Of Yugoslav Barbarians and Croatian Gentlemen Scholars: Nationalist Ideology and Racial Anthropology in Interwar Yugoslavia

Marius Turda and Paul Weindling (eds.), Blood and Homeland: Eugenics and Racial Nationalism in Central Europe and Southeast Europe, 1900-1940 (Central European University Press, 2005), 83-122 Of Yugoslav Barbarians and Croatian Gentlemen Scholars: Nationalist Ideology and Racial Anthropology in Inter-War Yugoslavia Rory Yeomans In 1943 a Croatian translation of Ivo Pilar‟s 1918 polemic about the dangers of Serbian domination in the Balkans, The South Slav Question, was published to great acclaim. The Croatian Minister of Education, Mile Starĉević, a former student nationalist, wrote in an article to mark its publication that Pilar‟s book had been the “bible” of his generation of Croatian nationalist youth at the University of Zagreb. With its theory of the racial inferiority of the Serbs and the perils of eastern Orthodoxy, it had inspired them in their struggle against Belgrade in the 1920s. 1 In his introduction, Ferdo Puĉek, the translator of Pilar‟s opus, drew attention to the parallels between Pilar‟s racial ideas and those of the fascist Ustasha Movement which ruled Croatia and of which he, like Starĉević, was an intellectual supporter. Pilar‟s book showed, he wrote, that the Serbs who lived in Croatia and Bosnia were “alien elements, Cincars, Greeks, Romanian and above all Balkan-Aroumanian (Vlach) elements” that had fallen under the influence of the Eastern Orthodox Church and continually demonstrated their hostility to Croatia. This was in direct opposition to the “western” outlook of the Croats with their “Nordic Slavic-Gothic-Iranian” racial origins.2 In inter-war Yugoslavia, as in the rest of Europe, questions of race and nationality dominated the political agenda. In the new Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes -- renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929 -- the main ideological division broadly was between separatist nationalists and romantic Yugoslav integrationists. Separatists, such as Croatian nationalists, believed that the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were three distinct nations whose individuality and prosperity, and indeed, survival, could only be guaranteed if they existed as separate and independent nation-states; by contrast, romantic or synthetic Yugoslavs argued that the appellations “Serb”, “Croat” and “Slovene” were merely tribal names and that they constituted an embryonic Yugoslav race. In the same way as nineteenth-century nationalists in Germany and Italy, they believed that by synthesizing and integrating the best national characteristics and qualities of the three tribes a new nation would be brought into being. Aside from this fundamental difference, Croatian nationalists and romantic Yugoslavs also differed in their approach to race and racial ideology. While both Yugoslav and Croatian racial biologists were influenced by political ideas emanating from elsewhere in Europe -- most obviously those connected to the rise of fascism in Italy and National Socialism in Germany -- it was writers and academics committed to the creation of a Yugoslav nation that embraced the technological possibilities of eugenics both as a reflection of their progressive views and as a means of ending the tribal differences which had impeded the creation of a Yugoslav consciousness. In their conception of race and nation, Croatian nationalists largely rejected modern science and remained firmly entrenched in the anthropological and scholarly tradition of the late nineteenth-century. Moreover, while the racial ideas of romantic Yugoslavists were officially supported by the state, the proponents of Croatian racial theories were, by and large, following the precedent set during the nineteenth-century, isolated individuals, intellectuals who saw themselves as persecuted pioneers of Croatian racial utopias. Yugoslav racial theories were characterized by the aim to create a new race that embodied the best qualities of the different South Slav races, and therefore even when their rhetoric became openly eugenicist, Yugoslav racial theorists were rarely threatening or aggressive. By contrast, Croatian racial theories did not allow for such synthesis. Instead, Croatian race ideologists, envisioning the purification of the Croatian nation, were obsessed by the threats posed to their ethnic culture and “living space” by the demographic invasion of racially inferior “foreigners”. Croatian racial theory, though far less influenced by the ideas of racial biology and eugenics, proved to be ultimately far more destructive. Fast Cars, Clean Bodies: Modernity and Eugenics in Yugoslavia Yugoslav ideologues saw their nation as a thoroughly modern one. For them, history began in 1918. According to the poet, Tin Ujević, the capital, Belgrade, was the representative of a “new, dynamic and frequently bombastic world”. 3 Foreign visitors to Belgrade were equally as impressed with Belgrade and its atmosphere of modernity and progress. The English writer, David Footman, for example, visiting Belgrade in 1934, commented on its “modern and austere” apartments and its impressive skyline, “like that of a young American city, with the beauty and vigour of youth”. 4 The French diplomat, Henri Pozzi, was famously less impressed. In a still-incendiary study, he wrote of Belgrade as a city of “gilded lasciviousness”, like a “nouveau riche who cannot stop dancing, yet spits ugly words at his poor relations that cluster around him”.5 Even allowing for Pozzi‟s scathing attack on Yugoslavia‟s modern, urban and cosmopolitan values, it was indeed true that the new Yugoslav State was extremely keen to embrace what it considered as the enlightened and progressive practices that could be observed in Western Europe and the United States of America. Early Yugoslav ideologues aimed to build a modern secular and unitarist state which would wipe away the tribal divisions that separated Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. To do this, they felt that they needed to address the cultural and religious factors which had for so long impeded their unity. They set about this task with revolutionary zeal, setting out proposals for radical utopias and social experimentation. Writers, theologians and ideologues called for, among other things, an end to celibacy for Catholic priests and the establishment of a new national Yugoslav church which would synthesize the best attributes of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the full emancipation of women and a society from which all aspects of immorality, corruption and injustice would be cleansed in order to make society healthy. 6 Other ideas were more obviously associated with eugenics and breeding. Some ideologues, for example, called for the reform of marital laws. One writer from Split, for example, complained that the clerical laws of the Habsburg era, which prevented university professors, civil servants, soldiers and teachers from marrying, had led to a large number of unmarried women who had been driven to prostitution, further resulting in venereal disease, hysteria and the bearing of illegitimate children prone to criminality in later life. This had been compounded by the great loss of life amongst Yugoslav soldiers during the Great War. As a result, the Yugoslav race had been weakened because men were “the motor of the national state engine”.7 For Andrija Štampar, the head of the newly-created Yugoslav Health Service and a leading advocate of social medicine, a programme of comprehensive sex education was crucial to addressing the escalation in venereal diseases and creating a healthier race. He argued that the sexual education of the young should begin before they became sexually active, perhaps as early as the age of eight, if such a policy was to have any chance of success.8 The Yugoslavia created in 1918 was an overwhelmingly rural state and Yugoslav ideologues saw that one of the most pressing tasks was the elevation of the peasantry and the urban working classes. In 1919, Milan Pribiĉević envisaged the building of a “modern, great, cultured and social Yugoslavia” and “a progressive peasantry with clean respectable homes and villages, well-fed and highly literate”.9 Likewise, in 1929, Bogumil Vošnjak argued that to create a strong Yugoslavia, the Government needed not only to renew the economy, but also improve the lives and conditions of workers and peasants. In order for there to be a healthy peasantry, the author believed that what he termed “social hygiene” as well as eugenics needed to be introduced. For Vošnjak, as for many other radical Yugoslavs, the modernization of the village, as the centre of life in the new Yugoslavia, was essential to the development of the new state. This required not merely electricity and modern technology, but also the cultivation of an appreciation for culture by peasants through the endeavours of intellectuals whom, he contended, were uniquely positioned to unify the life of the town and the village.10 Additionally, there were proposals from a range of scientists from official institutions whose opinions carried rather more influence. Some of the more important institutions in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which addressed the question of health and hygiene were the Ministry of Public Health and the Central Institute for Hygiene, which produced its own journal, The Journal of the Central Institute for Hygiene, edited by Professor Stevan Ivanić. Like Vošnjak, Ivanić believed that the need to introduce basic standards of hygiene and cleanliness to village houses was of pressing concern.11 That the health and hygiene levels of villages in Yugoslavia were depressingly poor is indisputable. As late as 1939, when the Croatian Peasant Party politician Rudolf Bićanić toured the villages throughout Croatia and Bosnia he found that the living conditions of peasants were deplorable. 12 Health and hygiene experts such as Vladimir S. Stanojević of the Ministry for National Health agreed. In a textbook written for army hygiene classes in 1927, he stated that “the health situation in our country and our nation is not good. In both the village and the town, our people are not educated in hygiene and, because of this, do not pay attention to personal hygiene”13 The situation was especially serious in the villages: “Many of our settlements are abandoned and neglected and, in the majority of cases, they do not have the most basic hygienic needs”. Most peasants slept in one bed and the houses they inhabited were rat and mice-infested, damp, dark, cramped and ridden with fleas and bedbugs. Life for most city dwellers was no better, he cautioned, and, overall, the nation was still plagued by diseases almost unknown in the rest of Europe such as tuberculosis, dysentery, typhoid, malaria and diseases of infancy.14 Nonetheless, a leading Yugoslav racial biologist, Svetislav Stefanović, writing as late as 1936, argued that the concerns of the village in terms of racial hygiene had been ignored and that life in the villages remained characterized by a lack of medical aid and low numbers of doctors and nurses.15 Despite the best efforts of the government to address the concerns of the countryside, relatively little had been achieved. Stefanović called for comprehensive health education in the villages, better provision of doctors, midwives and nurses, as well as the material and moral protection of the family as the cultural foundation of village life. This would be facilitated through the creation of a department specializing in the health problems of the village within a newly- established Ministry of Social Politics and National Health, reaffirming the belief that the mother and the child were the “future and the strength of the nation”. Such a policy would have a positive social effect throughout the state, reducing the divisions arising from the negative perceptions existing between the city and the countryside: “In this way,” he affirmed, “the village would come into contact with the city and realise that the city was not just some monster that swallows the peasant and seizes his offspring and the hard fruits of his labour. Rather than the city being the carrier and hearth of some instinctual culture that estranges and degenerates the children of the peasant nation, it would be shown that the city also protects them and teaches them not only a better and more beautiful but also a more noble life”. 