波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那与南斯拉夫联盟共和国宪法(1943-1945 年)

Q4 Arts and Humanities Historijski pogledi Pub Date : 2023-11-15 DOI:10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.10.148
Safet Bandžović
{"title":"波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那与南斯拉夫联盟共和国宪法(1943-1945 年)","authors":"Safet Bandžović","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.10.148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many states, like Yugoslavia, emerged from conflicting historical currents. A critical examination of the socio-historical multi-directional flows after the chaotic April War of 1941 and the rapid disintegration of monarchical Yugoslavia also encompasses rational knowledge of opposing political and national perspectives dating back to 1918 when it was established, with its problematic events between the two World Wars, their causes, and consequences. The turbulent interwar legacy and the failure to address acute problems within the state influenced the dramatic situation and conflicts in occupied Yugoslavia, leading to polarization, collaboration, and alignments. The state of war is a complex crisis situation. The breakup of Yugoslavia was met with divided opinions on whether (and if so, how and on what basis) to reestablish the state. Each Yugoslavia (the „old” and the „new”) also represented a „new constitutional concept of the relationship between its major nations/political groups” (Dejan Jović). The successful antifascist liberation struggle from 1941 to 1945 was primarily led by the partisan movement, with the dominant role of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY). Vladimir Dedijer wrote that in 1941, a revolutionary war began, and „no one dreamed what its nature would be.” It was a civil war, destroying the idea that this state could be rebuilt in the form it took in 1918. It was a complex war („a war of all against all”) with numerous burdens (national, religious, social, historical). Anti-Yugoslav forces were long more numerous than pro-Yugoslav forces, which eventually triumphed. The speech of Yugoslav antifascism is most symbolically recognizable by the phrase: „Death to fascism – freedom to the people,” and „brotherhood and unity.” By the decision on the federal organization of the state at the Second Session of the Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ) in Jajce in 1943, the foundational pillar of the previous Yugoslavia—state and national unitarism—was denied. AVNOJ's decisions were of a framework and principle nature. The federation was established, but until the end, the forms of all its units related to their borders and the structure of alliance members („unitary or complex”) were not fully defined. The emergence of the federal Bosnia and Herzegovina was accompanied by harmonization at the top of the CPY and the People's Liberation Movement. The specificity of the „AVNOJ formula” was also reflected in the fact that in 1943, a federal state was formed, and in 1944, the members of the federation (republics). At that time, their provincial antifascist councils were constituted as the highest legislative and executive representative bodies. Many accompanying issues addressed in the decisions in Jajce on the structure of Yugoslavia remained under detailed consideration and clarification by the state-party leadership and AVNOJ in 1945. These issues have continued to be the subject of more detailed review and analysis in the context of the developments in historiography and have been exposed to considerations in a broader context. They have been reinterpreted, their facts have been analyzed, and there have been „in-depth” searches for more complete, multiperspective answers. The development of historiography is „marked by controversy.” Research into the formation of the „new” Yugoslavia should not be conducted with ideological biases and prejudices but should consider new experiences present in the flow of time and in the minds of contemporaries, including historians, as „children of their time.” Relevant historical contents must be separated from „declarative proclamations, pathos statements, ceremonial-protocol stances.” In a simplified understanding of the past, „everything appears simple and linear.” It is necessary to interpret historical phenomena and processes in a multidimensional, layered, and grounded manner.","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":"3 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bosna i Hercegovina i konstituisanje Avnojske Jugoslavije (1943-1945)\",\"authors\":\"Safet Bandžović\",\"doi\":\"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.10.148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many states, like Yugoslavia, emerged from conflicting historical currents. A critical examination of the socio-historical multi-directional flows after the chaotic April War of 1941 and the rapid disintegration of monarchical Yugoslavia also encompasses rational knowledge of opposing