujemo mi i Hrvatska sa sv. Pismom: „jao vama psima (vodjama), koji skupa s vucima trčite i razdirete stado moje“. Jao vama mrcinaši!

Vi znate, da Srbi nemisle iskreno s nama; vi znate, da nam svojataju sve naše zemlje i niječu nam isto ime naše; vi znate, da Srbi u svojim nastavnim (školskim) knjigama to čine. Vi to niste nikada pobili, a ni kušali opovrći, jer je to opovrći nemoguće. Izmedju hiljada evo vam jedan dokaz srpskoga šovinizma. Srpski profesor B. [ovo je vjerujemo V./Vladimir, a ne B.] Karić, izdao je „Zemljopis za IV. razr. osnovnih škola“, štampom kraljevske državne srpske štamparije u Beogradu. Sada čujte samo njekoliko mjesta iz te školske srpske knjige:

Odmah na prvoj strani u sadržaju čitamo, da su srpske zemlje: Kraljevina Srbija, Bosna i Hercegovina, Stara Srbija, Makedonija, Crna Gora, Dalmacija, Istra, Hrvatska i Slavonija, Bačka i Banat“.

No kud i kamo je taj školski zemljopis zanimljiviji u pojedinim odjelima, gdje je govor o našim hrvatskim zemljama, koje prikazuje kao čiste srpske zemlje. Da se vidi, kuda je pohlepnost Srba težila, mi ćemo doslovno citirati, kako se nalazi u toj školskoj knjizi.

BOSNA I HERCEGOVINA.

Bosna i Hercegovina su dve srpske zemlje; nahode se u severozapadnom kutu balkanskog poluostrva i sa svih strana okružene su samim srpskim zemljama. Naroda ima u Bosni i Hercegovini na 1,320.000 duša, a to je sve sam Srbin, osim nešto malo cigana, Izraljaca (Jahudija) i doseljenih Nijemaca. Jezik, koji tamošnji Srbi, a naročito Hercegovci govore jest jezik, kakav čitamo u našim divnim narodnim pesmama, dakle najčistiji i naljepši južni govor srpski. Zapadni se govori u samo nekim krajevima prema granici Hrvatske. No Bosanci i Hercegovci i ako su pravi Srbi, na žalost nisu jedne vere (!). Istina, pravoslavnih imade najviše, 572.000, ali imade i muhamedanaca i katolika.

DALMACIJA.

Govoreći o Dalmaciji u toj knjizi, „koja služi mladoj srpčadi za nauku i izobrazbu“ piše se o Dalmaciji ovo:

„Naroda u Dalmaciji imade na 480.000 duša i to je sve sam Srbin. Imade 20.000 Talijana, koji žive po varošima. Velik deo Srba zovu se Hrvatima. Jedna je samo petina naroda pravoslavni, a ostalo su sve katolici… Dalmacija je kraljevina, ali kralja nema, već joj car austro-ugarski postavlja namesnika“.

Govoreći o Dubrovniku posvećuje mu najveću pažnju, pa veli: „Dubrovnik je najstarija srpska varoš, jer joj ima ne malo 1000 godina. Vodila je živu trgovinu po svim srpskim zemljama. Mnogo je slavnih naučnika i književnika srpskih (Pisci: Gundulić, Gjrodjević, Palmotić. Naučnik Bošković, itd.) rodjeno i živelo u Dubrovniku…“

ISTRA.

„U Istri imade 300,000 duša. Od toga broja dolazi 100.000 na Srbe, 43.000 na Slovence, koji su veoma srodni Srbima i 90.000 na Talijane. Bez malo svi su Istrani katolici, nešto samo preko hiljadu duša vere su pravoslavne. Značajno je to,što se u krčkoj eparhiji služba božja služi srpskim jezikom. Sve osnovne škole su talijanske, pa je stoga škola tamošnja Srbima davala vrlo malo znanja. No danas je mnogo bolje, jer imade do stotinu srpskih škola, u kojima se govori srpski jezik.

HRVATSKA I SLAVONIJA.

U Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji osem nešta Nemaca i Madžara sve su to sami Srbi, koji se u severo-zapadnoj Hrvatskoj zovu Hrvati. U Sremu narod govori čistim istočnim govorom srpskim. U ostaloj Hrvatskoj srpski je narod raznolik: Prema Štajerskoj i Kranjskoj su Kajkavci, a u Primorju Čakavci. No književni je jezik južni i istočni govor srpski. Po veri u severo-zapadnoj Hrvatskoj imade katolika, ali idući na jug i istok sve ih je manje, tako da ih u Liki nema nikako, jer su tamo sve samo pravoslavni.“ Govoreći o Fruškoj gori, veli: „Da je to sveta srpska gora, jer da u njoj imade šesnaest srpskih manastira“.

Sve to je popraćeno s ad hoc priregjenim zemljopisnim kartama, samo da se mladeži čim jače utuvi u glavu velikosrpstvo.

I tako smo u kratko iscrpili, kako se o pojedinim zemljama, čisto hrvatskim zemljama uči u srbijanskim školama. No svakako je najkarakterističniji zaglavak cijele knjige pod naslovom:

UKUPNI PREGLED SRPSKIH ZEMALJA.

Ne možemo, a da iz ovog odsjeka, koji je doista najzanimljiviji, i koji nam najjasnije odaje velikosprske težnje ne citiramo ponešto više, nego to u gornjim odsjecima.