16 However, he also argued that such strengthening of social life would be racially profitable: citing the examples of the Soviet Union and Fascist Italy, where the policy of elevating the life of the villages had been implemented, he pointed out that the state institutions that had been created had indeed helped to defend the mother and the child and promote healthy breeding.17 As was the case with Stefanović, many of Stanojević‟s solutions for the problems he described were eminently rational, reflecting the practices then fashionable elsewhere in Europe and the United States. He argued, for example, that workers required social security and a safe, clean environment in which to work and live. He also advocated the creation of trade societies where workers could purchase hygienic food and clothing. He proposed that preventative health clinics and quarantine stations be established, as well as the mass distribution of health posters on trains, boats, and in public meeting places throughout towns and villages the establishment of cheap public baths and the free availability of clean drinking water. 18 However, Stanojević‟s concern with improving social conditions in Yugoslavia meant that he was also susceptible to the arguments of eugenics. In 1920, under the auspices of the Ministry for National Health, Stanojević produced an official guide to the principles of eugenics for the uninitiated Yugoslav reader. Comparing eugenics to the Book of Revelations, he wrote in the introduction that the book would be especially useful for those embarking on marriage and those that wanted to find out about “the destiny of their home or the happiness of their children”. 19 Racing through history, the author detailed how civilizations throughout the millennia, from the Spartans who had practiced infanticide by throwing sick babies off the edge of cliffs to protect the purity and vitality of their race, to the Ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, who had called for the killing of the weak and physically inferior in society; from the racial policies of the English “national master race” able to conquer and rule half the globe, to the eugenics movement in Germany and the United States, which, in some states, had led to the introduction of compulsory sterilization of the incapable and the banning of marriage between citizens of the United States and criminals, epileptics, alcoholics, those with learning difficulties, the mentally-ill and the handicapped. The “American race”, he wrote, had proved itself a “progressive and practical” nation. In introducing eugenic measures, he contended, the American people were ensuring themselves for “eternal youth, nobility, casting from themselves all that is damaging, and accepting all that is healthy and strong”. In so doing, they were cultivating a “new ideal race” which would rule over the entire world. 20 In contrast to the attitudes of other advocates of racial biology and eugenics, the author did not believe, however, that the purity of the race made it stronger, healthier and protected its longevity. On the contrary, he argued that the more mixed a race was, the more virile and powerful it became: “Hygienic human breeding […] means the rational utilization and control of existing racial characteristics and raw biological qualities on the one hand and the improvement of all external conditions for breeding on the other”.21 The American race was powerful and destined for world domination precisely because it constituted a synthesis of a number of different racial groups -Anglo-Saxon Protestants, American Indians and Spaniards. In this way, Stanojević grafted modern Yugoslav concerns onto his understanding of eugenics. Stanojević compared eugenics to the breeding of livestock, insisting that the rules of breeding that applied to animals similarly applied to humans. Like the anonymous author from Split, he considered the reform of marital laws an urgent matter, complaining that marriages were not based on eugenic principles and thus could not guarantee a healthy or select family: In the modern mating of human couples, there are no natural or eugenic conditions or incentives – everything is artificial, in everything non-eugenic concerns dominate […] The modern marriage serves the Church, the State or tradition more than individuals or their offspring. Current matrimony is not just a slave, but the killer of all offspring. As well as the urgent need for the reform of marriage on eugenic principles, there is also the need for the introduction of 22 widespread and deep propaganda for eugenic marriages. The author called for the return of motherhood to its “classic Spartan role” and for women to “sacrifice and consecrate themselves” to the role of mother and housewife. Yet, at the same time, he demanded an end to military conscription and the idealization of military values that it represented because it tore the young away from their familial homes to die in “dirty and unhealthy barracks”, particularly from syphilis and other venereal diseases. Instead, a new society should be built on the principles of “Spartanism, Sokol and sport”. Instead of militarism, militancy in a “modern form, geared towards the most contemporary needs of the state and society” was required. He also demonstrated the same social concern he had expressed elsewhere by reiterating his concept of the reform of industry in line with racial hygiene in order to increase productivity. His study concluded: “The hygienic refinement and improvement of descendants - this is the future religion for the individual and the family as well as for the whole of cultured humanity”. 23 In 1929 Bogumil Vošnjak compared the divisions of the different tribes that made up Yugoslavia to the nation-building problems experienced by Italy during the nineteenth-century. Much like the Lombardians, Sicilians and Neapolitans, the Yugoslavs would overcome their differences and become one nation.24 Likewise, the Serbian geographer Jovan Cvijić believed that the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes possessed different national characters. Cvijić believed that while the Serbs had a talent for “intuition and fantasy which, however, is not always disciplined”, the Croats were gifted at “science, literature and art”. The Slovenes, meanwhile, were rationalists, possessing an “unusually developed characteristic of ethnic endurance and toughness”.25 The predominant psychic characteristics of all the three tribes would contribute to the creation of a new Yugoslav civilization. Similarly, Milan Marjanović, in a study of 1913, noted the heroic and vengeful qualities of the Serbs as opposed to the intellectual and forgiving character of the Croats. As opposed to the contemplative Croat, the Serb was a man of action. 26 Although both Cvijić and Marjanović were from an older pre-Yugoslav generation, they shared with their younger colleagues the belief that Yugoslavism meant the synthesis of the three tribes. A new generation drew on the ideas of Cvijić and Marjanović, adding to it the principles of eugenics, arguing that science could be used to create a new Yugoslav race. Mijo Radošević, for example, hailed the Yugoslav man as the embodiment of not only an honourable soul, but also a “united ethnobiological type” with “an incredible talent, life force and militancy”. The creation of this “new racial, cultural and political type” had been aided, according to the author, by the process of encouraging members of the three Yugoslav “tribes” to move and establish communities in regions of the Kingdom in which another group dominated. It was hoped that such a policy, which Radošević referred to as “internal colonization” would result in a greater degree of inter-marriage and the creation of a generation of Yugoslavs imbued with qualities drawn from the superior elements of the three tribes. This, in turn, would lead, ultimately, to the eradication of “all tribal chauvinism and imperialism”27 The idea of using eugenics as a tool to create a Yugoslav master race was made most explicit in an article of 1924 by J. Zubović in the leading pro-Yugoslav Croatian journal of the inter-war period, New Europe. Announcing the imminent perfection of a new Yugoslav person, he evoked the image of a Yugoslav superman around whom the nation, state, economy, political parties, families and culture would be built. The Yugoslav man was not simply new but a “man of better physical quality, stronger, more militant and healthier, more economically productive (…) and, above all, great spirit, with beautiful motives and instincts, better habits, forceful will and more active, exuding higher intelligence and education”. 28 How was this to be achieved? Zubović asserted that the Yugoslavs first had to account for the peaceful assimilation of nonYugoslav races with whom they lived side by side. Following this, “progressive” Yugoslavs should set to work on the creation of a superior Yugoslav being. He proposed that marital and familial law should be altered so as to allow for mixed marriages, and that instead of religious considerations, civil marriages should be governed by a policy of national eugenics and social considerations: There can be no complete unity without blood unity, without the mixing of the various Yugoslav tribes […]. According to the laws of contemporary eugenics, progress is achieved by the process of mixing different, but closely-related tribes to produce a physically superior type. For us, it is of particular importance that the urban population is rejuvenated by the village, that the city population mixes with workers, valley dwellers mix with mountain dwellers, people from the less educated regions with the educated. […] This mixing will be profitable to us. It is apparent, for example, that the bony, stocky and militant Dinaric type will strengthen the average Yugoslav person just as the strongly-evolved Slovenian women will. In the same way, the great industriousness of the Dalmatian or the Likan or the agrarian culture of the Slovenian, 29 Croat or Vojvodinan will elevate the level of Yugoslav diligence and agriculture generally. Not all eugenicist suggestions regarding the improvement of race were so benign and some stressed not so much the betterment of the race as the prevention of breeding among the more biologically degenerate sections of society. At the Seventeenth Congress of the Association of Yugoslav Doctors in 1935, for example, Svetislav Stefanović reaffirmed his opposition to abortion, declaring that in “racial-hygienic and racial-biological terms abortion destroys the health of the mother, endangers her life and destroys the life of her descendants and, in the most extreme cases, leads to the degeneration of the race and accompanies or determines all other symptoms of collapse or decay of a nation or race”. 