Croatian Spring 1971

[Fito Coulter]

Maspokafter Masovni pokret (Croatian), i.e. Mass movement) or the Croatian spring was a nationalist and secessionist rebel movement in the Socialist Republic of Croatia, Yugoslavia during 1971. The movement's demands were initially around the exclusion of the use of the Serbian language and the exclusive use of the Croatian language in Croatia (even though Serbian and Croatian are considered dialects of the same language), declaration of Croatia as a national state of Croats and Croatia as a successor to the medieval Croatian kingdom. Maspok's ultimate goal was an independent Croatian state.[1] The Maspok movement was supported by a lot of Croatian Communists and the Ustaše emigration in the West.[2]

There were three basic points the Maspok used to attack the federal government of Yugoslavia: distribution of Croatia's tourism revenue in other parts of Yugoslavia, the amount of money Croatia contributed to the underdeveloped Yugoslav republics, and the question of the official Croatian language in Croatia. Maspok demanded recognition of the Croatian language as the official language in Croatia, and the end of the Serbian language in Croatia.[1] Maspok insisted on cultural differences between Croats and other ethnic groups in Yugoslavia. .[3] Matica hrvatska (a Croatian cultural organization) and Hrvatski tjednik (Croatian Weekly newspaper) published a draft constitution for the new Croatian state.[4] Matica hrvatska published in November 1971 a full list of the Maspok's demands:

Matica hrvatska cancelled work on the Serbo-Croatian dictionary and rejected the Novi Sad Agreement (about the common Serbo-Croatian language). The Novi Sad Agreement based Serbo-Croatian language orthography was replaced by the Croatian language orthography written by S. Babic, B. Finka, and M. Mogus and printed by the Matica hrvatska in the same 1971 year. Zagreb University provided broad public support to the Maspok political demands. The Zagreb University students staged mass demonstrations in Croatia in order to express their support to Maspok.[6]

According to some historians, Maspok was an Ustaše insurgency in Yugoslavia mentored, guarded and supported by Savka Dabčević-Kučar, Miko Tripalo and Pero Pirker, the political leadership of the Croatian Communist League. The Croatian Communist League general secretary, Miloš Žanko, publicly denounced the destructive nationalism of Matica hrvatska, Dabčević-Kučar, Tripalo, and Pirker. Žanko, on the Tenth plenum of the Croatian Communists (January 1970) accused Dabčević-Kučar, Tripalo, and Piker claiming that these three worked along with Matica hrvatska against Yugoslav socialism and on the destabilization of Yugoslavia.[7] With Josip Broz's approval and the Bakarić's help, Žanko was expelled from the Croatian Communist League on the same plenum.[8] More strong opposition to Maspok came from the members of the Zagreb Praxis group (Rudi Supek, Milan Kangrga, most notably).[9][2]

Some minor actions against Serbs in Croatia were demonstrated by defacing or destroying Cyrillic signs and by outbreaks of violence at soccer matches. The Croatian leadership persuaded Broz that they had the situation under control. When Broz visited Croatia in July 1971 the Croatian anthem was played after the Yugoslav one.[10]

Josip Broz suppressed Maspok and, at the same time, made a great concession to Croatian nationalism. Broz allowed use of the Croatian language in Croatia and confederalized the Yugoslav Constitution in 1974, giving veto rights to the Yugoslav republics when attempting to change the Constitution. The 1974 Yugoslav Constitution was a source of a great dissatisfaction and concern of the Serbs in Yugoslavia.[11] The Croatian Communist League leadership, Dabčević-Kučar, Tripalo, and Pirker were forced to resign from their state and Communist League positions and some of the Maspok leaders were arrested and imprisoned.[12] Among the arrested Maspok leaders were Franjo Tuđman and Bruno Bušić.[13]

In order to please Croatian nationalists, Broz persecuted Serbian academics who pointed at the subordinated position of the Serbian people in Yugoslavia. The two leading Serbian intellectuals, Dobrica Ćosić (prominent Serbian writer) and Mihailo Đurić (Belgrade University Law School professor) questioned the justification of the Albanian autonomy in the historic Serbian province of Kosovo. They asked why the Serbs in Croatia did not have any autonomous status, and why Vojvodina had autonomous status despite the fact that most of the inhabitants were Serbs. These two intellectuals were publicly denounced by the Broz's regime and persecuted.[15] Professor Đurić warned that at that time Serbia's status in Yugoslavia was highly discriminatory and that Serbia was mercilessly and unjustly accused for advocating centralism and unitarianism. Đurić warned further that it was forbidden to raise questions about responsibility of those who committed the genocide of Serbian people in the Independent State of Croatia during WWII. He said that the borders of the Socialist Republic of Serbia were not the national nor historic borders of the Serbs in Yugoslavia.[16] The Prof. Đurić trial and verdict were the part of the Broz's regime political equilibrium in the time of the Maspok activity culmination in Croatia and the time of the Maspok's leadership trial and imprisonment.[17]