„U svim tim zemljama, koje smo nabrojili žive srpski narod, pa smo te zemlje nazvali srpske zemlje. Severnu granicu tih srpskih zemalja čini reka Moriš do svoga ušća u Tisu, a onda ide suva severna granica Bačke, sad nastaje ići Dunavom do ušća Drave pa Dravom do izlaska u Štajersku, odavle Kranjskom do Trsta, pa preko raznih visova do izvora Kupe. Zapadna pako granica teče od Trsta do ušća Drinskog… Srpska zemlja u ovim granicama prostrana je ko Italija i velika ko kraljevina pet puta… U zemljama srpskim, koje se prostiru kraj Jadranskog mora: Istra zapadna Hrvatska, Dalmacija gorske kose idu uporedu s morskom obalom… Prostrane ravnice u srpskoj zemlji su: Podravina, Posavina i Podunavlje… Reke, koje teku srpskim zemljama staču se u tri mora: Jadransko, Belo i Crno more… Jedni od najglavnijih raskrsnica drumskih u srpskoj zemlji jesu: Zagreb, Mostar, Rijeka, Šibenik, Spljet, Dubrovnik i Kotor….

U srpskoj zemlji, u granicama, kojima smo ju ranije obuhvatili, ima naroda 8,760.000 duša, dakle četiri i pol puta toliko, koliko u kraljevini. No u srpskim zemljama ne žive sve samo Srbi, već imade u njoj i prilično velik broj i drugih naroda, a naročito Nemaca, Madžara, Vlaha, Arnauta i Talijana. (Svega samo ne Hrvata!)

Velika većina katoličkih Srba u severnoj Dalmaciji, Hrvatskoj i Istri zovu se Hrvati mesto Srbi. Ali to ne treba nikoga da buni e da pomisli, da su oni neki drugi narod, jer je njihov materinji i narodni jezik pravi srpski jezik. Tako se i muhamedanci u Bosni zovu Turci. Ali to nisu nikakvi Turci, već pravi Srbi. Da su oni pravi Srbi, a ne Turci vidi se otuda, da turski niti ne govore niti znaju, već govore pravim lepim srpskim jezikom, koji su govorili i predci njihovi, dok su još bili hrišćani…“

Dakle ne priznaju nam niti naš hrvatsko ime, već nam kažu, da se tako i Muhamedanci zovu Turcima kano i katolici Hrvatima, t. j. kako Muhamedanci nisu Turci, tako ni katolici u svim srpskim zemljama nisu Hrvati nego zgoljni Srbi. Hrvatu nema mjesta u hrvatskim zemljama. Cigani, Židovi, Talijani i Njemci obstoje i živu, ali Hrvati ne. Ex uno disce omnex. Take su manje više sve srpske školske knjige.

Možete li ovo pobiti, mrcinaši?

Mi vam možemo poslužiti sa stotinama srpskih pisaca i školskih naukovnih knjiga. Zašto nikada vi strvinaši, neopomenete te svoje prijatelje radi te nečuvene bezobraznosti, radi najgadijih i najdrzovitijih insulta? Zar Vam krv nevrije kad čitate i čujete ovo? Zašto šutite mrcinaši? Vi šutite, jer govoriti nesmijete, jer kad bi progovorili, onda ne bi imali mrcinaškog udjela na tijelu naše domovine i hrvatskog naroda — ne bi bilo nagrada.

„Srbi su se promjenili sada“, odgovarate vi. Na temelju čega to tvrdite? Recite nam, tko vam to jamči?

Sve do rata su Srbi tako pisali i govorili a sada se preko noć popravili i odrekli svog šovinizma i priznali Hrvatima pravo na njihove zemlje i na njihovo ime! Samo budala to može vjerovati. Quod gratis assertur, gratis negatur, kažu filozofi. Vi tvrdite svoje ludorije bez dokaza, a to mogu vam samo ludjaci vjerovati. Mi branimo naše stanovište sa nepobitnim dokazima i činjenicama.

Dopustimo za čas, da se ostvari Jugoslavija, pa pogledajmo, kako će ta Jugoslavija izgledati!

Mislim, da će svaka budala znati, da Jugoslavija znači zemlja na jugu, u kojoj stanuju Slaveni. Medju tim Slavenima nalaze se: Bugari, Hrvati, Srbi i Slovenci. Svjesni Bugari niti nemisle o jugoslavenskoj jedinstvenoj državi, ona je za njih najveće ludilo na svijetu. Vaša ćeJugoslavija obuhvaćati Srbe, Hrvate i Slovence. Dakle tri imena. Kojim će se od tih tri imena zvati narod, koji će sačinjavati Jugoslaviju? Hoće li Srbi žrtvovati svoje ime za volju Hrvata i Slovenaca? To Vam mogu samo budale vjerovati. „U Jugoslaviji biti će sva tri imena zadržana“, tvrdite vi. Ali kako će se zvati jezik tog jedinstvenoga troimenoga naroda, kako ga vi zovete? Hoće li to biti jugoslavenski jezik? Nonsense! Kraj svih ludorija koje ste rekli i napisali, ipak nećete uztvrditi, da će se zvati jugoslavenski jezik. Kako će se dakle zvati taj jezik pred cijelim svijetom? Da bude svima pravo, morao bi se zvati: srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenski jezik.

Pitajte, gospodo, sve iskrene Srbe, neka Vam oni odgovore na to pitanje.

Niti će Srbin, niti svijestan Hrvat, niti Slovenac odreći se svog jezika ili točnije svog imena i naziva svog jezika.

Recimo, da je ovo filologiziranje nuzgredna stvar, pa podjimo dalje promatarati Jugoslaviju sa političkoga gledišta.