30 Moreover, he pointed out that a policy of restriction on the number of offspring had a “degenerative effect” on race. These included a far higher rate of suicide as well as higher rates of other “degenerative phenomena” including incest, marriage between close relatives and a greater number of pathologies and genetic defects which were subsequently passed on to next generations. Stefanović proposed that in order to avoid social degeneration, Yugoslavia should look to Mussolini‟s Italy and Stalin‟s Soviet Union where the state intervened, with striking results in both cases, to protect the child and the mother and, overall, the principle of natality. Although Stefanović was opposed to abortion, he did believe that in exceptional circumstances it could be justified. On the contrary, he advocated that for the sake of “mental-hygienic defense”, human life could be artificially terminated through abortion and sterilization. Stefanović considered it paradoxical that many doctors who advocated abortions and birth control for social reasons simultaneously opposed abortions for reasons of “racial and spiritual hygiene that would reduce and prevent births among the mentally defective”. Stefanović cited the example of Germany where the exponential increase in the numbers of alcoholics, the mentally disabled, the mentally ill and the genetically deaf and blind between 1870 and 1935 meant that the German government now spent the equivalent of twenty million dinars caring for them, thereby imposing an impossible burden on the budget: If we take into account the fact that the physically defective breed more prolifically than those who are physically superior, it is obvious from the perspective of racial and spiritual hygiene that we should bear this fact in mind, even if we do not agree with the idea of forced sterilization especially if we consider that the combined figures of a few thousand or a few hundred thousand [forced sterilisations] are as nothing in comparison to the millions of violent 31 and artificial abortions which are carried out year after year. The experience of Germany showed, Stefanović believed, that there was a danger of the racially inferior and the degenerate becoming dominant. To avert this possibility, in the future the only possible justification for abortion should be on the grounds of “medical, racial and spiritual hygiene”. In such circumstances, the health of the mother was paramount and the operation would be carried out under the most stringent hospital procedures to demonstrate that the state was not indifferent to the health of woman. As it was not clear exactly when the state would be in a position to enact such legislation, the medical profession should be proactive and take the initiative in creating a Directorate for the Defense of the Mother and the Child and in forming sub-committees in the centre of each region of the state for the co-ordination of this initiative, never deviating from the thought that the creation and the defence of the child and motherhood is “one of the most important questions, not only for a Government and for a politician but also for the entire nation”.32 Likewise, the Director of the Central Institute for Hygiene, Professor Stevan Ivanić, called for a policy of racial hygiene to encourage the selection of the “racially strong types” and the segregation of the “racially and genetically degenerate”. Like Stefanović, he cited the example of Germany and wrote approvingly of the racial laws that the new Nazi Government had recently introduced. As he saw it, racial hygiene had three tasks: to create superior humans, to advance means to defend the healthy population and “to root out from the healthy community the genetically inferior (the insane, epileptics, the deaf, the congenitally blind, congenital criminals, alcoholics, tramps and so on)”. In the future, such people should be sterilized and thus prevented from breeding; at the same time, they should be segregated from the healthy community to prevent too much mixing. 33 „We, the Yugoslav Barbarians!‟: The Rhetoric of Anti-Civilization and the Dinaric Superman The well-known inter-war Yugoslav ethnographer Vladimir Dvorniković commented that the Yugoslavs as a race were “one of the most naturally gifted peoples of Europe” leading “all other peoples in brain size”. 34 Moreover, as a synthesis of the three Yugoslav tribes, Dvornikovic believed that the Yugoslav man possessed “dynamism, rhythm, strong temperament, expressiveness and the constructive ability of fantasy”. 35 Dvorniković, who in 1939 produced a extensive sociological study of the peoples of Yugoslavia, was one of many ethnologists and anthropologists at the time who believed that the Yugoslavs constituted a race. The purest expression of this race was to be found, he argued, in the rocky Dinaric region, which was inhabited by the Dinaric race. The idea of a Dinaric race was not new and had been championed by Jovan Cvijić at least as far back as the turn of the century. According to Cvijić, in one of his last articles of 1930, the Dinaric people were “young, full-blooded and keenly alive to natural phenomena”. He also believed that they were full of “kindness, good feeling, a sense of justice and a readiness to sacrifice themselves both as a nation and as individuals”. The most characteristic feature of the Dinaric region was the presence of “forceful, violent and fiery men in whom the most unrestrained qualities of the race find their highest form of development. They are impulsive and act without any consideration”. Sometimes sentimental, among them existed nonetheless found men who “think nothing of sacrificing their lives for moral ideas or for the benefit of the race”.36 In his 1939 study of the racial and anthropological characteristics of the Yugoslavs, Vladimir Dvorniković focused extensively on the Dinaric peoples, lauding them as a prototype for the future Yugoslav person. For Dvorniković, the manliness and virility of the Dinaric man was unsurpassed not only in the South Slav region, but throughout Europe. “The Dinaric type”, he wrote, “is the prototype of the male warrior, perhaps the most outstanding amongst all the white races: his ideas embody this type (…). This Illyrian man must be raw, strong and martial. The violence, which is constantly remarked upon when one talks about the Dinarics, emerges in the Illyrian in an even more elemental form (…). A. Geljan writes that the look of the Illyrian is so terrible and fascinating that it could „kill a man‟”. 37 At the same time, however, this did not imply that the Dinaric man was a primitive brute. On the contrary, the epic poems of the South Slavs lauded the Hajduks, the feared brigands and highwaymen who had terrorised and robbed travellers in the Balkans. Their spirit was captured by the Dinarics as the “idol and only hope of an enslaved nation”, demonstrating the psychic connection that they had enjoyed with the people and the land. Dvorniković argued that many of those who wrote about the Dinarics were anthropologists that had failed to enter their world; yet, without such direct experience of their “patriarchal morals and ethical ideals” they could not hope to understand the Dinarics. Those who spoke only of their plundering and thievery had not comprehended properly the soul of the Dinarics anymore than “the superficial foreign tourists for whom the people are no more than thieves. Some of our writers are „western‟, alien to these people: it is as if they had never experienced his world”. Dvorniković pointed out that despite the patriarchal and heroic social milieu from which the Dinaric man emerged, Dinaric women were far from submissive and displayed the Amazonian qualities that one might expect in the female companion of the Dinaric warrior. The Dinaric woman had masculine tendencies and a “masculine aura”.38 In any case, the author believed that the brutal living style of this warrior prevented any form of “altruistic sentimentality and the feelings of consideration towards others”. Although the disposition for strong feelings was expressed in many “symbols and forms of national life, in certain traditions and superstitions, national poems, proverbs and sayings”, the style of life, especially in the southern regions, restricted the range of these feelings to “a hard and rudimentary form”. The Dinaric race thus remained fundamentally warlike and pagan and “a warrior of the Balkan, not Slav-Christian soul”.39 Many other ethnologists embraced the idea of the Dinaric man as the prototype for a Yugoslav superman. One of the most prominent champions of the Dinaric person was the ethnologist Branimir Maleš. For him the Dinaric man was by far superior to European counterparts. Maleš characterized the Dinaric man in a similar manner to Dvorniković. He argued that the Dinaric man was an independent and unique racial type, related neither to the Alpine nor the Nordic racial types. In 1935 he declared: “All his characteristics are exclusively Dinaric, harmoniously joined and constituting one biological essence”.40 For Maleš, the key to the racial uniqueness of the Dinaric man was to be found in his body shape and skull formation. The skull shapes and bodies of the Alpine and Nordic races were completely different to those of the Dinaric race as was the appearance of their temporal and frontal lobes. Unlike the round faces and short stature of the Alpine race, Maleš explained, the long face of the Dinaric person was in complete harmony with his “long body and all other body parts”. In addition, he rejected the contention of some anthropologists and writers that the Dinaric race was a genus of the central Armenian-Alpine race or a combination of the Armenian and Nordic races. It was erroneous, he continued, to group all those with brachycephalic skulls and dark complexions together, and worse still to group the Dinaric race with the Alpine race “(…) with American Indians and Asiatic Mongols, part of the great yellow racial group”.41 For all the dark hair and long bodies of the majority of the Dinarics, Maleš also argued that there was a variant of Dinarics with blonde hair (Blonde Dinarics). This also set them apart from the Alpine race, amongst whom blonde hair was almost unknown. In Yugoslav regions, he wrote, it was common to find people with red or blonde hair and blue eyes, although the hair usually darkened as they became older, despite this “all their other features, both morphological and physiological, are purely Dinaric”. His fieldwork in Montenegro had shown that this phenomenon was actually quite common. Although he could not say with any certainty whether the Blonde Dinarics were a special species or a variant of the prototype Dinaric racial type, there was no doubt in his mind that they were related. This was proved, he insisted, by the fact that many blonde Dinaric children became darker as they grew older. It remained to be seen whether both dark-haired Dinarics and blonde Dinarics were related to the Nordic group. However, it was beyond doubt that the Dinarics were closer to the Nordic race than any other European race. 42 In some respects, the popularity of the Dinaric race theory among a certain strata of intellectuals and academics reflected the desire, common throughout Europe, especially in the inter-war period, to give notions about national identity a scientific basis and therefore a grounding in “fact”. If academic and scientific enquiry could prove the existence of a Yugoslav race and, moreover, one that had existed long before the establishment of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, then who could oppose the union of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes? It also reflected the belief, prevalent among a largely urbanized nationalist élite throughout Europe, that the “authentic” culture of the nation was to be found in the villages among the peasants rather than in the cities. Indeed, as Svetislav Stefanović acerbically noted, “while the city demonstrated great interest in the folklore and clothes [of the village], it did not seem so interested in its life and health, its births and deaths, its homes and families”. 43 On the other hand, it was also symptomatic of the faith in the capability of science and technology to advance social progress and address national and social problems. For example, in a comprehensive study of 1933 to assess the health of adolescent Dinaric girls in villages and towns in Belgrade and its surrounding villages, Maleš used scientific means to establish which girls should be excluded from the survey on the basis of their non-Dinaric “anthropological characteristics”. These included examining the shape of their faces and heads, coloring and complexion as well as measuring their height.44 Dvorniković and Maleš were joined in their studies and investigations of the Dinaric race by other anthropologists and scientists who spent much of the 1920s and 1930s analysing and writing about the racial characteristics as well as the culture, music, clothes, language, folklore and religion of various ethnic groups in Yugoslavia, especially those communities that lived in the frontier regions of the new state and outside its borders. Many of these studies amounted to more than just the accumulation of anthropological knowledge and had a clear political agenda. Through such studies, writers aimed not only to provide a scientific basis for the Yugoslav race, but also legitimate Yugoslavia‟s claim to territories currently under dispute. 