Istraživanja – Journal of Historical Researches
Primary tabs
Istraživanja – Journal of Historical Researches is dedicated to publishing the best academic ideas regarding all aspects of socio-political processes and events primarily in the region of Central and South East Europe, as well as the Eastern Mediterranean. However, the geographical focus is not strict since the studies of all phenomena and processes which occur elsewhere but are relevant for mentioned geographical area are welcomed. Since the University of Novi Sad is located in the part of the world where different civilizations, cultures, religions and peoples have met and intertwined for millennia, Istraživanja especially emphasizes the critical research of the impact and significance of these mutual interactions and entanglements. The Journal greatly values an interdisciplinary approach, which is why it publishes not only the papers that study “typical” political history, but also works which critically analyze social and cultural life in the past (material culture, political thought, literature, religion, etc.) and come from the fields of archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, art history and classical studies. However, Istraživanja - Journal of Historical Researches does not publish "rough" unanalyzed materials, field, questionnaires and interviews reports, pure linguistic analyses or any kind of contributions limited to bare reproduction of data and uncritical synthesis of previous scholarship.
ISSN: 0350-2112
eISSN: 2406-1131
UDC: 94(082)
COBISS.SR-ID: 17763584
doi: 10.19090/i
Published by: University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Philosophy, Journal website
Pages
-
- ПРОТОКОЛ О ИЗРУЧЕЊУ РАТНИХ ЗЛОЧИНАЦА ИЗМЕЂУ ДЕМОКРАТСКЕ ФЕДЕРАТИВНЕ ЈУГОСЛАВИЈЕ И МАЂАРСКЕ, ИЗ НОВЕМБРА 1945. ГОДИНЕ
- The issue of the research, finding war criminals for the crimes committed by Hungarian invaders in the territory of Yugoslavia, especially in Backa, in January 1942, had burdened relations between the two countries since the fall 1944. However, only at the end of the following year, this issue raised to the interstate level, i.e. a decision of Anti-Hitler coalition started to be implemented, which prescribed that the war crimes would be tried in the countries where they had been committed. The text explains important documents which authenticate that the Ministries of DFY and Hungary were willing to cooperate, especially concerning the activities on the eve of the upcoming Peace Conference.
-
- ПРОТОКОЛ СЕДНИЦЕ ДРЖАВНОГ САВЕТА ОД 12/24. ОКТОБРА 1855. ПРИЛОГ ИСТРАЖИВАЊУ ЖЕЛЕЗНИЧКЕ ПОЛИТИКЕ УСТАВОБРАНИТЕЉА
- Frameworks of the new transport policy of Porta after the Crimean War, which was formulated in September 1855 with the emphasis on the construction of the Trans-Balkans railways Istanbul-Belgrade, imposed the necessity of specifying the state policy of the Ottoman vassal Principality of Serbia, and clear formulation of attitudes toward Porta’s intentions aimed at disruption of its autonomous rights. The meeting of the National Council from 12/24. October 1855 was an important point in the definition of the long-term concept of the national strategy regarding the positioning of Serbia and its interests in the context of the current railway project, determining the framework of the state policy over the next two decades.
-
- ПРУГА БЕОГРАД–БАР 1952–1976 ИСТОРИЈА ФИНАНСИРАЊА НАЈВЕЋЕГ ИНФРАСТРУКТУРНОГ ПРОЈЕКТА У СОЦИЈАЛИСТИЧКОЈ ЈУГОСЛАВИЈИ
- After 25 years of uncertainty and ups and downs, Belgrade-Bar railway was finished and officially opened to traffic on 28 May 1976. There was officially completed the last big federal project in Yugoslavia. What do the results of this research tell us about the history of financing the construction of the railroad Belgrade-Bar? First of all, it strikes to the line that the railway cost much more than it could be concluded from the literature. The construction did not cost 210, i.e. 300 million USD, but about 449.6 million USD. Furthermore, there were additional costs made after opening of the railway, since it was not fully completed (e.g. it was necessary to electrify a route from Titovo Uzice to Bar), which was not calculated in this paper. The budget presented in this paper was not fully accurate either, but in any case it was much more accurate than all the previous calculations based on different sources. Information from daily newspapers and professional journals were more than sufficient to demonstrate and confirm trends that emerged in relation to financing of the BB railway construction. A tendency, which was very clear, was that the costs of the railway construction were much higher than it had been previously planned. Another, equally important tendency was that the Federal Republic of Serbia and SR Montenegro invested much more in the railway than it was expected. Even if the new research proved that the railway did not cost 449.6 million USD, but 480 or 420 million USD, the two above-mentioned tendencies would remain unchanged. A fact that the construction costs were much higher at the end of the line than it was planned was not unusual for the socialist countries, when it came to the construction of such huge projects. However, the fact that the Federal Republic of Serbia and SR Montenegro invested much more in the railway than the Federal Government was a very interesting finding, especially because the scientific papers and news reports about the BB railway presented a completely different picture and totally different impression. This finding