Kako će izgledati Hrvatska u Jugoslaviji? Odmah u početku mi priznajemo, da smo genetički isti narod sa Srbima i Slovencima, ali politički niti smo bili niti hoćemo da budemo sa Srbima jedan te isti narod, zato smo uztvrdili u „Našoj Izjavi“: „Mi ne idemo ni u Srbe, ni u Jugoslavne, ni u Srbo-Hrvate, nego ostajemo Hrvati, braća ostalim Slavenima, ali svaki u svojoj kući, i na svojoj zemlji i u opsegu svojih prava, jer smo se tako razvijali i povijest svoju stvarali od početka naseljenja pradjedova naših u sadanju domovinu našu.“

Ostvarenje Jugoslavije može se samo zamisliti u slučaju pobjede Aliraca (četvornoga sporazuma), a onda kako će izgledati Hrvatska u Jugoslaviji?

Srbija dobiva: Bosnu, Hercegovinu, Dalmaciju (u koliko neće pripasti Talijanima) i Srijem. Italija dobiva: Istru i sve hrvatske otoke i preostali dio gornje Dalmacije (u koliko neće pripasti Srbima), ona dobiva i neograničeno gospodari hrvatskim morem, tom žilom kucavicom našega života i naše budućnosti. To znači od 110.000 četvornih kilometara, dobre tri četvrtine izgubiti će Hrvatska, na koju će se sletiti kao na strvinu braća Srbi i njihovi saveznici Talijani. Tako ogoljena i oglodana Hrvatska imati će čast, da bude pokrajina u Jugoslaviji, pod dinastijom Karagjorgjevića. Hoće li se ta reliquia reliquiarum (ostatak ostataka) smijeti zvati Hrvatskom? Sudeći po onomu, što su dosada o nama jednodušno i službeno učili Srbi, moramo i o tome podpuno zdvojiti, jer kako znamo, oni priznaju i Cincare u jugoslavenskim (t. j. srpskim) zemljama, ali Hrvate ne.

Djeca i budale mogu vjerovati laskanjima njekih Srba. To je samo zamka, da od hrvatskog naroda izmame političke izjave, kojima se odriču svoje samostalne eksistencije, svojih historičkih i narodnostnih prava i bacaju se u zagrljaj Srbima. Udica se zove Jugoslavija, u kojoj će tobože biti jedinstveni troimeni narod ravnopravan. Ta Jugoslavija nije ništa drugo, nego Velika Srbija. Kaže talijanska poslovica: „che ti accarezza piu di quell’ che suole, o ti ha ingannato or (???) ingannar ti vuole“. Tko ti se laska više nego obično ili te je prevario, ili te hoće prevariti. — Ta se poslovica ovdje ispunjuje.

Srbi nemaju nikakva prava na Bosnu. Sami su priznali, da nemaju historičkog prava na Bosnu i Hercegovinu, ali se pozivaju na narodnostni princip. Nu ni načelo narodnosti neda im toga prava. Po službenoj statistici, koja je sigurno više bila njima u prilog (hvala kratkovidnoj i protuhrvatskoj politici kojekakvih magjarskih Kalaja i Burina), nego Hrvatima, oni su sačinjavali 43 po sto pučanstva; dok Hrvati katoličke i muhamedanske vjere sačinjavaju 50 po sto pučanstva, a ostalo su druge narodnosti, izmedju kojih je najviše španjolskih jevreja (oko 4 po sto cijelokupnog pučanstva). Srbi svojataju sebi Muhamedance onako isto bezobrazno, kako nama Hrvatima niječu i isto naše ime i u samoj užoj Hrvatskoj; — nu, bosanski Muhamedanci nisu nikada bili niti će biti Srbi, oni se sada do jednoga priznaju Hrvatima. Isto tako i bosanski jevreji drže se samo s Hrvatima. Dakle ni po narodnosti oni nemaju pravo na Bosnu i Hercegovinu, ma koliko to trubili i lagali pred cijelim svijetom. A što istom, da rečemo o njihovom prisvajanju Dalmacije i Srijema? To je drzovitost, kojoj nema primjera na svijetu. Nu, kada su po njihovom učenju sve hrvatske zemlje srpske, u kojima ima Cigana, ali ne Hrvata, onda su dosljedni sami sebi i u toj tražbi. Zar Vas nije sram, mrcinaši, zar vi niste izdajice svojega naroda i svoje domovine?

Svi mrcinaši nisu u stanju nam dokazati, da će naša hrvatska domovina bolje izgledati u Jugoslaviji, koju bi stvorila pobjeda Aliiraca.

Da bi braća Srbi srbili po Bosni i drugim hrvatskim zemljama, koje jim naši strvinaši daju, onako, kako su srbili po Bugarskoj Macedoniji — nožem i olovom, o tome nitko nesumnja, tko ih pozna. Što bi bilo od hrvatskog naroda u Bosni i Hercegovini, koji se ne bi htjeo odreći svoga hrvatskoga imena? Vi svi dobro poznajete Srbe, pa nevjerujem da je kod vas bona fides ili tolika naivnost, da sami vjerujete u ono, što učite. Vjerujem da ona njekolicina naroda hrvatskoga, kojeg ste zaveli ovdje u Americi, nije kriva, nego prevarena. Vi Mrcinaši korifeji i prodanici, kada bi ste znali, da Austrija i u njoj naša Domovina nisu strvine, vi bi bili ljuti magjaroni i prodavali Magjarima meso svoje vlastite majke Hrvatske, kako ga sada prodajete Srbima i Talijanima. Kad ste već tako daleko zašli i zaletili se, nema vam povratka, pa zato varate naš biedni radnički narod, jer bi drukčije poskapali od gladi te od mrcinaša postali mrcine.