45 Despite the faith in science and technology that many Yugoslav anthropologists shared, a faith exemplified in the Dinaric theory of Yugoslav racial origins, this does not mean that they accepted all or even most of the values of the modern society from which many of the eugenicist principles had originated. On the contrary, at the same time as they appropriated many of the racial ideas of modern European society, they simultaneously rejected many of its other supposed values. In particular, they opposed what they perceived as the soulless nature of the “West”, personified in its urban capitalist system, with the heroism and humanity of the eastern Slavs. Dvorniković, for one not only eulogized the East and perceived the messianic calling of the Slavs as an alternative to the excessive rationalism of the West, but also held that the Slavs would save the West from degeneration and decay. In Dvorniković‟s case, the embrace of the Dinaric racial theory reflected his belief that the Dinaric was a Balkan superman, virile and energetic, who could racially revive a torpid and exhausted Europe. An important element of this belief structure was a rejection of the supposedly civilized values of the West in favour of what was assumed as distinctly Balkan, particularly its alleged savagery, wild instincts and aggressiveness. This was a view shared by a sizeable intellectual constituency in Yugoslavia. Such hostility towards the cultural superiority of Europe was encapsulated in a memorable verse from the poem At Kalmegedan, by Anton Aškerc: “Thus we protected you, Europe/ from the blows of wild hordes/ Ah, thus we spent our youth, / we – the Yugoslav barbarians!”46 The image of the Balkan barbarian, so evocatively evoked by Aškerc, was utilized by various artistic groups in the immediate period following the creation of the Yugoslav state in deliberate opposition to the aspirations of those Yugoslav ideologues that sought to imitate the practices and fashions of the West. Thus the Zenithist movement of Boško Tokin and Ljubomir Miĉić declared in its manifesto of 1922 that the Zenithist artist was the “new type of constructed barbarian” who honoured the Balkan race: “We admire their grown-up barbarianism because absolute barbarians are geniuses”. For Miĉić, the new Balkan savagery was also to be praised for its “unsentimental vitality – its pure thought – unfalsified aims and open heart”.47 In his first book, The Circle for Salvation: Zenithist Barbarism in Thirty Acts, he announced that the aim of the movement was to balkanize Europe: “We are in awe of the awakened barbarism (…) Zenithism is the most rebellious act of the young barbaric race!”48 Not surprisingly, their views on Croatian nationalist culture, with its scorn for Balkan and “eastern” values and its aspirations to be part of the “civilized” West, were not so complimentary. According to Miĉić, Croatian culture, in its desire to emulate the values of the West was “the illegitimate child of an unnatural marriage between a trained monkey and a parrot whose real name and address is Most Esteemed Sir, Office of the Imitation of Culture, Zagreb”. How could this possibly compare to the glories of Balkanism, a synthesis, so he claimed, of “young wild Slavism and the ripe fruits of Hellenism”?49 Miĉić stated baldly that the Zenithists were opposed to the culture of the West: “Will we continue to remain slaves defending Lloyd George, Briand, Foch and D‟Annunzio?” he asked. “No! Out with the Latins! It is a time of heroism! (…) we can by ourselves be pioneers and part of the creation of a culture for all humanity that carries in itself the spirit of the oriental man from the Urals and the Balkans – born in the cradle which we call Russia”.50 In a similar fashion, his Zenithist colleague Boško Tokin wrote of the “animalism and dynamism” of the new Balkan race and the “aestheticization of dynamism” which had a racial component, creating something that was both Balkan and uniquely Yugoslav.51 Meanwhile, Rade Drainac was making similar pronouncements in his Hypnist manifesto: “It is time that the Balkans came good spiritually. We have had enough of licking the boots of Catholicism, the Pope in Rome and the Gallic waves of Paris”. 52 Not all rejections of the culture and ideals of Western Europe were so irreverent. Both the writer Vladimir Vujić and the playwright Vladimir Velmar-Janković vehemently rejected the idea of the Western conception of man in favour of the Balkan man. For Vujić, the Europe of 1929 did not represent culture and civilized values, but the brutal incarnation of violence. By contrast, the East, personified especially by Serbia, was imbued with the spirit of love, justice and humanity. 53 Vujić questioned the alleged progressiveness of the West and argued that in order to create an autonomous Yugoslav culture, it was not necessary to “direct our eyes to the West and seek out a model there which we will be compelled to blindly imitate (…) The loss of faith, religious rights (…) straying from moral principles, the development of a decadent professional class, sex as the foundation of life and the explanation of life, hypocrisy, lies, the cruelty and perfect hypocrisy of everyday life”.54 Vujić also criticized the popular perception of the East amongst visitors and travelers from the West. For the rational West the East was a fabled land of “darkness, ignorance, imprisonment, slavery, indolence and filthiness”. He resented the yearning of those who traveled there in search of spirituality and enlightenment, a sentiment born of a stereotypical perception of the East. The East was not backwards or primitive, or a land of “vagueness, legends, despotism” and superstition. Nor was it, as some Westerners would have it, a “joyous empire of poetry (…) dreams and beauty, hashish and opium, peace and connection (…)”.55 Vujić declared with satisfaction: “No, we are not Europe and it is good that we are not. We are neither Europe nor the West by our spiritual understanding of the world, by our spiritual style, by our view of the world and life”.56 Much of what Vujić attacked was what he perceived as the nihilistic and decadent societies of the West, evidenced most notably in the large anonymous cities. He wrote that “mechanical rationalism” signaled the end of civilization since if spirituality ceased, so did civilization. For him, Western culture was moribund. By contrast, Yugoslav culture, as a new spiritual phenomenon of a young nation, would help to regenerate Europe. Yugoslav culture would draw on its epic national poetry to create an independent culture which, with its “racial genius”, would save Europe from nihilism, decadence, materialism and moral equivalence. The Yugoslav cultural conception would not be “economic, bourgeois, European or Parisian”. Rather, “the ideology of this culture must emanate and emerge from the eternal knowledge of our racial soul”.57 For the dramatist, Vladimir Velmar-Janković, writing in 1938, the new Balkan man was embodied in the male revolutionary of the Serbian revolution of 1804 – the Kalmegadan man. He was certainly not a European and did not aspire as such. On the contrary, he was an eastern male and “a man of a virile Belgrade persuasion”, epitomized in the Serbian peasant. Owing to long centuries of harsh Turkish rule, Velmar-Janković insisted, the Serb peasant had been protected from the Renaissance and Humanism. The conditions for a bourgeois revolution had not been built. Instead, the development of the Serbs was shaped by different influences – the familial, (zadruga) and tribal society. After 1918, the Serbs had been exposed to increasingly modern and materialistic influences which had conflicted with the heroic-patriarchal view of life and for this he blamed the intellectuals that had fallen under the spell of European culture in its entirety. 58 Despite relating the manner in which the Yugoslav village had been allowed to fester and sink into backwardness and ignorance, Svetislav Stefanović perceived villages as “the foundation and greatest reservoir of all culture” and he echoed Dvorniković in conceptualizing the Dinaric race as the representatives of a new race of supermen. Stefanović argued that in the contemporary world, where as a result of the First World War, the solidarity of the white race had broken down, the Dinaric race would inevitably take the place of the Nordic race as the dominant European racial type. In Stefanović‟s conceptualization, the racial superiority of the Dinaric man and his harsh environment also imbued him with certain psychological qualities and a philosophical outlook on life far removed from the western European world of ruthless capitalism. Unlike the Nordic racial type, he would not be a capitalist owner. He would be a heroic human person, “not a hero of commerce, hard, cruel, brutal, egoistic and inhuman, but a hero of satisfactory kindness, of a tender heart and soul, who not only uses his intellect to rule but also heroically bears all the slings and arrows that the ruling type, blessed with a hedonistic understanding of life, does not know”. In short, he would be “humanitas heroica”. Just as the Nordic racial man had completed his mission, so had the individualistic capitalist system. Now was the time for the Dinaric man to enter the stage to create a new social and cultural conception of society and state.59 Vlachs, Cincars and Other Deviations from the Racial Norm: Croatian Gentlemen Scholars Envisage Race and Nation In contrast to the technological and scientific pretensions of Yugoslav racial ideology and rooted in a belief in eastern Slavic messianism, Croatian racial concepts were rooted in nineteenth-century ideas of nationalist exclusivity common in the West. At the heart of Croatian racial ideology was the nature of their relationship with the Serbs who lived in Croatia and Bosnia, and what extreme Croatian nationalists often perceived as a struggle for survival against them. Unlike Yugoslav racial ideologues, who often worked at state research institutes and whose work was informed by twentieth-century notions about progress and technology, Croatian ethnologists and anthropologists were often solitary scholars whose ideas, until the 1930s, remained outside the political and cultural mainstream. Intellectually speaking Croatian nationalist scholars existed in the rarefied world of the nineteenth century gentleman man of letters, informed by the largely obsolete values of the Habsburg era. To understand their mentality and ideas it is necessary to explore the intellectual milieu in which their values were formed. The father of Croatian nationalism and founder of the nationalist Croatian Party of Right, Ante Starĉević, was the author of a number of influential books on the national question. Whereas Starĉević had written that the Muslims of Bosnia were the purest of Croats, he sometimes refused to acknowledge the existence of the Serbs as a race and contended that many historical Serb figures were, in fact, Croats. On the other hand, he argued that the Serbs were a degenerate and inferior race, the ancestors of nomadic Vlach shepherds that had settled in Croatia and Bosnia in the fourteenth century along with the arrival of the Ottoman army, acting as water carriers and slaves.60 Drastic measures would have to be taken against them. In order to save Croatia from annihilation, extermination and destruction, they would have to be “exterminated from the nation”.61 The idea that the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia were racially inferior Vlachs and Nomads gained common currency not only among nationalist intellectuals and writers, but also at the level of popular culture on the streets of Zagreb. Racist slogans became a defining characteristic of the violent anti-Serb riots of the followers of Josip Frank‟s Pure Party of Rights, a virulently nationalist and pro-Habsburg political faction at the turn of the twentieth century. Such rhetoric was a standard feature of the Party‟s newspapers.62 Much of the animosity towards the Serbs in Croatia stemmed from the belief among both Croatian nationalists and a significant minority of the general public that Bosnia and Hercegovina were Croatian lands and the Muslims the purest of Croatians. Even the leader of the Croatian Peasant Party, Stjepan Radić, argued that Bosnia was ethnically and racially Croatian territory. In a study of 1908, The Clear Right of Croatia to Bosnia and Hercegovina, ,he argued that Croatia had a historical and ethnographical claim to Bosnia and Hercegovina. Bosnian Muslims, he concluded, were Croatians according to the laws of “ethnographical science”, and they were “our people, by their blood and by language (and) their disposition and integrity”.63 Bosnia was today “an organic part of the rest of Croatia and it will soon, God willing, be an established fact”.64 In 1904 the anthropologist, archaeologist and director of the Bosnian Agricultural Museum in Sarajevo, Ćiro Truhelka, published a notorious piece of prose which reflected the distillation of these prejudices. His study provided an intellectual justification for the expulsion of the Serbs from Bosnia, advocated by extreme Croatian nationalists. Truhelka emphasized the importance of Bosnia as a cultural borderland between the East and the West, as well as “blonde-haired Slavs and darkskinned Vlachs, between culturally passive and active tribes, Croats and Serbs, progress and stagnation, life and death”.65 He also a developed a pseudo-scientific racial definition of the Vlachian origins of the Serbs. Truhelka alleged that the Vlach was, like the Jew, recognizable at a hundred paces: “(…) whether he is from Romania, Šumadija, or the Banat, from the Lika, or Srijem, or Bosnia or Hercegovina, dress him in the clothes of the Shah of Persia, and as soon as every intelligent child sees him (they) will exclaim: „There‟s a Vlach!