FORMER CROATIAN PRESIDENT: Only a Blind Man Can Deny Genocide Against Serbs, State Enables “Resurgence of Ustašism”!

“If there were several organized concentration camps, if entire villages were massacred, entire areas cleansed, and if, in addition, the deputy leader of the Ustaša movement, Mile Budak, issued a political decree: ‘kill a third, displace a third, convert a third,’ if that is not genocide, I don’t know what is,” says Stjepan Mesić, former President of the Republic of Croatia (2000–2010).

The Republic of Croatia is quietly and timidly marking the 80th anniversary of its liberation from fascist and Ustaša forces. In an interview with the Serbian newspaper in Croatia, Novosti, Mesić sharply criticizes the passivity of the state leadership in relation to anti-fascist values and attempts at historical revisionism coming from right-wing circles, reports Nova.rs.

He speaks about how Croatia remains silent about the victories of the Partisans and the role of the National Liberation Struggle (NOB), while myths about the Ustaša and HOS are nurtured. The education system, he claims, offers children dangerous relativization: while Pavelić is portrayed neutrally or even affirmatively, Tito is exclusively associated with crimes.

He warns that silence about the ideological orientation of the present-day state leaves room for the resurgence of Ustašism. He particularly highlights the problematic nature of HOS, a private army founded on the model of the Ustaša forces, and the tolerant relations towards them in contemporary politics – even more aggressive than during Tuđman’s time, whom he claims never accepted the Ustaša salute “Za dom spremni” (For homeland ready).

Mesić also criticizes the education system, which offers children textbooks in which Pavelić and Tito are presented as historical figures without a clear value context. He also expresses disgust at the popularity of performers who sing Ustaša songs and glorify camps like Jasenovac and Stara Gradiška.

Speaking about the state of anti-fascism in Europe, he emphasizes that the role of the Soviet Union in the liberation of Europe is increasingly being denied. He mentions the falsification of history, such as when he reads that the USA liberated Czechoslovakia.

Concealment of Crimes

He pays particular attention to the forgetting of Ustaša crimes in Jasenovac, Jadovno, Sisak, Jastrebarsko, and other camps. He criticizes attempts to equate Bleiburg and Jasenovac, considering it a shameless revision of history. He claims that only 13 enemy soldiers died in Bleiburg during the breakthrough, while Jasenovac was a camp of the most brutal killings.

“In Jasenovac, in front of the Stone Flower, in that ominous and agonizing silence, it must be known, it must be loudly stated what the ideological orientation of the present-day state is. Were the Ustaša good guys after all? Or were they not? Which nations and why suffered in Jasenovac? Official speeches in Jasenovac would be a reflection of our culture of remembrance, our confrontation with ourselves, our civilizational path. After laying a wreath, state representatives must show in their own words where we as a society are today, especially given today’s dangerous social phenomena of neo-Ustašism, when young people do not hesitate to walk the streets of Split calling on Hitler’s allies ‘come on, Ustaša!’ or loudly, massively shout the Ustaša salute in Imotski,” says Mesić.

He accuses the authorities of consciously concealing the Holocaust and genocide against Serbs.

“Only a blind man can deny genocide against Serbs,” says Mesić.

He also speaks about the war of the 1990s, acknowledging the necessity of military actions, but emphasizing that crimes against Serbian civilians should not have happened, that the return of Serbs was hindered, not supported, and that sincere moves for reconciliation were absent.

During his presidential term, he gave speeches in Jasenovac and criticizes their abolition. He emphasizes the need for the state to clearly define itself – whether the Ustaša were heroes or criminals.

He speaks about the devastating situation: Ustaša slogans on the streets, mass concerts of singers who promote Ustaša ideology, the demolition of Partisan monuments, the equation of Budak and Nazor…

He warns that contemporary Croatia is formally anti-fascist, but that this is violated in practice. The left-wing opposition, in his opinion, is too quiet and lost, separated from its base.

Regarding the wars of the 1990s, he says that they had to be fought, but not with crimes. He criticizes the killings of Serbian civilians after Operation Storm and believes that Croatia is responsible for the insufficient reintegration of Serbs and messages that did not inspire confidence. He also reveals details of conversations from the Presidency of the SFRY in which Serbia, according to him, sought the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not Croatia.

“The Serb rebellion in Croatia should not have happened. The policy at the time had to take into account all the political and social movements in Europe, in Yugoslavia. When delegations of Serbs from Croatia came to the Presidency in Belgrade, I asked Bora Jović what Serbia wanted from them: the territory of Croatia or the Serbian population, what? Jović told me ‘come on, Serbs from Croatia, we are not interested in Croatian territory, but 63 percent of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was Serbian, which is Serbian, and which should remain Serbian,'” said Mesić.

Did Official Zagreb Do Enough to Prevent the Serb Rebellion in Croatia?

Stjepan Mesić believes that Croatia did not do enough to prevent the outbreak of the Serb population’s rebellion. He states that even at that time, people in black uniforms were marching in Croatian cities, Serbs were losing their jobs and apartments, and in places like Vukovar, they began to disappear. Later, crimes followed in Gospić, Pakračka Poljana, and other places. All of this, combined with painful memories of Jasenovac and the nationalist rhetoric that was spreading, created an atmosphere in which war was practically inevitable.

Mesić emphasizes that messages from Zagreb at the time did not inspire confidence in Serbs, and that the masses reacted accordingly. In his opinion, the real goal of both Milošević and Tuđman was an agreement on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not the protection of national interests in Croatia. He reveals that Tuđman once told him that he “does not understand historical forces” when he opposed the idea of dividing a neighboring, internationally recognized state. That is when, he says, their political differences began.

FIND OUT MORE IN ENGLISH:

Return of Serbs After “Operation Storm”

Mesić claims that the return of Serbs to Croatia was not formally prohibited, but it was practically – stopped. There was an insincere policy: in public, it was said that return was supported, but in practice, villages remained empty and the property of former residents was appropriated. He says that there was no genuine interest of the authorities for Serbs to return, but actions were taken to seize their houses and land. Even today, according to him, voices can be heard in the Parliament that blame Serbs for everything, while individuals derive personal gain from it – “as soon as someone is a Serb, they are automatically labeled a Chetnik.”

One of the most important decisions he made as President of Croatia, Mesić emphasizes, was the retirement of generals – which at the time caused a great social shock, but was crucial for the democratization of society after Tuđman’s death. At that time, Prime Minister Ivica Račan also complained that he should have “sat down with the generals,” but Mesić was adamant that this was not an option – and believes he was right.

When asked if there is anyone in Croatian politics today who would have the strength to make such a brave decision, Mesić replies that it could possibly be Zoran Milanović, but only if he really wanted to.

He considers the opposition weak and timid, and the current government responsible for spreading a neo-Ustaša atmosphere.

In the end, he says that he has no right to offer false optimism, but that he has a duty to call things by their real names, no matter how unpopular it may be.

“I know that there will be those who will not like such an approach. I am especially thinking of those who would like to be considered my critics, and who are actually nothing more than pathetic scarecrows, bearers and spreaders of hatred,” says Mesić.