political and national perspectives dating back to 1918 when it was established, with its problematic events between the two World Wars, their causes, and consequences. The turbulent interwar legacy and the failure to address acute problems within the state influenced the dramatic situation and conflicts in occupied Yugoslavia, leading to polarization, collaboration, and alignments. The state of war is a complex crisis situation. The breakup of Yugoslavia was met with divided opinions on whether (and if so, how and on what basis) to reestablish the state. Each Yugoslavia (the „old” and the „new”) also represented a „new constitutional concept of the relationship between its major nations/political groups” (Dejan Jović). The successful antifascist liberation struggle from 1941 to 1945 was primarily led by the partisan movement, with the dominant role of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY). Vladimir Dedijer wrote that in 1941, a revolutionary war began, and „no one dreamed what its nature would be.” It was a civil war, destroying the idea that this state could be rebuilt in the form it took in 1918. It was a complex war („a war of all against all”) with numerous burdens (national, religious, social, historical). Anti-Yugoslav forces were long more numerous than pro-Yugoslav forces, which eventually triumphed. The speech of Yugoslav antifascism is most symbolically recognizable by the phrase: „Death to fascism – freedom to the people,” and „brotherhood and unity.” By the decision on the federal organization of the state at the Second Session of the Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ) in Jajce in 1943, the foundational pillar of the previous Yugoslavia—state and national unitarism—was denied. AVNOJ's decisions were of a framework and principle nature. The federation was established, but until the end, the forms of all its units related to their borders and the structure of alliance members („unitary or complex”) were not fully defined. The emergence of the federal Bosnia and Herzegovina was accompanied by harmonization at the top of the CPY and the People's Liberation Movement. The specificity of the „AVNOJ formula” was also reflected in the fact that in 1943, a federal state was formed, and in 1944, the members of the federation (republics). At that time, their provincial antifascist councils were constituted as the highest legislative and executive representative bodies. Many accompanying issues addressed in the decisions in Jajce on the structure of Yugoslavia remained under detailed consideration and clarification by the state-party leadership and AVNOJ in 1945. These issues have continued to be the subject of more detailed review and analysis in the context of the developments in historiography and have been exposed to considerations in a broader context. They have been reinterpreted, their facts have been analyzed, and there have been „in-depth” searches for more complete, multiperspective answers. The development of historiography is „marked by controversy.” Research into the formation of the „new” Yugoslavia should not be conducted with ideological biases and prejudices but should consider new experiences present in the flow of time and in the minds of contemporaries, including historians, as „children of their time.” Relevant historical contents must be separated from „declarative proclamations, pathos statements, ceremonial-protocol stances.” In a simplified understanding of the past, „everything appears simple and linear.” It is necessary to interpret historical phenomena and processes in a multidimensional, layered, and grounded manner.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52780,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historijski pogledi\",\"volume\":\"3 6\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historijski pogledi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.10.148\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historijski pogledi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.10.148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多国家,如南斯拉夫,是从相互冲突的历史潮流中产生的。在1941年混乱的四月战争和南斯拉夫君主制的迅速解体之后,对社会历史多向流动的批判性考察也包含了对反对政治和国家观点的理性认识,这些观点可以追溯到1918年,当它成立时,两次世界大战之间的问题事件,它们的原因和后果。两次世界大战之间动荡的遗产和未能解决国家内部尖锐问题影响了被占领的南斯拉夫的戏剧性局势和冲突,导致了两极分化、合作和结盟。战争状态是一种复杂的危机局面。南斯拉夫的解体在是否(如果是,如何以及在什么基础上)重建国家的问题上产生了分歧。每个南斯拉夫(“旧”和“新”)也代表了“其主要国家/政治集团之间关系的新的宪法概念”(Dejan jovivic)。1941年至1945年成功的反法西斯解放斗争主要是由南斯拉夫共产党(CPY)主导的党派运动领导的。弗拉基米尔·德迪耶写道,1941年,一场革命战争开始了,“没有人想到它的性质会是什么。”这是一场内战,摧毁了这个国家可以以1918年的形式重建的想法。这是一场复杂的战争(“所有人反对所有人的战争”),有许多负担(国家的、宗教的、社会的、历史的)。长期以来,反南斯拉夫势力比亲南斯拉夫势力要多,亲南斯拉夫势力最终取得了胜利。南斯拉夫反法西斯主义的演讲最具象征意义的是:“法西斯主义去死,人民自由”和“兄弟情谊和团结”。1943年南斯拉夫民族解放反法西斯委员会第二次会议在Jajce通过的关于国家联邦制的决定,否定了前南斯拉夫的基本支柱——国家和民族统一主义。AVNOJ的决定是框架性和原则性的。联邦成立了,但直到最后,其所有单位的形式与他们的边界和联盟成员的结构(“单一或复杂”)没有完全定义。联邦波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那的出现伴随着共产党和人民解放运动高层的协调。“AVNOJ公式”的特殊性也反映在以下事实中:1943年成立了一个联邦国家,1944年成立了联邦成员(共和国)。当时,他们的省反法西斯委员会是最高的立法和行政代表机构。1945年,缔约国领导人和南斯拉夫和平办事处仍在详细审议和澄清关于南斯拉夫结构的Jajce决定所涉及的许多附带问题。在史学发展的背景下,这些问题继续成为更详细的审查和分析的主题,并在更广泛的背景下进行了考虑。它们被重新诠释,它们的事实被分析,人们“深入”地寻找更完整、多视角的答案。史学的发展“以争议为标志”。对“新”南斯拉夫形成的研究不应该带着意识形态的偏见和偏见进行,而应该考虑到时间流逝中出现的新经验,以及同时代人,包括历史学家,作为“他们时代的孩子”的思想中的新经验。相关的历史内容必须与“宣示、感伤、礼宾立场”分开。在对过去的简化理解中,“一切都显得简单而线性。”有必要以多维、分层和接地的方式来解释历史现象和过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Bosna i Hercegovina i konstituisanje Avnojske Jugoslavije (1943-1945)