‟” In Bosnia, he noted, Muslims and Croats were blonde and blue-eyed, whilst the Orthodox [Serbs] were dark skinned and brown-eyed. They were also pigeon-chested; this contrasted with the wide chests of the Muslims and Catholics. Moreover, the shape of their skulls – dochycephalic as opposed to the brachycephalic skulls of the Muslims and Catholics -- implied that they were representatives of an older, culturally less worthy race than the Croats. Anthropologically, he explained, Catholics and Muslims were identical in genetic make-up whilst the Orthodox inhabitants represented “a black-skinned, overwhelmingly dark, physically degenerate type”. 66 Biology and race were also linked to character. If one ventured to the villages, one could observe that the percentage of “fair, blue-eyed and physically developed tribes” increased at a fast rate] whereas in cities, where capitalism was rife, the number of black-haired, black-eyed and physically weak tribes was greater: “This is the best proof that the dark blood of the Orthodox of Bosnia spreads from the towns and cities, from „plutocrat‟ circles to the village,” he claimed.67 As a corollary of this, Truhelka wrote that the love of profit was a key feature of the personality of the Vlach. He described how the Vlach made money at the expense of others, buying property and becoming a landlord, acquisitive businessman, banker or broker, lending money “at one hundred per cent interest on unsown corn, not undertaking any work that is not motivated by at least fifty per cent pure interest”.68 Many affluent citizens had fallen victim to the avaricious impulses of the Vlachs and many a Beg or Aga fallen on hard times had found his land seized by the “dirty fingernails” of the medieval Morloch who would boast in the “cafés or taverns in the towns of Bosnia” how the time would come when the present Aga would work for him. 69 Truhelka claimed that his study was not a polemical work. Yet, at the same time, he believed that it should be made clear to patriotic Croats that the Vlachs were socially dangerous. On arriving in the Balkans, they had come across the homes of Croats and poured their “dark blood” into the veins of one section of the native population, thus contaminating and separating one group of the old settler population from the blondehaired Slavs. Like some animals, the Vlachs, too, were incapable of evolving and were cultural parasites, thus unable to contribute anything meaningful to society. Despite their cunning nature, they were “sterile, stereotypical, and anthropologically inflexible,and susceptible to endemic tuberculosis and sterility, possessing weak physical and psychological constitutions”.70 With the assassination of the heir to the Habsburg throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo by a Serb member of Young Bosnia in 1914 and the subsequent declaration of war against Serbia, there was a return to the extreme anti-Serb rhetoric that had characterized much of Croatian nationalist discourse at the turn of the century. This was accompanied by mass riots against Serbian civilians, businesses and properties which resembled, according to a Sarajevo newspaper, “the aftermath of the Russian pogroms”.71 During the next few months, nationalist newspapers in Croatia similarly returned to the aggressive rhetoric that they had used against the Serb community in 1902, with one newspaper stating that Croatia had declared “a war of life and death against the Serbs and their permanent exile from Bosnia and Hercegovina”.72 Meanwhile, in Bosnia itself, a campaign of terror was being directed against the Serb population. Large numbers of citizens were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps where many later died, whilst others (including priests, teachers and merchants) suspected as nationalist sympathizers were hanged and their bodies left on the gallows as a warning to others. Meanwhile, the troops formed from local Muslim and Croat populations, the Schutzkorps, Freikorps and Frankist legions, indulged in acts of killing, violence and sadism against Bosnian Serb civilians. 73 Although it is unlikely that the young soldiers guilty of committing atrocities against the Bosnian Serb community had read Truhelka‟s inflammatory study, his study, nonetheless, directly influenced other writers. In 1917 a lawyer from Tuzla, Ivo Pilar published a book, The South Slav Question, which appropriated many of Truhelka‟s messages. In his book, Pilar argued that the South Slav problem was in fact a Serb problem -- the Balkan and Byzantine temperament of the Serbs had a negative impact on the development of the region. Like Truhelka, he argued that Bosnia was ethnically and politically Croat and that the Serbs of Bosnia were not Serbs but Vlachs brought to the region by the Turkish Ottomans. Croatia was fighting a “race war, a national, social and economic war”. 74 For Pilar, the Serbs‟ nomadic Vlach origins bestowed upon them certain distinctive personality traits. The Serbs, he wrote, had a covetous and pilfering nature, and they were acquisitive businessmen in the same way that the Jews had been, constantly lusting after the goods and property of others. It was also a common feature of Vlachs to swindle others. This dishonesty was reflected most notably in the Serbs‟ claim to Bosnia: their envious and greedy urges had led them to try and deny its status as a constituent and legitimate part of AustroHungarian territory and grab it for themselves. Conversely, the nature of Orthodoxy, with its aims of regional domination, had also led to the ghettoization of the Serbs who could not bear to live with other people of different faiths. This was evident amongst the Serb population in Bosnia who had set themselves apart from the Catholics and the Muslims. Pilar further contended that the Vlachs had the power and talent to destroy things and this was why, in a period when “destructive, anti-social and evil” instincts held sway, the Serbs had been recruited for the Ottoman army. Similarly, he believed that, as eternal wanderers, the Serbs presented a mortal danger to the Balkans because they were the leading instigators of plots, conspiracies and revolutions: “How often was state conflict and regicide carried out in a peripatetic impatient way!”, he exclaimed. What was worse was that their “migratory spirit” meant that many of them had now settled in Zagreb where they were sure to outbreed the Croats. In short, there were no limits to Serb ambitions and in order to avoid Serb domination, Bosnia should be annexed to Croatia as soon as possible.75 After the creation of the Yugoslav state in 1918, writers such as Pilar and Truhelka faded into relative obscurity and, in Pilar‟s case, his work remained of interest only to nationalist students. Pilar‟s views about the ensuing battle between the civilized West and the savage, primitive East endured. Throughout the existence of inter-war Yugoslavia, writers argued passionately about this subject. Some writers, such as Miloš Djurić, argued that Yugoslavia should endeavour to bring together the prime attributes associated with the West and the East, 76 whilst Milan Radeka wrote that Yugoslavs should simply rise above the paradigms of East and West and create a new, Yugoslav culture “as the only possible exit from the opposing ideologies of East and West in whose shackles we still languish”.77 Some Croatian writers actively embraced the East. The novelist Dinko Šimunović lauded the East for its primitiveness and “legends, poems and mysticism”.78 Others, such as Albert Haler, were undecided but remained convinced that there were no social or cultural distinctions between the East and the West.79 More commonly, however, inter-war Croatian nationalists persisted in adhering to Pilar‟s nineteenth-century view that Croatia‟s inclusion in a Yugoslav state represented not merely its subjugation to a Greater Serbia, but the victory of the values of the Balkan East over those of the European West. The most well known protagonist of the Croatian clash of culture theory was the nationalist intellectual and former professor of anthropology at the University of Zagreb, Milan Šufflay. In his writings, Šufflay was obsessed by the ideas of blood, soil and the white race, which he believed was under threat by the “yellow and Asiatic hordes”. Much like Pilar, he was influenced by the writings of Oswald Spengler and particularly his theory of the decline and degeneration of the West, which Pilar adapted to the situation in Yugoslavia. The idea that the Serbs and Croats were too different ever to live in the same state, let alone produce some kind of ethnic synthesis, was a characteristic motif of his writing. For him, Croats belonged to the civilized West and the Serbs to the East. In one fairly typical essay of 1922, he wrote that Croatian national feeling should listen to the voice of its blood and reject its Balkan alliance with the Serbs: The Croat name, the blood of Croatdom, does not mean simply a nation! Here the blood of Croatdom means civilization. Croatdom is a synonym for all that is beautiful and good that the European West created! (…) But in Dušan‟s empire, in which it now finds itself, it sees something that is worse than death, it sees the Balkanization of the Croat nation (...) If Dušan‟s empire were to become a federation, it would be a purely Balkan creation. In it Croatia would lose the very thing which the Croatian Party of Rights considers its best attribute and which Radić also considers its best attribute -- it would lose its instinct for western culture and for 80 humanity. However, Šufflay also believed that Croat nationalism was far superior to the nationalism of other nations. He argued, for example, that “Croatian nationalism represents something far more important than the nationalism of some borderless nation and is of far more worth to humanity than integral Yugoslavism”. While philosophers, with some justification, would maintain that nationalism was a negative force because it resulted in “the division of humanity and the halting of progress” and set humans against one other, as long as there remained “a fatal gulf between the medieval East and the West” – and therefore, by extension, between Europe and Asia - Croatian nationalism was to be applauded. Unlike other nationalisms, the Croat type was not simply a form of regional patriotism, but also distinguished itself as one of the strongest bulwarks of a Western civilization under threat. It meant “not only love towards the mother earth and the Croat homeland” but also “loyal service to the white West”.81 In 1931 Šufflay was assassinated by members of Young Yugoslavia, a nationalist youth group. His murder occasioned international condemnation and outrage from, amongst others, Albert Einstein and Heinrich Mann of the German League for the Rights of Man. Shortly afterwards, students from the Croatian University Club Association produced a pamphlet, How the Croatian Savant, Professor of University Dr. Milan Šufflay, was Murdered by the Serbian Royal Dictatorship, in which they appealed to European public opinion to recognize that the murder of Šufflay was the result of the endeavours to build an absolutist South Slav state in which the “European culture” of Croatia and the Croatians was to be replaced by Serbian suzerainty in which “orthodox, byzantine, oriental-asiatic and oldturc (sic) political and social traditions” had been subsumed into a system “not only contrary, but also odious to European culture”. The pamphlet explained that Šufflay, as a personality who had had a great impact on the direction of Croatian national affairs and had “understood better than anyone else the abyss which separates European culture from the balcaniabyzantine region”, had to be murdered. 