automatically opened another question – namely, whether the construction of the BB railway after 1971 was a Yugoslav Federal project at all, or, in fact, it was a project of SR Serbia and the Federal Republic of Montenegro? The purpose of federal projects in Yugoslavia after The Second World War was to support with the common means of financing only those projects which were important for the economy of entire Yugoslavia. In any case, Belgrade-Bar railway was such a project, since its construction was important for the entire Yugoslav economy. Representatives of all the Republics agreed in this regard, and no one questioned it. Accordingly, there was no doubt that the BB railway was the federal project at the beginning. However, construction of the BB railway was also the largest and the most expensive federal project, and the Yugoslav economy in the fifties and sixties was simply not strong enough to provide sufficient resources to finish the railway and open it to traffic. Finally, SR Serbia and SR Montenegro had to take almost two-thirds of the total construction costs. Therefore it was very difficult and problematic to characterize the construction of the railroad Belgrade-Bar as a federal project. In any case, it could be said that the construction of the railroad Belgrade-Bar, which started as a federal project in 1952 was completed as a project of SR Serbia and SR Montenegro in 1976. On the other hand, without help of the other republics sent to the Federal Republic of Montenegro in critical moments after 1972, it would not be possible to finish the railroad. Taking into account this fact, the construction of the railroad Belgrade-Bar could be seen as a joint success of all six republics. That the construction of the railway made sense, especially from the economic point of view, was proved by the development of traffic on this line after 1976. During 1977, only 3,198 tons of goods were transported on the BB railway, because the railway had not been electrified yet in its whole length, and the port of Bar was not fully completed. However, already in 1981, 5,827 million tons of cargo and 3,387 million passengers were transported on the railway, what made it profitable. After that, more passengers and goods were transported every year, thus in 1985, there were transported 6,9 million tons of cargo and 4,8 million passengers. Only after the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1991, the railway was no longer profitable. It also raised the question why the construction of the BB railway was so challenged in SR Croatia and SR Slovenia after 1965, if more than two-thirds of the construction costs were borne by SR Serbia and SR Montenegro? I think there were several reasons for that, and none of them was directly related to the BB railway. An important reason was certainly that the BB railroad was the last federal project, and also it was the only federal project after 1971. Therefore, it was reminiscent of the time and the system before 1971. The primary aim of criticism coming from SR Croatia and SR Slovenia was not to question the purpose of construction of the BB railway, but to permanently abolish federal projects as a form of investment. It means that challenging of the BB railway was more politically than economically motivated. Another reason was that after 1971 the republics had to finance the construction of the railway BB through Montenegro by loans, unwillingly, and often under strong political pressure. The construction of the Port in Bar should not be forgotten, since it was financed at the same time by the loans of the Federal State and the other republics. The very fact that the republics had to finance any project outside the republic after January 1, 1971 was far more important than the amount of funds which should be allocated. According to my opinion, it was exactly the main cause of dissatisfaction and negative attitudes of the other republics towards the Belgrade-Bar railway.
-
- РАТ ЈЕ ОТАЦ СВЕГА
- Athens „goldenes Zeitalter“ verkörpert aus unserer modern Sicht eine Epoche der Größe und Blüte in Kultur und Humanismus. Dafür zeugen uns der Parthenon, Phidias’ Skulpturen, Sophokles’ Tragödien, Aristophanes’ Komödien, Thukydides’ Geschichtswerk und die Anfänge sokratischer Philosophie. Die Zeitgenossen dagegen verbanden „Größe“ offenbar nur selten mit kulturellern Leistungen, sonder sahen sie als Resultat bemerkenswerter kriegerischer Erfolge, präzedenzloser Macht und Herrschaft und grenzenloser Freiheit, errungen von Bürgern, die aufgrund einer tief-prägenden bürgerlichen Ideologie ihre Pflicht in der Wahrung und Vergrößerung der militärischen und politischen Macht ihrer Gemeinde sahen. Athen war das erste griechischen Staatswesen, das ein Seereich geschaffen und das Prinzip der Demokratie so weit verwirklicht hatte, wie es damals überhaupt denkbar war. Herrschaft nach außen und Demokratie im Innern bedingten sich gegenseitig. Das Engagement der Bürger in ihrer Gemeinde war einmalig in der Weltgeschichte; das Maß an Macht und Freiheit, das sie genossen, blieb danach während mehr als zwei Jahrtausenden unerreichbar. Aber ausgehungert und erschöpft war dieses selbe Athen fünfundzwanzig Jahre nach Perikles’ Tod gezwungen, der Krieg verloren zu geben und wäre beinahe zerstört worden. Dieser Beitrag lotet die Spannungen und Widersprüche aus, die in Athens Kriegs-, Herrschafts- und Freiheits-Politik und deren ideologischer Untermauerung und engen Verbindungen zur Demokratie liegen – Themen, die zeitlose Bedeutung haben und unsere eigene Zeit besonders ansprechen.