Srbskih dinara je nestalo već davno, dok druge Ententine vlasti mare za vas i za vaš londonski odbor toliko, koliko za gladne pse na londonskim ulicama, zato vam je jedini spas u zavedenom hrvatskom radniku, nu i to vrelo se brzo suši. Novac „Hrv. Saveza“ ste samovoljno požderali. Grane su se osušile. A šta onda? Idemo da vidimo što ćete sada izmisliti, čim ćete dalje varati hrvatski narod? Kako malo imade naroda u vas povjerenje najjasnije pokazuju kolekte za voj. udove i siročad. Kraj svega toga, da je N.H. Z [Narodna Hrvatska Zajednica, kasnije Hrvatska Bratska Zajednica] uzela u ruke to sabiranje, neide to nikako. A šta je tomu razlog? „Gospodine“, rekoše mi već mnogi, „mi se bojimo, da će taj novac poći onamo, kamo je pošao i novac „Hrv. Saveza“. Ja se bojim, da će gladni mrcinaši iz Londona svakako gledati, da se dočepaju te narodne muke, koju su delegati na zadnjoj konvenciji odredili „za hrvatske udove i siročad“.

Svaki dan čitam u novinama kako Hrvati šalju lijepe svote novaca za naše hrvatske stradalnike, ali ne u fond, koji je pod vlašću mrcinaških pristaša.

Pošto smo podpuno uvjereni, da će Hrvatska izgledati u vašoj Jugoslaviji onako, kako smo gore opisali, t. j. da će biti naše političko samoubojstvo, morali smo u „Našoj Izjavi“ najodlučnije odsuditi tu zamku postavljenu hrvatskom narodu. Mi vam se zahvaljujemo na srpskim i talijanskim osloboditeljima uz tu cijenu. Mi hoćemo „Hrvatsku Hrvatima!“ Mi tražimo onaku Hrvatsku, kakvu traži program stranke prava od g. 1894., koji su program usvojili i braća Slovenci; mi tražimo ujedinjenje svih hrvatskih zemalja u okviru Austro-Ugarske Monarkije; mi tražimo financijalno oslobodjenje od Ugarske; mi tražimo da budemo regnum aequale (jednako slobodna država) u Monarkiji, kano i Magjarska.

„Regnum Regno non praescribit leges“, doviknuli su naši stari Magjarima, to jim i mi dovikujemo. Za to ćemo se boriti i ne sumnjamo, da će svijesni hrvatski narod to svojim vlastitom snagom postići. Naša su prava i pravice okrnjene i gažene, pa smo i zato u „Našoj Izjavi“ digli muževno i neustrašivo naš glas. Mi nismo takovi optimiste, da se nadamo, da će nam rat u slučaju pobjede centralnih vlasti ostvariti podpuno program stranke prava; mi znamo, da hrvatski narod čeka još golema i žilava borba; ali čvrsto se uzdamo, da će naš žilavi narod postići svoja prava, to čvrsto naše uhvanje se osniva na opornoj sili hrvatskog naroda, koju nisu mogli slomiti mnogi jači neprijatelji kroz 9 stoljeća.

Neka se bratski srpski narod mane megalomanskoga šovinizma i sizanja za našim zemljama, neka prestane jednom za uvijek nijekati naše ime, neka ostaje u svojim granicama, pak ćemo se tek onda sporazumiti. Nije li ta šovinistička megalomanija Srba pozvala Rumunje i Grke da satru junački slovenski bugarski narod i to na najperfidniji način?

Taj težki grijeh izdajstva na bratskom narodu otudjio je težko i nepomirljivo zavadio ta dva naroda. Taj se neoprostivi grijeh već užasno osvećuje srpskom narodu. Kako da onda vjerujemo u njihovu iskrenost?

Slično je Rusija postupila sa Poljacima, pa će se i njoj osvetiti taj grije. Ako danas ima Slavena, koji se bore proti slavenske braće i traže zaštite u tudjina proti toj braći, kriv je tome narodni šovinizam i vjerski fanatizam. Rusija je otudjila sebi poljski narod, a Srbija si pravi neprijatelje od jednakokrvne hrvatske braće istim grijehom. Naši jugoslavenski leaderi htjeli bi nas uvjeriti, al dakako samo praznim riječima, da su se Srbi preko noći promijenuli. Takovo psiholožko čudo se ne dogadja preko noći.

Kako su Slaveni na Sjeveru: Rusi, Poljaci i Česi posebice razvijali i stvarali si svoju povjest, tako su se južni Slaveni: Bugari, Srbi i Hrvati posebice razvijali i stvarali svoju povjest. Taj proces vidimo i kod Germana, t. j. današnjih Njemaca i Škandinavaca, kod Romana i drugih. Njemci su se (u današnjoj Njemačkoj) ujedinili u savezne države, svaka pod svojom dinastijom, jer su i prije politički ujedinjeni bili. Hrvati i Srbi nisu nikada politički ujedinjeni bili, a k tomu su jih uvijek dijelile vjeroispovjesti i politički protivni uplivi Zapada i Istoka.

Sve te okolnosti, a ponajpače drzoviti srpski šovinizam čine Jugoslaviju skroz i skroz nemogućnom i apsurdnom. Srbi su, dosljedno svojemu šovinizmu i nijekanju Hrvatstva, na sve moguće načine i svagdje radili proti Hrvatstvu. U Hrvatskoj, Bosni i Hercegovini kano i u Dalmaciji bili su uvjek glavno orudje proti svakom hrvatskom pokretu u rukama protuhrvatskih vlada.

To znademo svi. Tko nezna za bratstvo jedne moćne magjarske stranke i Srba u kraljevini, koje je išlo za tim, da Srbi pomoćju Magjara dobiju Bosnu, Hercegovinu i Dalmaciju, a Magjari pomoćju Srba neograničeno zagospodare ostalim hrvatskim zemljama?