82 By the late 1930s the situation between the Serbs and the Croats had deteriorated even further. Amongst Croatian nationalist scholars and writers, Truhelka‟s ideas about the Vlachian origin of Bosnian Serbs once again gained popularity as nationalists became ever more explicit about their desires for an independent Greater Croatia which would include Bosnia. The idea that the Serbs were the descendants of the Vlachs was a traditional Croatian nationalist myth which went back generations. This does not mean, however, that Serb and Yugoslav scientists and anthropologists did not recognize the existence of the Vlachs. For writers such as Vladimir Ćorović, the nomadic sheep-herding Vlachs, called Black Vlachs or Karovlachs or Morlachs, were absorbed into the Slav society in which they settled. While there were still traces of the Vlachs in Yugoslav place names, the term “Vlach” over time came to mean anyone involved in shepherding and looking after of livestock. 83 Others were not as certain such as Dušan Popović, an academic at the University of Belgrade. The publication of a controversial study about the Vlachs of central Serbia in 1937 appeared to confirm not only the negative personality and racial characteristics ascribed to the Vlachs, but also suggested that many of the current Serb rulers and influential personalities in the arts, military and politics were descendants of Vlachs and Cincars.84 Although Popović also made it clear that the Vlachs had many good qualities, some quarters were outraged by his book. Jovan Tomić of the Serbian Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts accused Popović of exaggeration. Popović replied with the publication of a second volume with new findings and a long list of Vlach families with illustrious members in Serbia. “They told me I am exaggerating „Cincarism‟. Here is my answer”, he declared testily. 85 One of the student signatories of the pamphlet protesting against the murder of Šufflay was a then student of law, Mladen Lorković, later a prominent member of the fascist Croatian party, the Ustasha Movement. In 1939, on the eve of the creation of a semi-independent Croatian Banovina, Lorković published a study of the Croatian lands and people, The Croatian Lands and Nation. The book reinforced many of the existing ideas concerning racial biology in Croatia. He wrote, for example, that the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia were the descendants of Vlachs and Cincars brought to the region by the Turkish army and converted to Orthodoxy by the Serbian Orthodox Church. However, he also alleged that many other supposed Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia were actually Croats who had been forcibly converted to Orthodoxy in Hercegovina after the fleeing of Catholic priests.86 Lorković‟s study was not alone in alleging that a large majority of Catholics converted to Orthodoxy with the arrival of the Ottomans in the sixteenth century. Krunoslav Draganović, a Catholic priest, had, two years earlier, published a study in which he alleged that Serbs had outbred Croats in Bosnia by their conversion to Orthodoxy via a “system of torture and persecution”. Orthodox priests in Bosnia, he explained, accompanied by “Vlach shepherds and frontier Morlochs” had taken “our living space”. The settlers, “Slav-Romanian- Albanian hybrids” were, he wrote of a “violent Dinaric type” and “dark nomadic Slav elements of a very alien blood”. 87 There were also accusations from other clerical writers that the Yugoslav government was deliberately trying to destroy the Catholic Croats demographically through a variety of means such as encouraging Catholic girls to marry Orthodox Serb soldiers garrisoned in Croatia and Bosnia; building Orthodox churches in the centre of Catholic areas; under-funding Catholic cultural and educational initiatives; the banning of Catholic youth organizations; and preventing the opening of new Catholic schools. 88 Other nationalist writers accused the Yugoslav government of using other methods such as military service, the white plague and the promotion of the concept of the modern family to prevent breeding and reduce the birth rate of the native Croat population. 89 As a corollary of this argument Lorković also argued that the Bosnian Muslims were the purest of Croatians, and Bosnia was a Croat land “by virtue of its ethnicity, people, its language, state regions and traditions”. For Lorković, the fact that in their history the Muslims and Catholics of Bosnia had fought each other was “the greatest tragedy of the Croatian past that had serious consequences which we are still coming to terms with, and while the Islamic and Christian Croats shed blood, part of their land was settled by non-Croat elements”. At the same time, the bravery with which Croats had fought for both Islam and Christianity showed that they were a strong race: “A people of weak blood, of polluted racial stock, of small lands and poor numbers would not have been able to demonstrate evidence of their life force and greatness in the way in which the Croats of the two faiths [Muslim and Catholic] did as they battled on opposite sides of the world barricades”90 Lorković also indicated that the Croats might be of Iranian descent mixed with Slav blood. He based this idea on the etymological origin of the word Hrvat (Croat). The author claimed that it was based on the Iranian word “Hu-urvatha” meaning “friend”. The Croat love of horses, which they shared with the Iranians and rather than the Slavs, was supposedly proof of the Iranian origin of the Croats. Bogumilism -- an heretical Christian sect in medieval Bosnia and Hercegovina said to have been practiced by many of those Bosnians that later converted to Islam -- was also, the author wrote, an Iranian sect. There also existed, he continued, many words in the Croat language of Iranian origin.91 However, Lorković‟s main concern was not the historical greatness of the Croats but rather their current demographic weakness in relation to the alien Serbs in regions that were historically Croat. Due to a combination of factors including the emigration of Croats and the exponential birth rate amongst Serbs, especially in Bosnia and Dalmatia, the very existence of the Croatian nation was threatened. 92 Lorković pointed out that there were more Croats living in the United States of America than in Dalmatia and Istria, and that twenty-four per cent of Croats lived outside of Croatia. Moreover, two-and-a-half million non-Croats lived in the heart of the Croat lands, with slightly less than two million Croats living elsewhere. This meant that the lands the Croats had considered for centuries to belong to them had now been surrendered to other nationalities, subsequently resulting in the “collapse of their biological strength”. To remedy this parlous situation, Lorković recommended the colonization of Croatia‟s borders in the east since this would help to create a culturally and ethnically united nation: the Croats, he wrote, could not protect the purity and strength of their nation if they were to give up a quarter of their national living space or, as Lorković put it, their “national organism”.93 Reviews of Lorković‟s book suggested that the themes of his book had struck a chord amongst nationalists. Dragutin Gjurić commented that the book rejected PanSlav romanticism and developed the idea of a race theory of the Croats as an original Iranian-Slav race with an independent history and the right to an independent state. Gjurić was especially keen to highlight how Lorković‟s book had discussed the problem of the cultural and ethnic unity of the Croats in the face of pressure from “foreign influences”. Although the strength of Croat national consciousness had enabled them to survive five centuries of Turkish rule, their precarious position on the border between East and West, under the rule of the Ottomans the Vlach element became entrenched in the region. He pointed out that “in the heart of Croatia, there are areas in which there do not exist even ten per cent Croats”. It was necessary to “return the Croat soil to the Croat people”.94 The contention that the Serbs of Bosnia and Croatia were a racially alien and unstable ethnic element endangering the cause of Croatdom, was an idea rooted in nineteenth-century Croatian nationalist ideology. This does not mean to say that Croatian nationalists were immune to the influence of contemporary political ideologies such as fascism and, above all, National Socialism in the articulation of their ideology. Nationalists such as Stjepan Buć, editor of the Croatian National Socialist Workers‟ Party newspaper, Nezavisnost, and the clerical writer, Kerubin Šegvić, for example, much to the amusement of certain branches of the state press, wrote books declaring that the Croats were not Slavs, but a people rather of Gothic and Nordic origin destined to rule the world. 95 With the fortieth anniversary of Starĉević‟s death in 1936, the separatist intelligentsia in Croatia took the opportunity to reassess his work. In a speech to university students in 1936 Buć, for example, reinvented Starĉević as a National Socialist. Analogous to Hitler‟s attitude towards the Jews, the father of Croatian nationalism had recognized that the Serbs were not only of “foreign blood” and “sick racial mongrels”, but that their degenerate behaviour was an expression of the “voice of their blood”. In order for Croatia to be liberated from these foreigners, thereby saving the nation from annihilation and extermination, the Croats would need to develop, first, “blood and race pride” and, second, build a future Croatian race on the basis of the finest “biological elements” of the nation. 96 A year later, Filip Lukas declared that the nation was a blood community rooted in spiritual and biological unity. He portrayed Starĉević as a warrior against the degeneracy, disease and decadence of urban life as represented by the Serbs, and a champion of the village as the source of the physical renewal of the nation. An opponent of the theory of the Slav origin of the Croats and an advocate of an ethnically pure Croatia, Starĉević comprehended the need to “compress from the biology of our race the conditions of our most necessary existence”. 