The normalization of Ustasha symbols is not only historically wrong, but socially dangerous. Marches against fascism are not a provocation, but a necessary response to the increase in violence and the normalization of neo-Ustasha symbolism. Those who claim that “there is no fascism in Croatia” are actually preventing social reaction and thus deepening the crisis of values, says the historian, professor and co-author of the only banned history textbook in Croatia.
The ghosts of the past marked the year 2025. Croatian society is largely wandering the corridors of the infamous Independent State of Croatia, and is building its future by forming young people prone to violence, which we are witnessing more and more often. We talked with historian Miljenko Hajdarović about historical facts that are increasingly giving way to dangerous revisionism and negationism.
Malo Google reklame:
After a series of manifestations of neo-Ustashism, bans on cultural events, violence based on ethnicity, marches United Against Fascism are being held in several cities on Sunday. In polarized Croatia, certain circles interpret that there is no fascism, that patriotism is considered fascism, and marches are considered a provocation, so the police should ban the march with the accompanying communist iconography. Two extremes – does it look like a pathology?
Today’s polarization is not a “pluralism of opinions”, but a consequence of a lack of historical and civic literacy. In Croatia, the Second World War is still an unresolved identity conflict, and revisionism and negationism dangerously relativize the character of the Independent State of Croatia as a fascist and racial regime and diminish the suffering of the victims. Anti-fascism is not the ideology of one side, but the foundation of modern Europe and the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia.
Marches against fascism are not a provocation, but a necessary response to the increase in violence and the normalization of neo-Ustasha symbolism. Those who claim that “there is no fascism in Croatia” are actually preventing social reaction and thus deepening the crisis of values. At such a moment, it is a duty to speak clearly about the facts and defend universal democratic values.
To repeat the historical facts: why can’t the Ustasha salute ZDS have a double connotation, why is the open invocation of the Independent State of Croatia and the Ustasha on the streets and stadiums of Split and Zagreb neo-Ustasha?
The salute “For Homeland Ready” does not have a “double connotation” because it is historically undoubtedly related exclusively to the Ustasha movement and the fascist regime of the NDH. It was the official salute of a regime that enforced racial laws, mass murders and organized death camps. This is confirmed by historiography, international law and case law in Croatia. That is why its use in public is not “patriotism” or “fan passion”, but a form of neo-Ustashism, i.e. An open affirmation of the ideology responsible for the crimes.
Shouting Ustasha slogans in the streets and stadiums incites hatred towards minorities, undermines democratic values and directly violates the legal provisions on the prohibition of totalitarian symbolism. The normalization of such symbols is not only historically wrong, but also socially dangerous.
Still, many will claim that ZDS is a Croatian salute from the Homeland War?
We cannot talk about the “Croatian salute” from the Homeland War when it is completely clear that it was used by only one paramilitary unit, whose existence was even banned at the end of 1991. It was banned by President Franjo Tudjman because of the international damage to the reputation of Croatia, which at the time longed for recognition. The leaders of the then HSP openly and repeatedly repeated that the source of their ideology and everything related to the HOS was based on the Ustasha.
Do you think that there is room for general historical facts to reach the consciousness of citizens who today glorify the Ustasha salute and do not see anything controversial in the singing of Ustasha vigils in Bogovićeva Street? Dalija Orešković calls on citizens to boycott Marko Perković Thompson.
There is always room for change, but it is not spontaneous, it requires quality education, clear public action of institutions and consistent application of the law. On the one hand, I have to thank Dalija Orešković for her perseverance in the messages she sends, but even more I have to criticize the silence of many other politicians. Calling for a boycott of concerts that promote such an ideology is a legitimate form of civic action.
In a democracy, it is quite justified to choose what we support with our money and presence, especially when it comes to content that spreads hatred and insults victims. A boycott is a non-violent, civilized way of defending social values, not an attempt at censorship. Ultimately, it is not a question of musical taste, but of respect for human lives destroyed in the name of the same symbolism that is being tried to rebrand today as “patriotism”.
What will our contemporaneity, with all the elements of nationalism and neo-Ustasha phenomena, look like from a certain temporal and historical distance, in some three decades?
Historical distance often reveals what we are trying to cover up in the present with emotional or political interpretations. If the current trend of nationalism, revisionism and normalization of neo-Ustasha symbolism is viewed through an objective historiographical lens, in a few decades it will clearly be seen as a reaction of a society that has failed to resolve its fundamental conflicts with the past.