Dakle nema vraga ni sotone, s kojim se Srbijanci ne rote proti Hrvatima?

Pok. Ante Starčević je tu braću izvrsno poznavao, pa si je uzeo bio za životnu zadaću borbu proti Slavosrpstvu, on je neobičnom bistrinom svoga uma uvidio, da su naši Jugoslaveni Slavosrbi, da to Slavosrpstvo vodi do podpunoga političkoga samoubojstva hrvatskoga naroda. Sva ta njegova gigantična borba proti slavosrpstva, a za političku samostalnost Hrvata, izrazuje se u onoj njegovoj: „Hrvatska Hrvatima.“

Naši mrcinaši t. j. jugoslovenski apoštoli, računajući na glupost svojih čitatelja, htjeli bi sada dokazati čak i to, da je Starčević bio za Jugoslaviju. To oni hoće da dokažu iz njegove borbe proti nepravdama, koje je počinjala austro-ugarska monarhija proti Hrvatima; oni trgaju pojedine, obično nesuvisle, rečenice iz njegovih spisa i govora, da sipaju lug u oči hrvatskomu narodu, da „obsjene prostotu“, rekao bi Veliki pokojnik.

Više nego Austriju mrzio je on Slavosrbe. Da je sada pokojnik na životu, pa da čuje tu nečuvenu drzovitost današnjih Slavosrba, šta mislite da bi rekao? Rekao bi bez sumnje: „to je slavosrbski“, jer je njemu Slavosrbstvo bilo inkarnacija drzovitosti i bezobraznosti.

Zar zbilja se nestidite, vi strvinaši domovine tvrditi, da je Starčević bio za vašu Jugoslaviju. To je isto tako drzovito i bezobrazno, kao i to, što Srbi tvrde i u školama svojim uče, da u hrvatskim zemljama živu i Cigani, ali ne Hrvati.

Strossmajer je slijedio srce svoje, te je radio za zbliženje Jugoslavena, nu Starčević je politički uvidjavniji uvidio, da to vodi političkom samoubojstvu njegove domovine i njegova naroda, vidio je i znao, da su Srbi najveći neprijatelji Hrvatske.

Strossmajer je u zadnjim godinama svog života priznao svoju političku pogrešku i odobrio Starčevićevu nauku. Strossmajer nije nikada niti za jedan čas bio za političku Jugoslaviju, u kojoj bi njegova Hrvatska bila onako okljaštrena, kako bi bila u ovom slučaju (u slučaju pobjede Entente) gdje bi ju „braća“ Srbi i njihov talijanski saveznik razkasapili i do kosti oglodali uz pomoć i sudjelovanje naših jugoslavenskih strvinara. Strossmajerove se kosti vrte u grobu i protestiraju proti insinuacije naših mrcinaša, da je on htio, da Hrvatska bude pokrajina Karagjorgjevića. Dokažite, vi varalice hrvatskog naroda, kada i gdje je Strossmajer zagovarao tu jedinstvenu jugoslavensku državu, u kojoj će Hrvatska biti provincija? Dokažite, da je Strossmajer u opće zagovarao političko jedinstvo Srba i Hrvata. On je radio lih na kulturnom podizanju svij Jugoslavena (Bugara, Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca) i na njihovom kulturnom jedinstvu. Pak što je doživio od Srba god. 1885.? Po vašoj neizmjernoj gluposti i smješnosti tvrdite, da je to bila austrofilska Srbija onda. A što bi tek učinila Karagjorgjevićeva Srbija?

Nikada se niste usudili da predbacite Srbima te griehe, niti nesmijete toga učiniti, jer bi otvorili oči hrvatskomu narodu, a zamjerili se onima, od kojih očekujete vašu strvinarsku plaću.

Srbska beogradska propaganda je tako daleko zavela pravoslavne živalj u hrvatskim zemljama, da je ovaj svaki čas bio spreman na masacre svega, što se zove hrvatsko. Život medju pravoslvnim i Hrvatima katoličke i muhamedanske vjere u Bosni i Hercegovini postao je — hvala beogradskoj propagandi —upravo nesnosan. Prije tri godine su me uvjeravali ljudi u Bosni ob onomu, što nisam mogao absolutno vjerovati odavle iz tudjine, da je naime beogradska propaganda pripravljala u Bosni pravoslavne na pokolj Hrvata Muhamedanaca i katolika. Jednom riječju: toj propagandi [je] uspjelo, da je od ogromne većine naših pravoslavnih stvorila same veleizdajnike.

Koliko ima danas pravoslavnih u hrvatskim zemljama, koji nisu pripravni svaki čas izdati Srbiji svoju hrvatsku domovinu?

Prije pet godina u Bihaću u Bosni dogodio se ovaj slučaj: u gostioni sjedilo i veselilo se jedno hrvatsko družtvo sastojeći se od muhamedanaca i katolika, pjevali su „Živila Hrvatska i njezina prava“, za drugim stolom sjedila dva viša sudska činovnika pravoslavne vjere (Srbi), pa jim odpjevaše ovako: „Živila Hrvatska i njezina prava, zabila joj Srbija k….i dva j…“. (Neka mi oproste čitatelji, ovo nije moja prostota, nego njihova, t.j. one srpske gospode, a dogadjaj je tako eklatantan dokaz srpske snosljivosti, da ga nemogu prešutiti). Jedan odlični mladi beg trgne revolver, da ga saspe u zube gadnom stvoru, ali ga spriječiše drugi članovi hrvatskog družtva.