97 Nevertheless, the hostility towards the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia implicit in Croatian racial theories in the 1920s and 1930s became more aggressive and threatening after the establishment of the Croatian Banovina in September 1939, when the Serb community, led by leading personalities of the Serbian Orthodox Church, began to demand regional autonomy. The idea provoked outrage amongst extreme nationalists especially because Bosnia had not been included in the Banovina. Thus when the Serbs of the Vukovar region demanded that they be allowed to join the majority Serb Dunavska Banovina, the leading nationalist newspaper in Croatia, The Croatian Nation, fumed that this was out of the question as, ethnologically-speaking, the area had always belonged to the Croats. It pointed ominously to many examples of the “resolution of the question of national minorities”, including the expulsion of the Greeks from Turkey.98 Other articles concentrated on the foreignness of the Serbs, either as colonialist settlers after the end of the Great War or as gypsy lackeys of the invading Turks. Despite what Serbs called themselves now and what erudite professors of history insisted that they were, the truth was, argued another article, they were what they had always been: “Turkish mercenaries”, “Morlochs”, a “Turkish horde” and an “émigré minority” who had been settled to “terrorize” the Catholic population. In the coming Croat state, these Vlachs would be afforded all the rights accorded to national minorities, “but this national minority would not call itself „Serb‟ but „Vlach‟ which in truth it is. Under the real name of Vlachs, they will receive all the rights of a national minority”. 99 Luka Grbić pointed out that, despite the treacherous nature of the Vlach-Serbs, who had always sided with Croatia‟s enemies, they had found themselves positions in the government of Vladko Maĉek in the Banovina where they, yet again, worked to the detriment of the Croatian nation. Since Croatia was an ethnically homogeneous state, the Serbs, like all other national minorities, should be happy with the rights accorded to them: “Whoever is not content with this, let him emigrate from the Croatian lands because the Croats did not invite them to come to their lands but, on the contrary, they arrived without their knowledge and against their wishes. They need to be grateful to the Croats who for suffered them and gave them bread and not dare to initiate antiCroatian propaganda intended for the exercise of power. The Croat nation will not allow foreigners to rule over them in their own house”.100 During the late 1930s Croatian nationalists intensified their efforts to persuade public opinion that the Muslims of Bosnia were in fact Croats and that Bosnia should be included in any future Croat state. They took their lead from racial anthropologists such as Truhelka who, unlike Pilar, had continued to publish his scientific findings in specialist journals. Truhelka was persistent in his assertion that the Bosnian Catholics and Muslims were racially different to the Greek-Eastern Orthodox ethnic group by virtue of the latter‟s dark hair.101 Nationalist students at the University of Zagreb continued to disseminate the idea that Muslims were in fact Croats. On 21 April 1939, as Vladko Maĉek, leader of the Croatian Peasant Party, and Dragiša Cvetković, the Yugoslav premier, met to negotiate the terms of the creation of an autonomous Croatia, nationalist student clubs in Zagreb led by Grga Ereš, Jusuf Okić and Muhamed Hadţijahić convened a conference to declare that Bosnia was a Croatian land and should be included in any future Croatian state.102 The resolution declared that a section of the inhabitants of Bosnia would fall under the power of “immigrant Serb elements”. In an effort to avoid pervasive Serbian influence, the declaration further stated that it would not allow Bosnia to be separated in the event of any agreement between Belgrade and Zagreb. The students insisted that the unity of Bosnia was essential to the liberation of the Croatian people and without it a Croat state was doomed to failure.103 For the students, the racial kinship of the Catholics and the Muslims was also important. They argued that the Muslims, the ethnically purest segment of Croatdom, and the Catholics were blood brothers and comprised a majority over the “immigrant Vlach-Greek Eastern or Serb elements”.104 Similar initiatives were also [expounded by other] Croatian nationalist youth groups -- their aim was to convince Muslim youths that they were in fact Croats. In 1938, a group of students calling themselves the Croatian Youth of Herceg-Bosnia began publishing a special journal, The Anthology of the Croatian Youth of Herceg-Bosnia, dedicated to the issue of Croatia‟s rightful claim to Bosnia and Hercegovina. In one article, the editor Munir Šahinović-Ekremov wrote that if the Bosnian Muslims were not Croats, then “Croat politics has no serious prospect of lasting establishment in this land”.105 However, he also wrote that Croat politicians were making great efforts to gain the allegiance of Muslims. Important circles of Croat society placed great stress on the Muslims as “a special and particularly important part of the Croatian nation”. Despite the work of nationalist intellectuals, journalists and politicians, the editor insisted that they needed to do more to reach out to the Muslims in order to underline the racial kinship of the Croats and Muslims. Despite Croatia‟s historical claims to Bosnia, the Muslims were also racially Croat and the claim to Bosnia was not merely historical but based on “racial-biological knowledge”.106 Other Croatian nationalist youths also advocated the concept of Bosnia as a Croatian land and the Muslims a Croat people. Halid Ĉausević, for example, writing in the pages of Plava Revija affirmed the view that the Serbs in Bosnia were “Cincars, Vlachs, Serbs, Black Vlachs and others” occupying Croat living space.107 In the same journal, though, H. Bošnjak complained that outside of a few metropolitan centres such as Tuzla, Sarajevo and Mostar, few Muslims believed that they were Croats and were not conscious of their Croat identity; for this he blamed the attitude of many Catholics to the Muslim population. Ĉausević argued that a new conscious young Muslim public worker freed of the modern vices of selfishness and corruption was needed to guide the majority of young Muslims in developing a greater Croat consciousness. Entering into public life as nationally conscious Croats, Muslim youths would gradually realize that they were indistinguishable from Croats “in racial characteristics, speech, culture, feelings and writings”. 108 By the late 1930s such ideas were not simply the currency of the nationalist intelligentsia or radical students, but were shared more widely across Croatian society. For example, like many on the right of the Croatian Peasant Party, Maĉek believed that most Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia were Vlachs; Muslims, by contrast, were the purest of Croats. Speaking in 1937, on the occasion of the visit of a delegation of Muslim peasants to Zagreb, he affirmed that Bosnia was part of the old Croat Kingdom and that Muslims were Croatian blood brothers. He urged Muslims to be loyal to Croatdom, proclaiming that “they carried in their souls Croatian national consciousness, imbibed with their mothers‟ milk”.109 By 1939 Croatia was an autonomous state in which such notions had become an integral part of political discourse. In the increasingly separatist atmosphere of the Banovina, the activities of extreme nationalist intelligentsia and political parties were tolerated and the promotion of fascist and National Socialist ideas encouraged while, at the same time, the government of the Banovina favoured harsh and repressive measures against Communist and left-wing groups, as well as minority groups within the nascent state. By 1940, government officials were reporting, with evident concern, that not only were nationalist and Ustasha sympathizers and followers infiltrating economic, social and cultural organizations in Croatia, but radical nationalist parties and organizations were becoming increasingly popular with the Croatian masses, especially among the peasantry and working classes, an assertion confirmed in the local elections that summer. In such a politically unstable climate, the government in the Banovina arrested leading nationalists and Ustasha activists within Croatia deemed as dangerous contenders for the leadership of the Croatian nation by prominent members of the Peasant Party. Simultaneously, however, the Peasant Party attempted to co-opt the nationalist message and lessen its appeal. In September 1940, the government in the Banovina organized a bicycle race through Bosnia. The aim of the event, which, according to the press, drew the attention and enthusiasm of the Croatian masses and coverage of the media, was to emphasize the ethnic belonging of Croatia and Bosnia and, particularly, the kinship between the Croatians and the Bosnian Muslims. Won by Nikola Penĉev of the Zagreb Sokol Cycling Club, the race, commented the leading Croatian daily newspaper, The Croatian Daily, was “of great propaganda importance” and a “manifestation of Croatdom”. The efforts of Serbophile local authorities and councils to sabotage the celebrations by placing nails on the path of the cyclists was a failure.110 In a nationalist semi-independent state in which Serbs were being treated as aggressive foreigners by many of the nationalist newspapers in Croatia, as well as, increasingly, being denied their elementary rights, it is small wonder that when the fascist Ustasha Movement came to power less than a year later, they found a receptive audience for their ideas about race and nation. Conclusion Croatian and Yugoslav theories of race were profoundly different and yet in many respects were inimical to one another. What the racial philosophy of romantic integral Yugoslavism wished to create, Croatian nationalism sought to destroy, conceptualizing a Yugoslav “nation” as an artificial, pseudo-scientific Trojan horse for Greater Serbia. In opposition to the creation of a new nation, Croatian nationalists sought the return of the mythical medieval Croatian kingdom, that meant a return to a period before “Vlachs” and “gypsies” polluted Croatian living space. Rather than rely on the modern concepts of racial science as propagated by state health and hygiene institutes, Croatian nationalist ethnography relied on the pioneering work and research of august individuals such as the professional anthropologist Truhelka and the amateur ethnographer, Pilar. For all the adoption of the rhetoric (and, in some cases, ideas) of the National Socialist racial biologically-determined understanding of nation and nationality, these men were arguably influenced far more by traditional nationalist stereotypes and arcane folklore than by the certainties of science. The academic reputations many of these men had earned in Habsburg Bosnia and Croatia provided their work with gravitas amongst acolytes. In other respects, Croatian and Yugoslav racial theories resembled each other more closely. For example, their embrace of the Bosnian Muslims and the belief that they were ethnic and racial “blood brothers” to some extent replicated the official Yugoslav slogan of brotherhood, harmony and the mixing of the races. Ultimately, however, the two ideologies differed significantly. While Yugoslav racial ideology far more openly embraced eugenicist and biological concepts of race, its ideas also reflected the utopian and ambitious vision of academics, scientists and intellectuals who believed that science and modernity could be used to create a synthetic Yugoslav nation from which all traces of tribal hatred and internecine struggle could be eradicated and replaced by a new Yugoslav person. Its enemy was not a particular ethnic or national group, but an idea. Its enemy was tribalism itself. By contrast, Croatian racial theory reflected the mindset of those who felt threatened, marginalized and powerless. Largely eschewing the advances of science, Croatian nationalist anthropologists, academics and amateur scientists believed that Croatia was endangered by alien and racially inferior foreigners whose very presence would result in the annihilation of the nation. Only an ethnically and racially pure Croatia could preserve national identity. The writing of Truhelka, Šufflay and Pilar was influenced by the belief that Serbs and Croats could not live together due to their disparate cultural practices and racial characteristics. Needless to say, the idea that the Croats emerged from a racially superior and more civilized culture did indeed dominate their writing. Ultimately, their ideas were far more dangerous than those of Yugoslavism since they were predicated on the demonization and to some extent the dehumanization of a specific ethnic community within Croatia. Šufflay, Truhelka and others did not create the fascist Ustasha Movement, far less the genocide which they committed. After all, their basic ideas were part of a wider nationalist consensus by 1941. However, their philosophies, as Mile Starĉević pointed out, directly inspired the racial notions of Croatian fascism. Their writing more importantly created an intellectual atmosphere in which genocide could be legitimated. Could the ultimate irony be that an eccentric group of nineteenth-century gentlemen scholars inspired a movement of Croatian barbarians? Endnotes: 1 Starĉević, Mile. “Krik izmuĉene hrvatske duše: uz hrvatski prievod Südlandova (Pilarova) „Juţnoslavenskog pitanja‟.” Hrvatska revija 17, no. 9, (September 1944): 457-71. 