Many states, like Yugoslavia, emerged from conflicting historical currents. A critical examination of the socio-historical multi-directional flows after the chaotic April War of 1941 and the rapid disintegration of monarchical Yugoslavia also encompasses rational knowledge of opposing political and national perspectives dating back to 1918 when it was established, with its problematic events between the two World Wars, their causes, and consequences. The turbulent interwar legacy and the failure to address acute problems within the state influenced the dramatic situation and conflicts in occupied Yugoslavia, leading to polarization, collaboration, and alignments. The state of war is a complex crisis situation. The breakup of Yugoslavia was met with divided opinions on whether (and if so, how and on what basis) to reestablish the state. Each Yugoslavia (the „old” and the „new”) also represented a „new constitutional concept of the relationship between its major nations/political groups” (Dejan Jović). The successful antifascist liberation struggle from 1941 to 1945 was primarily led by the partisan movement, with the dominant role of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY). Vladimir Dedijer wrote that in 1941, a revolutionary war began, and „no one dreamed what its nature would be.” It was a civil war, destroying the idea that this state could be rebuilt in the form it took in 1918. It was a complex war („a war of all against all”) with numerous burdens (national, religious, social, historical). Anti-Yugoslav forces were long more numerous than pro-Yugoslav forces, which eventually triumphed. The speech of Yugoslav antifascism is most symbolically recognizable by the phrase: „Death to fascism – freedom to the people,” and „brotherhood and unity.” By the decision on the federal organization of the state at the Second Session of the Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ) in Jajce in 1943, the foundational pillar of the previous Yugoslavia—state and national unitarism—was denied. AVNOJ's decisions were of a framework and principle nature. The federation was established, but until the end, the forms of all its units related to their borders and the structure of alliance members („unitary or complex”) were not fully defined. The emergence of the federal Bosnia and Herzegovina was accompanied by harmonization at the top of the CPY and the People's Liberation Movement. The specificity of the „AVNOJ formula” was also reflected in the fact that in 1943, a federal state was formed, and in 1944, the members of the federation (republics). At that time, their provincial antifascist councils were constituted as the highest legislative and executive representative bodies. Many accompanying issues addressed in the decisions in Jajce on the structure of Yugoslavia remained under detailed consideration and clarification by the state-party leadership and AVNOJ in 1945. These issues have continued to be the subject of more detailed review and analysis in the context of the developments in historiography and have been exposed to considerations in a broader context. They have been reinterpreted, their facts have been analyzed, and there have been „in-depth” searches for more complete, multiperspective answers. The development of historiography is „marked by controversy.” Research into the formation of the „new” Yugoslavia should not be conducted with ideological biases and prejudices but should consider new experiences present in the flow of time and in the minds of contemporaries, including historians, as „children of their time.” Relevant historical contents must be separated from „declarative proclamations, pathos statements, ceremonial-protocol stances.” In a simplified understanding of the past, „everything appears simple and linear.” It is necessary to interpret historical phenomena and processes in a multidimensional, layered, and grounded manner.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Historijski pogledi
Historijski pogledi Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Pojedina obilježja učinitelja i žrtava ratnih silovanja procesuiranih pred Sudom Bosne i Hercegovine Ka NATO putu – Od formiranja i ustrojstva Armije Republike Bosne i Hercegovine do Oružanih snaga Bosne i Hercegovine Parallel University of Prishtina, 1991-1999: Functioning, challenges and peaceful resistance Republika Sjeverna Makedonija i Bosna i Hercegovina od uspostavljanja diplomatskih odnosa do danas (1993-2022) Bosna i Hercegovina i konstituisanje Avnojske Jugoslavije (1943-1945)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1