Trebalo bi, da naši Slavosrpski Jugoslaveni proglase ovako (po srpski) travestiranu „Živila Hrvatska“, za jugoslavensku davoriju, inače neće ugoditi Srbima. Tako su se Srbi u kraljevini Srbiji kroz generacije i generacije službeno (u svojim školama) odgajali a taj odgoj prenijela je srbijanska propaganda medju pravoslavne u hrvatskim zemljama. Tako si je Srbija stvorila od bugarskog i hrvatskog naroda najveće neprijatelje, radeći jim o glavama, a naša poslovinca kaže: „pri glavi i oca po glavi“.

Tako sada Hrvati uvidjaju više nego ikada dosada, da spas svoje individualne političke eksistencije traže u okviru Austro-Ugarske Monarkije. Eto, to je razlog „Našoj Izjavi“.

Mi ne laskamo Austro-Ugarskoj, nego odsudjujemo onako isto, kano i pok. Ante Starčević, sva bezzakonja počinjena na hrvatskom narodu i tražimo, da se poprave. Vjerujemo u snagu hrvatskog naroda, kojom će on to postići; vjerujemo, da će Pravda Božja uništiti tu državu, ako bude i nadalje počinjala slične grijehe na svojem najvjernijemu narodu. Uvjereni smo, da bi Hrvati dandanas kamokud bolje stajali, da nije bilo naših Srba, koji su kroz zadnjih 50 do 60 godina bili glavno orudje svih vlada proti svakom hrvatskom pokretu.

Hrvati bi, radi silnih nepravda što ih je počinila Austro-Ugarska proti njima, služeći se najviše Srbima i Talijanima, mogli sada zlorado se smijati, gledajući kako joj se osvećuju njezini grijesi počinjeni na hrvatskom narodu, kad se ne bi i o njihovoj koži radilo.

Don Niko Gršković u svojoj najslavorspskijoj novini „Hrvatski Svijet“ osvrnuo se na „Našu Izjavu“ u više brojeva, izasuo na nas sve psovke i prostote, koje je on već nebrojno puta do ogavnosti opetovao. To je cvijeće, koje raste samo u slavosrpskoj bašći. Što tko ima, to i dijeli.

Zaista, još nijedan hrvatski novinar, pa ni onaj u Americi, nije tako nisko pao kao on. Svaki članak vrvi epitetima: vol, hrt, svinja, tegleća marva, pas, vižle itd. Pratio sam pisanje i drugih novina, ali palmu gnjusobe i prostote odnio je Rev. Gršković. Njegova je zasluga, on je prvi uveo ovako divljaštvo; dok su drugi naši novinari (bar oni neslavosrpski) uzdržali se takvih izraza. Još ntko nije nazvao njega, ni psom, ni volom, ni hrtom, ni krmkom. „Štil je sam čovjek“, t. j. štil odaje čovjeka, rekli su pametni ljudi.

Bilo bi divno, kad se kome ne bi gadilo, da to cvijće Don Grškovića prevede na engleski i podkući amerikanskoj publici. On je sada pravi i podpuni Slavosrb. Njegovu slavosrpsku dušu i kulturu odaju i oni izpadi proti njegovoj braći svećenicima, koji mu nisu nikad ništa na žao učinili, osim toga, što neće da budu Slavosrbi i izdajice svog naroda.

On se prijeti u svojoj novini, kako će bosanske fratre, kojima on nije dostojan opanke skinuti, zaćerati u sakrištiju, da će s njima u njegovom novom kraljevstvu obračunati zdravo srpski, a to sve radi toga, što se bosanski franjevci brane, da ne dodju pod bratski srpski nož kano i Bugari u Macedoniji i albanežki katolici n. pr. P. Alojzije Palić. Bosanski su franjevci osvjestili i podigli Hrvatstvo u Bosni, a to je baš najveći zločin u očima Srba, a dosljedno i naših mrcinaša njihovih pristaša. Hinc illae lacrimae! Zato škripe zubima na njih.

Don Niko Gršković javno zove braću svoju katoličke svećenike hodžama i raznim drugim pogrdnim imenima. Rev. Relić, njegov trabant u Chicagu, zove nas hrvatske svećenike, kako sam čuo od ljudi iz njegove okolice, vatikanskom bandom. To je veoma značajno!

Dakle sve čisto slavosrpski. O. Medin travestira jednu propovjed za Veliki petak, makar da je sada pokladno vrijeme. Toj propovijedi samo fali zaključak, što bi imao glasiti ovako: s njime t. j. s Petrom (koji personificira Jugoslaviju) razapeše dva razbojnika s desna jednog hrvatskog Slavosrba (kojeg personificira on — Medin), a s ljeve jednog Talijana. Ta dva razbojnika počmu se medju sobom svadjati, jer se lijevi razbojnik počeo rugati Petru, radi čega ukori ga desni razbojnik, rakavši mu: „Ti talijanska canaglia (psina), zar se niti ne bojiš Boga (kano ni „izjavaši“). „Šuti“, odgovori Talijan, „ti si veći lopov od mene, ja sam htio otimati tudje, dok si ti, carogna croata, radio proti životu svoje vlastite majke“.

Bezobrazni Slavosrb postidjen obrati se k Petru i reče: Gospodaru, sjeti se mene kad unidješ u jugoslavensko carstvo svoje.

I odgovori mu Petar: zaista, zaista kažem vam obojici još danas ćemo k vragu svetrojica i jugoslavensko carstvo moje. Amen.