2 Puĉek, Ferdo. “Predgovor prevodioca” in Puĉek (ed.), Ivo Pilar, Juţnoslavenske pitanja: prikaz cjelokupnog pitanja, (Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1944), xi. 3 Ujević, Tin. “Futuristiĉki Beograd.” Novosti 2 September 1922. 4 Footman, David. Balkan Holiday (London: William Heinemann, 1935), 195. 5 Pozzi, Henri. Black Hand Over Europe Consisting of War is Coming Again (London: The Francis Mott Company, 1935), 53-54. 6 L., “Jugoslovenska ţena.” Nova Evropa 4, no. 1 (1 January 1922): 1-3; Jedan sveĉenik [i.e. A priest] . “Za slobode mišljenja u katol. Crkvi.” Jugoslovenska njiva 3, no. 29 (19 July 1919): 348-49; and Sveĉenik. “Apostazije katolickih sveĉenika.” Jugoslovenska njiva 3, no. 22 (31 May 1919): 461-62; Marković, Edo.“Moralno ozdravljenje našega društva.” Jugoslovenska njiva 3, no. 19 (10 May 1919): 296-98. 7 M.A. “Za reformu braćnog prava.” Jugoslovenska njiva 3: no. 23 (7 June 1919): 363-65. 8 Štampar, Andrija. “Seksualna pedagogika kao sredstvo u borbi protiv spolnih bolesti.” Jugoslovenska njiva 3, no. 14 (5 April 1919): 222-23. 9 Pribiĉević, Milan. “Naš idejal Jugoslavije.” Knjiţevni jug 3, no. 1 (1 January 1919): 1-2. 10 Vošnjak, Bogumil. Pobeda Jugoslavije (Belgrade: Sveslovenska knjiţara, 1929), 56. 11 Ivanić, Stevan Z. “Kuća na selu.” Glasnik centralnog higijenskog zavoda 17, no. 4 (July-August 1934): 145-54. 12 See Bićanić, Rudolf. Kako ţive narod? Ţivot u pasivnim krajevima (Zagreb:: Tipografija d.d., 1936). 13 Stanojević, Vladimir S. Higijena za sredne i stručne škole (Belgrade: Skerlić, 1927), 166-67. 14 Stanojević, Higijena za sredne i stručne škole), 166-76. 15 Stefanović, Vladimir S. “Za zdravstveno podizanje sela.” Jugoslovensko lekarsko društvo (8-10 September 1934): 3. 16 Stefanović, “Za zdravstveno podizanje sela,” 10. 17 Stanojević, Higijena za sredne i strućne škole, 166-76. 18 19 Stefanović, “Za zdravstveno podizanje sela,” 6. Stanojević, Vladimir S. Eugenika; higijena čovečeg začeča i problem nasledja (Belgrade: Ministarstva narodnog zdravlja, 1920), viii. 20 Stanojević, Eugenika, 149-51. 21 Stanojević, Eugenika, 123-24. 22 Stanojević, Eugenika, 154-55. 23 Stanojević, Eugenika, 155-56. 24 Vošnjak, Pobeda Jugoslavije, 103-4. 25 Cvjić, Jovan. “Osnovi jugoslovenske civilizacije.” Nova Evropa 7, no. 1 (1 November 1922): 212- 18. 26 Marjanović, Milan. Narod koji nastaje (Rijeka: Trbojević, 1913), 3-58. 27 Radošević, Mijo. “Etnobiološki problem” in Osnovi savremene Jugoslavije: političke ideje, stranke i Ljudi u xix i xx veku, ed. Radošević M. (Zagreb: Zadruţena štamparija, 1935), 613-14. 28 Zubović, J. “Jugoslovenski ĉovjek.” Nova Evropa 10, no. 6 (21 August 1924): 151, 153. 29 Zubović, “Jugoslovenski ĉovjek,” 152. 30 Stefanović, Svetislav. “Rasna higijena, abortus i zaštita matere.” Evgenika 1, no. 5 (December 1935): 1. 31 Stefanović, “Rasna higijena, abortus i zaštita matere,” 7 32 Stefanović, “Rasna higijena, abortus i zaštita matere,” 7. 33 As cited in Nenad Petrović, “Arijevci sa Balkana.” Duga, 18 May 1996, 95. 34 Dvorniković, Vladimir. Karakterologija Jugoslovena (Belgrade: Kosmos, 1939), 608. 35 Dvorniković, Karakterologija Jugoslovena, 514. 36 Cvjić, Jovan. “Studies in Yugoslav Psychology.” Slavonic and East European Review 9, no. 26 (December 1930): 378-84. 37 Dvorniković, Karakterologija Jugoslovena, 208, 295-96. 38 Dvorniković, Karakterologija Jugoslovena, 797. 39 Dvorniković, Karakterologija Jugoslovena, 768. 40 Maleš, Branimir. “Nekoliko napomena o dinarskoj rasi.” Socijalno-medicinski pregled 7: 2 (April- June 1936): 1-7. 41 Maleš, “Nekoliko napomena,” 3. 42 Maleš, Branimir. “O Dinardirima svetle kompleksija.” Glasnik centralnog higijenskog zavoda 17, no. 4 (July-August 1934): 136-44. 43 Stefanović, “Za zdravstveno podizanje sela,” 3. 44 Branimir Maleš, “Menarha sela i varoši – utiĉaj socijalnih prilika.” Glasnik centralnog higijenskog zavoda, 8: 16, August 1933, 25-28. 45 See, for example, Filipović, Milenko S. “Visoĉka cigani.” Etnobiološka biblioteka 16 (1932): 1-20; Golo brdo: belješke o naseljima, poreklu i stanovništva narodnim ţivotom i običajima (Skoplje: Juţna Srbija, 1940) and “Severna velješka sela.” Srpski ethnografski zbornik, 51: 1, 1935, 489-573; Popović, Dušan. O cincarima: prilozi pitanju postanka našeg gradjanskog društva (Belgrade: Drag. Gregorić, 1937). , 46 Aškerc, Anton. “Na Kale-Mejdanu” in Antologija savremene jugoslovenske lirike, eds. Deanović Mirko and Ante Petrović (Split: Knjiznica Vinko Jurić, 1922), 70. 47 Miĉić, Ljubomir. “Karategorici imperative zenistiĉke pesniĉke škole.” Zenit 13, no. 2 (April 1922). 48 Mićić, Ljubomir. Kola za spasavanje: zenističke barberogenija u 30 cinova (Belgrade/Zagreb: Zenit, 1922), 3, 5. 49 Miĉić, Ljubomir, “Papija i monopol: hrvatska kultura.” Zenit 3, no. 24 (May 1923): 1-2. 50 Miĉić, Ljubomir. “Delo Zenitizma.” Zenit 1, no. 8 (15 October 1921): 2. 51 Tokin, Boško. “Izloţba jugoslavenskih umetnika u Parizu.” Plamen 1, no. 13 (1919): 25; and “Sedam posleratnih godina naše knjiţevnosti.” Ljetopis Matice Srpske 38, no. 3 (December 1928): 380. 52 Drainac, Rade. “Program Hipniza.” Hipnos 1 (1922): 2-3. 53 Vujić, Vladimir. “Vidovdanska razmišljanja o kulturi: naša tragiĉnost.” Narodna odbrana 24, no. 7 (July 1929): 452. 54 Vujić, Vladimir. “O ljudima i zapada i o nama” in Sputena i oslobodjenja misao: ogledi (Belgrade: Geca Kon, 1931), 162-63. 55 Vujić, “O ljudima i zapada i nama,” 167. 56 Vujić, “O ljudima i zapada i nama,” 166. 57 As cited in Petrović, “Izgubljena mladost Evrope.” Duga, 1 June 1996, 96. 58 Velmar-Janković, Vladimir. Pogled s Kalmegdana: ogled o beogradskom čoveku (Belgrade: Gregorić, 1938). 59 As cited in Petrović, “Arijevci sa Balkana,” 96. 60 See, for example, Starĉević, Ante. Pasmina Slavosrbska po Hervatskoj (Zagreb: Lav Hartmann i druţba, 1876); and “Ime Serb” in Starĉević, Djela Dr Ante Starčević (Zagreb: Antun Scholz, 1894), vol. 2, 61 Starĉević, Ante. Nekoliko uspomene (Zagreb: Narodna tiskara, 1870), 342. 62 See, for example, “Izjave.” Hrvatsko pravo (2 September 1902). 63 Radić, Stjepan. Ţivo pravo na Bosnu i Hercegovinu (Zagreb: Puĉka seljaĉka stranka, 1908), 29-59. 64 Radić, Ţivo pravo na Bosnu i Hercegovinu, 29-59. 65 Truhelka, Ćiro. Hrvatska Bosna: (Mi i oni tamo) (Sarajevo: Hrvatski dnevnik, 1907), 2-6. 66 Truhelka, Hrvatska Bosna, 12-13. 67 Truhelka, Hrvatska Bosna, 16. 68 Truhelka, Hrvatska Bosna, 20-21. 69 Truhelka, Hrvatska Bosna, 52-53. 70 Truhelka, Hrvatska Bosna, 27-29. 71 Ćorović, Vladimir. Crna knjiga: patnje Srba Bosne i Hercegovine za vreme svetskog rata, 1914-1918 (Sarajevo: Dj. Djurdjević, 1920), 27-51. 72 Ćorović, Crna knjiga, 27-51. 73 Ćorović, Crna knjiga, 52-82; Slijepĉević, Pero. “Bosna i Hercegovina u svjetskom ratu” in Napor Bosne i Hercegovine za oslobodjenja i ujedijenje ed. Slijepĉević (Belgrade: Narodna odbrana, 1929), 219-77. 74 Südland, L.V. Die südslawische Frage und das Weltkrieg: Übersichtliche Darstellung des gesamt Problems (Vienna: Manzschen k.u.k Hof Verlags und universitäts Buchhandlung in Wien, 1918), 14856, 289-96. 75 Südland, Die südslawische Frage, 357-50. 76 Djurić, Miloš. Slovenskim vidicima: prilozi filozofiji slovenske kulture (Belgrade: Drţavna stamparija, 1928), 65. 77 Radeka, Milan. “Istok i zapad u nama.” Javnost 2, no. 32 (8 August 1936): 700-3. 78 Radica, Bogdan. “Kod Dinka Šimunovića.” Hrvatska revija 2, no. 6 (June 1929): 438-41. 79 Haler, Albert. “Istok u zapad.” Nova Evropa 20, no. 5 (26 August 1929): 129-32. 80 Šufflay, Milan. Hrvatska u svijetlu svjetske historije i politike (Zagreb: Merkantile, 1928), 28-29. 81 Šufflay, Hrvatska u svijetlu svjetske historije i politike, 37-41. 82 Lorković, Mladen. Branimir Jelić. Vilko Peĉnikar. Josip Milković, Ante Valenta and Ivan Košutić (eds.), “Appeal of the Croatian Academicians to the World of Civilation” in How the Croatian Savant, Professor of University Dr. Milan Šufflay, was Murdered by the Serbian Royal Dictatorship (Zagreb: Croatian University Academic Association, 1931), 4-5. 83 Ćorović, Vladimir. “Vlasi i mavrovlasi” in Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenačka ed. Stanojević St. vol. 4 (Zagreb: Bibliografski zavod D.D., 1929), 1113-34. 84 Popović, O Cincarima, 12-15, 26, 30-35, 270-83, 300-07. 85 Popović, O Cincarima, 313-480. 86 Lorković, Mladen. Narod i zemlja Hrvata (Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1939), 67-73. 87 Draganović, Krunoslav. Massenübertritte von katoliken zur “orthodoxie” in kroatischen Sprachgebiet zür Zeit der Turkenherrschaft (Rome: Pontifiscom institutom orientalism studorium, 1937), 7-8, 69. 88 Guberina, Ivo. “La formazione cattolica della Croazia” reprinted in Anonymous, Croazia sacra (Rome: Tipografija Agostiana, 1943), 23-31. 89 M.S. [Mile Starĉević?] “Srpski apetit.” Nezavisna Hrvatska Drţava (24 December 1938). 90 Lorković, Narod i zemlja Hrvata, 37-47. 91 Lorković, Narod i zemlja Hrvata, 3-37. 92 Lorković, Narod i zemlja Hrvata, 159-65. 93 Lorković, Narod i zemlja Hrvata, 106-10, 219-32. 94 Gjurić, Dragutin. “Ţivotni problemi hrvatske nacije.” Hrvatska revija 13, no. 3 (March 1940): 153- 56. 95 See, for example, Šegvić, Kerubin. Die gotische Abstammung der Kroaten (Berlin: No Publisher, 1936), Buć, Stjepan. Naši sluţbeni povjesničari i pitanje podrijetla Hrvata (jedno predavanje iz god. 1940) (Zagreb: Hrvatski drţavni tiskarski zavod, 1941); and “K. Šegvić kao „gotski‟ Hrvat.” Javnost 5, no. 2 (5 September 1936): 36, 787. 96 Buć, Stjepan. Temeljne misli nauke Dra. Ante Starčevića: predavanje odrţano dne 15 veljače 1936 hrvatskoj sveučilišnoj omladini (Zagreb: Danica, 1936), 25-31. 97 Lukas, Filip. Dr Ante Starčević: govor prof. Filip Lukas odrţano na komemoraciji prigodom 41- godišnjice starčevićeve smrti u dvoranu hrvatskog glazbenog zavoda, dne 28 veljače 1937 (Jastrebarsko: Ivan Lesnik, 1937), 6-7, 17-19, 24-27. 98 “Zahtjevi nekih dosljenika vukovarskog kotara.” Hrvatski narod (17 December 1939). 99 M.O. “Vlasi i ne Srbi.” Nezavisna Hrvatska Drţava (1 June 1940). 100 “Još o Srbo-Cincaro-Vlasima.” Nezavisna Hrvatska Drţava (4 November 1939). 101 Truhelka, Ćiro. “O podrietlu bosanskih Muslimana.” Hrvatska smotra 7, no. 7-10 (July-August, 1934): 249-257. 102 “Ne damo Bosnu!” Nezavisna Hrvatska Drţava (3 June 1939). 103 “Ne damo Bosnu!” Nezavisna Hrvatska Drţava (3 June 1939). 104 “Ne damo Bosnu!” Nezavisna Hrvatska Drţava (3 June 1939). 105 Šahinović-Ekremov, Munir. “Bosansko-hercegovaĉki muslimani kao komponeta hrvatske drţavnosti” in Sbornik hrvatske omladine Herceg-Bosne, ed. Šahinović-Ekremov, 1938, 49. 106 Šahinović-Ekremov, “Muslimani u prošlosti i budućnosti hrvatstva” in Sbornik hrvatske omladine Herceg-Bosne, 27-40. 107 Ĉausević, Halid. “Herceg-Bosna i mi.” Plava revija 1, no. 2 (October 1940): 42-43. 108 Bošnjak, H. “Nacionalna izgradnja Muslimana i muslimanka omladina.” Plava revija 1, no. 1 (September 1940): 27-30. 109 Maĉek, Vladko. “Govor predsjednika Vladka Maĉeka hrvatskim seljacima muslimanske vjera prilikom njihovog posjeta Zagrebu, kao glavnom gradu svih Hrvata,” (1937) cited in Djilas, Aleksa. The Contested Country: Yugoslav Unity and Communist Revolution, 1919-1953 (Massachusetts, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991), 234. 110 “Bicklisti su krenuli.” Hrvatski dnevnik (21 September 1940); “Veliki športski uspjeha.” Hrvatski dnevnik (21 September 1940); and “Velik propagandi znaĉaj.” Hrvatski dnevnik (28 September 1940). ]