Contemporary phenomena of hatred and violence will be analyzed as a symptom of weak institutions, lack of quality education policy and political opportunism that abused emotions. Historians of the future will see this period as a time in which democratic values were tested and in which it was decided whether society would move towards openness and pluralism or towards closure and fear. The big question is what the political position of the HDZ will be in the future, because it largely depends on it whether the period of the nineties will finally open up for a more serious and critically based discussion.
ZDS does not have a “double connotation” because it is historically tied exclusively to the Ustasha movement and the fascist regime of the NDH. It was the official salute of a regime that enforced racial laws, mass murders and organized death camps
When you say that, most Croatian political parties would immediately rise up, in the sense of what should be controversial in the nineties when they were as clean as tears?
No, the current reluctance to public analysis of that period is quite evident, from the issue of war crimes, privatization and relations towards minorities to the formulation of memory policies. Space is being created for the mythologization and politicization of history. If there is a change in political dynamics, there is a real possibility that the research of that period will become freer, and society more mature to face its own heritage.
Such a process is not revanchism, but a necessary prerequisite for building trust, the rule of law and a democratic culture that can withstand the truth. In other words, the perspective is not predetermined. It will depend on whether we are brave enough to defend the truth, victims and human dignity today. If not, future historiography will describe this era as a lost opportunity.
But today’s perspective is that Croatian society and politics have the need to trample not only on anti-fascist achievements, but also on reverence for the victims of the Second World War, as evidenced by the shameful round table on Jasenovac that was held in the Parliament?
The round table in the Croatian Parliament that openly relativized the character of the Jasenovac camp was not just an isolated incident, but a symptom of a deeper problem in which state institutions are used to legitimize revisionist narratives. When the highest body of legislative power gives space to deniers of historically confirmed facts, it is a message that neo-Ustasha interpretations are considered socially acceptable. This not only strikes at anti-fascist values, but also humiliates the dignity of victims and survivors and undermines the fundamental ethical principles on which any modern democracy is based.
Revisionism, and now the negation.Jasenovacare becoming more and more accepted by the people.
Jasenovac is historically documented as a death camp where thousands of Serbs, Jews, Roma and political opponents were killed. This is evidenced by archival documents of the Independent State of Croatia, testimonies of survivors, international research and court verdicts. Attempts to relativize this crime or present it as a “labor camp” are not a scientific treatise, but a form of negationism.
When such content is promoted from the Parliament, a very dangerous message is sent: that it is socially acceptable to attack the historical truth and insult the victims. This opens up space for violence, hatred and further erosion of democratic values. Instead of being a defender of pluralism and dialogue, the Parliament has become a megaphone of extremism with this act, and this is the strongest proof of how susceptible institutions are to political opportunism instead of moral responsibility.
The Church often takes an opportunistic position: it speaks clearly when it comes to topics that it considers ideologically a priority, but remains silent or restrained when it comes to neo-Ustasha concepts, hate speech and political violence. Silence in such moments is not neutral. It becomes a form of tacit support and encouragement for extremism
Recently, MP Nino Raspudić claimed that “Croatia did not win in 1945” and that “Winston Churchill won, as a true anti-fascist”. What would have happened if Tudjman had advocated such a position in 1991?
The statement that “Croatia did not win in 1945” is historically unfounded and politically manipulative. That in 1991. Tudjman advocated an attitude similar to the one we hear today from Raspudić, it is unlikely that Croatia would ever gain international recognition. Western diplomacy would not support a project based on a reinterpretation of the NDH, but would see it as a threat to stability in the region. Without a clearly expressed anti-fascist identity, Croatia would very likely be isolated, and the question is whether it would even establish itself within today’s borders.
Ironically, in 1991, none of today’s vocal critics of anti-fascism dared to present such theses, at that time it was politically opportunistic to refer to Tudjman’s partisan legitimacy and victory over fascism. Courage seems to be a relative term: it grows in proportion to the distance from real historical risks and decreases the closer it gets to personal responsibility.
And the competition of who is the bigger “anti-communist” has become a special political discipline?
Today, a part of the right-wing political options has built their entire identity on the rhetoric of “anti-communism”, but not through serious and reasoned criticism of communist crimes and totalitarianism, but through an attack on anti-fascism as a civilizational value, thus relativizing fascism and rehabilitating Ustasha symbolism.