Croatian Spring played a significant role in the drafting Yugoslav Constitution of 1974. The Constitution paralyzed the federal power of Yugoslavia by shifting the state administrative power to the Yugoslav republics.[18] The Constitution, being insufficiently unclear and already the result of compromises with various nationalist groups in the republics and provinces, was a blueprint for secession.[19]

Tito, the (communist) partisan General during World War Two, during theresistance, based his regime on tolerance for all of the nationalities. Incontrast, the Chetniks were strictly Serbian and treated the othernationalities as enemies. The partisans, for their part, welcomed everyone,all the nationalities, and that is why the Serbs who escaped from the Ustashemassacres could join in, and also those fleeing the massacres on the Chetnikside could join in, and Croats who were unhappy with the Ustasha regime couldjoin the partisans as well. So everyone was welcome. That was the underlyingidea which was in line with communist internationalism, that is, that there was a brotherhood and unity, that is tosay, all peoples have equal rights and all peoples have the same place within the Federation.

So the various nationalities' nationalisms were condemned, but at the same time the regime did exploit nationalism. For instance, one of the main dangers Titosaw was that there would be Serb predomination, as had been the case under themonarchy, because the Serbs were the most numerous. They accounted for 36 per cent of thepopulation. So Tito at first encouraged the consciousness of the smaller countries, Macedonia,others, where it previously had been regarded as Serbian or Croation in some cases. Sohe wanted to increase the number of partners.

After that, he was careful to see to it that the role played by Serbia in the Federation was not too major, but at the same time he used the Serbs in otherinstances or in other areas, for example, in Croatia where the Serbs accounted only for 12per cent of the population, but they played an important role in the partisan area.

Under the Tito, the Serbs of Croatia within the Croatian administration had the most important positions in the administration in the Party, in the police.So, in Croatia the regime at certain times played off the Serbian minority against theCroatian majority. In Kosovo, the regime favored the autonomy of the Albanians which upset theSerbs, but at the same time they did not give the Albanians what they were demanding, thatis to say, to achieve Republic status for Kosovo, so the Albanians were unhappy.

In other areas, it was the same thing, for example, Bosnia. Sometimes the Bosnians were favored, sometimes the Serbians were given a leg up. It is allvery complicated. The basic rule of the game is that the regime was very careful tocome up with a very subtle blend in what it did for each of the nationalitiesand would tend to play them off one against the other, and these nationalantagonisms that, in theory, it said had to be done away with, in someinstances in certain places on certain occasions it exploited them.

But at the same time when there were threats to its authority, it would take repressive measures, for example, demonstrations towards the Croat spring time,for instance. In 1971, there was a movement in Croatia that got off the ground. Itwas basically unanimous. It was supported and it was mainly student demonstrationsthat expressed it. Then also the local Parties gave their endorsement to it.There was this unanimity in Croatia to ask for more autonomy, more respect forCroatian particularities. This movement after a certain time was, of course,cracked down on and the leaders of that movement, its leaders, some of whomwere leaders in the communist party in Croatia at the time, were dismissedfrom their office -- in 1991, some of them would turn up again as leaders inCroatian parties -- but other exponents of this movement were jailed. Thearmy took action and there were 100, not to say thousands, of arrests. Thiswas in 1971.

This is one of the main cases where there was a crackdown on a nationalist movement by the regime. It is also worth mentioning the Albanian movement thattook place in 1968 in Kosovo. There again there was repression.

A. This constitution was very decentralizing, but at the same time it was decentralizing at the level of the republics. It gave a lot of authorityto the republics. It also granted a lot of authority to the two autonomous provinces, Kosovo andVojvodina. In actual fact, the constitution gave Yugoslavia an almost confederal regime in which most of the decisions were made, not only at the federal level,but also at the level of each single Republic and each of the autonomous provinces, so atthe level of the eight different entities that made up the federation at the time.

3a8082e126