S Don Grškovićem natječe se u Slavosrpštini dr. Biankini iz Chicaga. I to je jedna velika zagonetka, koju možete riješiti samo onda, ako se stavite na načelo mrcinaške politike: „Austrju, a bogme i Hrvatsku odnese vrag, drži se stranke, koja te može bolje nagraditi.“ Dr. Biankini je po zanatu strastveni denuncijant i ulizica kod vlastih. U arhivima mnogih hrvatskih biskupija vidio sam bezdušne klevete na ovdašnje hrvatske svećenike. U Z. me pitaše, što mislim o njegovoj roboti. Rekao sam od prilike, da je B. profesionalni doušnik i klevetnik kod oblastih, dočim sam uputio preč. gospodu, da se — ako se baš zanimaju za nas — obrate na naše biskupe, koji su jedino kompetentni naši suci.

Čuo sam već davno, da je on i kod političkih oblasti bavio se istim zanatom. Koliko je na tomu istine, neznam, ali ovo što rekoh o njegovim denuncijacima kod duhovnih oblasti, opravdava sumnju, da je to činio i kod političkih austro-ugarskih oblasti. Ele, pravi Slavosrb!

Dok ovo pišem, dodje mi „Hrv. Svijet“ u ruke sa „svijetlom“ našeg o. Pere Čančarevića. U svijetlu toga „svijetla“ vidi cijeli svijet, da je naš dobročina Pero „pogriješio“ i samo zato podpisao „Našu Izjavu“, jer je mislio „da neće nikada izići na javnost“. Zar ovo nije dosta, da se vidi njegova slavosrpština!

Čestitamo vam, Slavosrbi, na tako iskrenom prijatleju! Doista divno „svijetlo“ i ogledalo Čančarevića! Sve drugo, Pero, što si napisao jesu bezobrazne laži i Tvoje poznate cifrarije, kojima si htio sakriti pravo „svijetlo“, da Te nitko neupozna, ali baš to „svijetlo“ osvjetlilo [je] Tvoj značaj kako treba. S čovjekom takoga značaja nije se moguće prepirati. Što si uztvrdio danas, poreći ćeš sutra. Da li je ozbiljno promišljena „Naša Izjava“, o čemu Ti sumnjaš, naći ćeš odgovor u člancima „K Našoj Izjavi“. Kod podpisa, „Izjave“ zaista smo se smijali , a to je išlo, Pero, upravo Tebe, jer smo znali, da si kuhan i pečen u slavosrpskoj kuhinji, pa ipak podpisuješ onakovu „Izjavu“. Tko se ne bi tu smijao?

Perino „svijetlo“ prosvijetlilo čak i don N. Grškovića, te u svjetlosti toga svijetla i pod utiskom Medinijeve propovijedi piše i on sličnu propovijed. Velč. Gospodo, to je sve čisto slavosrpski. Nitko se od nas ne veseli propasti Srbije, ali će nam biti milo i drago, ako vama Slavosrbima neuspije, da skupa sa svojim talijanskim ortakom ne razkomadate našu dragu hrvatsku domovinu. Vi ste vidili iz „Naše Izjave“, da mi želimo, da se svaki slovenski narod razvija u svojim granicama, dakle i Srbi. Mi tražimo za Hrvate, što jih ide po narvnom i Božjem zakonu. Zato za te vaše krokodilske suze i parashevalne propovjedi ja neznam drugog izraza nego onaj Starčevića: „slavosrpština“.

(Da čitatelji podpuno shvate moć ovoga Starčevića omiljenog izraza, moram jim reći, da je on Slavosrbima krstio one, koji su išli za uništenjem hravtske individualne političke eksistencije u korist Srbima, koje je on držao za najveće zločince svog naroda. Imenicu „slavosrpština“ il prislov „slavosrpski“ rabio je, da označi tu gamad ili — kako to on veli „pasminu“ i njezino djelovanje. On nije mogao u nijednom jeziku naći dosti jakoga izraza, pa ga sam iznašao. On doista prenosi taj izraz i na druge, kad hoće da jih što jedrije ošine. Čitam u novinama naših Slavosrba, da S. nije ni mislio na Slavosrbe, kad jih ovako zove, a ne vide, jad ih ne vidio, da je tu sliku Starčević od njiha uzeo, iz njihove duše izvadio i tom se slikom služio, da i druge njima slične prozove „Slavosrbima“ i njihova djela i značaj „slavosrpštinom“. A kako bi jih blagopok. Starčević tek onda zvao i okrstio, kad bi bio znao, da će mu ta gamad i istom Talijanu domovinu prodavati?)

Tendenciju i svrhu „Naše Izjave“ ste dobro pogodili i još bolje osvjetlili, kako se vidi iz vaših bjesomučnih napadaja, ma da joj po slavosrpsku izvrćete smisao. I mi smo zadovoljni sa njezinim uspjehom.

Da, „Naša Izjava“ je ustuk vašim izjavama, u kojima ste prodavali Hravtsku Srbima i Talijanima. Vi ste se odrekli samostalnosti svoje domovine, prava na samostalnu eksistenciju i prelazite u vašu ludu „Jugoslaviju“ u kojoj će Hrvatska izgledati onako, kako smo vam rekli u „Izjavi“ i u ovim člancima. Entente vaša spasiteljica pozvala i Talijane na račun naših hrvatskih zemalja, a vi to, hoćeš, nećeš odobravate i morate joj ljubiti ruke.

Bude li nama Hrvatima Ententa krojila sudbinu, onda će biti upravo onako, kako ju naša „Izjava“ riše. Reći će nam „pravdu“ forum njezin: „evo vaših rezolucija, u kojim se odričete svojih historičnih, juridičnih i suverenih prava i tražite da budete pokrajina u kraljevstvu Karagjorgjevića, pa neka vam tako bude; nu pošto je naš talijanski saveznik pomagao nama, to mu dajemo slovenske zemlje, njegova će biti Istra, svi vaši (hravtski) otoci, komad Dalmacije i njegovo će naravno biti vaše more; od vaših zemalja dajemo Srbima: Bosnu i Hercegovinu, Dalmaciju (u koliko ne dadosmo Talijanu) i Srijem. Ono što preostaje od vaše Hrvatske neka bude pokrajina Velike Srbije pod dinastijom Karagjorgjević, a vi ćete biti sretni, što ćete se smjeti zvati Jugoslavenima“.