Instead of addressing the real problems of transitional justice, corruption, or social inequalities, they instrumentalize history to create simple enemies and mobilize the electorate. The paradox is obvious: it is difficult to be a convincing anti-communist and at the same time ignore or justify fascist ideologies. That is why such a policy belongs more to the field of propaganda than to serious public debate.
Raspudić stated that “there are no stories that Croatia is founded on anti-fascism, that the foundation is the Banovina of Croatia”. He forgot the Pragmatic Sanction, we are only missing the Habsburg Monarchy and Maria Theresa?
When politicians pull out certain historical fragments, such as the Banovina of Croatia or any other episode, and turn them into the mythological foundations of statehood, they are not dealing with historiography but with propaganda. The short-lived Banovina of Croatia in 1939 was the result of a compromise within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, without sovereignty, without control over the army, finances or state policy.
It is dangerous to selectively select episodes from history in order to support contemporary political narratives. Contemporary Croatia was created on the basis of the constitutional order, international recognition in 1991 and anti-fascist legitimation. Everything else belongs to the space of political legends – attractive for rhetoric and social networks, but completely untenable in scientific analysis. I hope that Raspudić understands this and that he consciously uses manipulation for personal gain. Otherwise, he must take courses in contemporary history at the faculty where he works.
Two years ago, one of the first bans in this nationalist wave took place, the ban on your history textbook.
The ban on my textbook two years ago was the first signal of a broader trend in which political power intervenes in educational content when it does not correspond to the dominant narrative. The most devastating element of this process is not the decision itself, but the silence of the professional community.
At the moment when the textbook was removed without a reasoned academic discussion, and on the basis of a half-hearted and methodologically inadequate opinion, there was no public defense of the basic professional standards of the historical profession and teaching autonomy.
So, politics determines how we learn history?
What the textbook was accused of were not factual errors, but its multiperspectivism, i.e. an attempt to encourage students to think critically. This is exactly what made him politically undesirable. When history is approached as a dogma rather than a scientific discipline open to questions, sources and arguments become dangerous, and interpretation is replaced by propaganda.
In the end, the ban on textbooks was an example of a classic political dictate: the government used institutional levers of pressure, found instruments in the education system and sent a clear message to teachers and authors – self-censorship is desirable, and research courage is punishable. If society responds to this with silence, the consequence is not only the impoverishment of education, but also a step towards a model in which history is not taught, but prescribed.
More and more young people are behaving violently. It is easiest to list education as the sole culprit. In the era of social networks, the current political climate and the unwillingness of institutions to deal with unconstitutional phenomena, can education itself be the culprit?
Schools operate within a wider environment shaped by political discourse, media, social networks, family dynamics, economic circumstances and public institutions. If violence, hate speech and unconstitutional messages go unpunished in this environment, a message is implicitly sent to young people that such behavior is socially acceptable.
In the atmosphere of tolerance towards chauvinism and the normalization of neo-Ustasha symbolism, young people learn from examples, and not primarily from the example of school, but from the example of society. Violence becomes legitimate when politicians relativize the crimes of the Independent State of Croatia, when Ustasha iconography is labeled as “folklore”, when the media encourage polarization, and institutions avoid consistent application of the law. Then the school remains a lone voice trying to build values of respect and equality, while the rest of the public space sends completely opposite signals.
One of the important pillars of Croatian society and an inevitable link in education is the Catholic Church. Do you have a responsibility for her?
In our social dynamics, the responsibility of the Catholic Church is particularly important, as it has a strong influence on the formation of moral attitudes and conservative identity in Croatia. Although moral authority should be the first to condemn chauvinism, violence and the manipulation of history, the Church often takes an opportunistic position: it clearly speaks out when it comes to topics it considers ideologically prioritised, but remains silent or restrained when it comes to neo-Ustasha concepts, hate speech and political violence.
Silence in such moments is not neutral. It becomes a form of tacit support and encouragement for extremism. Only when politics, institutions, the media, the judiciary and the Church take their share of responsibility and clearly set boundaries, will education be able to realize its real potential in building a democratic society. Children learn from what they see, not from what we tell them. And what they see today is not encouraging.
SOURCE: Arbutina, P. (2025). Miljenko Hajdarović: Ustaštvo na ulicama podriva demokraciju. Novosti. URL: https://www.portalnovosti.com/miljenko-hajdarovic-ustastvo-na-ulicama-podriva-demokraciju/