To je neumoljiva logika, gospodo mrcinaši, koju vi sa svima vašim prostotama pobiti nemožete, a vi ćete se onda ceriti nad razkomadanim udima vaše vlastite majke i krv njezina će pasti na vaše glave.

Mi smo izdali „Našu Izjavu“, da prosvjedujemo pred cijelim svijetom, proti vašoj sotonskoj nakani. To smo bili dužni Bogu, hrvatskom narodu i svojoj savjesti. Mi se u „Izjavi“ pozivljemo na sva naša prava historična i narodnosna; dočim si vi svega toga odrčete. Vi ste pravi matricidae —majko-ubojice. Vi ćete i opet graknuti, kako će u Jugoslaviji biti spas i sloboda za sve jednaka; al ste sami uvjereni, da će Jugoslavija za Hrvate izgledati onako, kako smo vam ovdje rekli, jer vi dobro poznate što hoće Srbi i Talijani — ti vaši ortaci — od naše domovine.

„Naša Izjava“ nije nikakvi novi politički program; ona je program stranke prava poprimljen od svih Hrvata, u svima hrvatskim pokrajinama i od braće Slovenaca. To je program, kojeg paklenski mrze Srbi i Slavosrbi u našoj dragoj i nesretnoj Hrvatskj, te su osobito s pomoću Magjara nastojali, da ga svim mogućim sredstvima osujete. A zašto? Jedino zato, jer se kosi sa srbskom zavjetnom misli, a ta srbska zavjetna misao izključuje i isto hrvatsko ime, a pogotovo samostalnost Hrvatske.

Neće biti na odmet ako ovdje spomenem nješto o jednom slavosrpskom svešteničkom sastanku u Chicagu. Na tomu sastanku ustao jedan mladi hrvatski svećenik, pa će reći od prilike ovako: gospodo, ja nemogu shvatiti zašto vi negovorite o savezu izmedju Hrvatske i Srbije radje, nego li o ujedinjenju u jednu jedinstvenu državu Karagjorgjevića? Pa šta mislite, šta odgovoriše Srbi i Slavosrbi — naši mrcinaši? Pogledaše se izpod oka i prezirno predjoše preko toga na dnevni red, a u svojim izvještajima ni jednim slovcem ne spomenuše toga.

Nije li to prava perfidija slavosrpska, zar može itko pametan predmnijevati, da je kod njih bona fides? Neće Srbi da čuju o savezu slobodne, samostalne i cjelokupne Hrvatske sa Srbijom, jer bi to značilo raditi proti njihovoj zavetnnoj misli, koja nepoznaje ni Hrvatske ni Hrvata.

Naši Slavosrbi formalno pobjesniše na „Našu Izjavu“, a mi u tom neizmjerno uživamo. Sada zovu u pomoć državnu vlast, da nas proćera „za Dumbom“, jer da smo pogazili gradjansku prisegu ovim državama i slično.

Sjajno, slavosrbski. „Eh, da je srpski nož, da jim sudi“, misle si i uzdišu naši mrcinaši. Don Niko već prijeti, kako će nas „iztrijebiti“ poput Bugara u „srbskoj“ Macedoniji, ljutim nožem i hladnim olovom, dakako.

Gospodo Slavosrbi, kolikogod ste zlobni, toliko ste i glupi. Na „Našoj Izjavi“ ima podpisanih i njekoliko amerikanskih gradjana. Zar ima zakona na svijetu, koji će jim zabraniti da budu „vjerni Bogu, narodu i domovini svojoj“? Zar obstoji zakon, koji će negradjanima zabraniti, da izjave i podaničku vjernost: „onomu, na kojeg je narod prenesao svoja suverena prava“? Na temelju čega vi sudite, da su pogazili njeki od nas (gradjani S. D.) podaničku vjernost? Kad bi mi svi bili gradjani Sjed. Država, ni onda nas ne bi mogao nitko bijediti zbog nelojalnosti. Ta „vjernost“ znači ono isto, što vjernost Iraca prama Irskoj, Njemaca (gradjana S. D.) prama njihovoj domovini i amerikanskih Engleza prama Englezkoj i njezinoj vladi.

Durgo je ta vjernost, a durgo podanička lojalnost. Dodje li kad do toga, da pokažemo našoj novoj domovini gradjansku lojalnost, pa makar se radilo i o Austriji i hrvatskom vladaru, onda mi nećemo oklijevati, da pokažemo svoju lojalnost sigurno bolje i časnije nego vi slavosrpska „pasmina“.

Da umanjite važnost „Naše Izjave“ svi se požuriste, da unisono istaknete, kako smo ju poslali u „Narodni List“, premda ste znali, da smo „Našu Izjavu“ otisnuli posebice i poslali i vašim listovima kano i „Narodnom Listu“, a njeki ste ju i pretiskali. S tim ste samo pokazali, da vaša slavosrpština, uz sva druga gadna svojstva, zadržaje i — glupost.

U ostalom „Narodni List“ je zauzeo skroz naše političko stanovište, pa nema na svijetu razloga, zašto se ne bi smjeli poslužiti njime. K tomu je „Narodni List“ upravo radi svoga političkoga pravca najobljubljeniji i najrašireniji hrvatski list u Americi i mi smo mu zahvalni, što nam otvara svoje stupce.

Hrvatska Hrvatima!“

K.

(Kajić?)