-
- РАТОВИ И СТАНОВНИШТВО УГАРСКЕ 1521-1718.
- Due to the disintegration of the state, the decline of economic and social conditions, and above all large demographic losses, the epoch of Ottoman rule (15411718) in certain parts of the Kingdom of Hungary has been considered as the worst period in the history of Hungary and Magyars.In the mentioned period 21 wars were waged on the territory of Hungary (Habsburg - Ottoman, Transylvanian - Ottoman, Habsburg - Hungarian). Despite the natural growth of the population and large-scale immigration from Balkans, as a result of the above mentioned conflicts, the number of Hungary's population had stagnated for more than one and a half centuries. In contrast, the average growth of European population in the same period was close to 60%. Due to the heavy wartime destructions, the network of settlements has radically been thinned and structurally modified. As a significant result of the permanent war conditions and the massive immigration, the proportion of Magyars in the ethnic composition of the country's population had fallen from 75-80% to 50%. The main result of this process was the emergence of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multicultural society, which has provoked the change in character of the state, as well the problems that have appeared in this multi-ethnic society in the age of nationalism.
-
- РЕФОРМА СРПСКОГ ШКОЛСТВА У ХАБЗБУРШКОЈ МОНАРХИЈИ 1769−1777
- Results of the reforms in the seventies of the eighteenth century, which were implemented by the will of Vienna throughout the Habsburg monarchy, were that the education system went under the supervision of the state, and the school was secularized to a great extent. This was the case with the Serbian primary schools as well, which were reformed between 1769 and 1777, what made a good basis for expanding the school network and improving the instruction. Implementation of these measures was entrusted to the school principals, Teodor Janković Mirjevski, Stefan Vujanovski and Avram Mrazović, in which they had a lot of success. Unlike the rest of the Monarchy, the church supported the school reform in Serbs with its considerable influence. However, the secularization in the educational process in Serbs was implemented more decisive and deeper than in other nations.
-
- РОПСТВО КАО ПОРОК У БЕСЕДАМА ДИОНА ИЗ ПРУСЕ
- Slavery is, and certainly will remain to be, a grand topic for historians of both ancient and modern world. One of the more important Greek writers of imperial era, Dio of Prusa (Chrysostomos) treats this topic comparatively often: three of his discourses specifically examine what the slavery really is, while in some of the others (the famous 7th among them) the topic features prominently. This paper examines only one of many aspects of Dio's treatment of slavery and attempts to clarify the following issue: does Dio actually condemn the institution of slavery and slave ownership and if so, are there any further, real life consequences of this view? A careful examination of the Dio's text leads to disappointing answers: no and no. It cannot be denied that Dio has a fair amount of understanding and sympathy for marginal groups of the Graeco–Roman world; if anything, the long stretch of time he spent in exile and poverty forced him to bind with such people. This understanding includes slaves as well: on several places in his speeches, Dio acknowledges that slaves are human beings and should be treated as such. His attitude on slavery, however, never goes any further then that. There are bad masters and useless slaves, but the institution of slavery as such is not good or bad, it simply exists and it is common. In the hands of a corrupted individual slavery can lead to vice, but it is not a vice by itself. While sometimes sympathizing with slaves, Dio remains to be a member of the educated and wealthy elite to whom distinctions between Greeks and barbarians, citizens and non–citizens, and free and slaves are of the highest importance. The comparatively mild attitude towards poor and slaves was not altogether unknown or strange in his day. It should be noted, however, that such attitude never translated itself into the denial of slavery or the social and political activism of any kind.
-
- РУСИНСКО НАРОДНО ПРОСВЕТНО ДРУШТВО И РЕЦЕПЦИЈА О ПОТКАРПАТСКОЈ РУСИЈИ/КАРПАТСКОЈ УКРАЈИНИ У ЊЕГОВИМ ИЗДАЊИМА 1938–1939. ГОДИНЕ
- According to the Peace Treaty signed in Saint Germain in 1919, Czechoslovakia was under the obligation to give autonomy to the Subcarpathian Rus’, but it was only after signing the Munich Agreement in 1938 that the essential autonomy was achieved . The first Ministerial Office (the Cabinet of ministers) of the Subcarpathian Rus’ was formed in October of 1938. The Ruthenian National Educational Association in its editions carefully monitored the situation in Czedhoslovakia, that is in the Subcarpathian Rus’. The Ruthenian Newspaper (Ruski novini) published the news, comments and additions on the events in the Subcarpathian Rus’, which, on one hand, gave the Yugoslav Ruthenians enough information on the political, cultural, national and economical circumstances in their old homeland. On the other hand, the revival and strengthening of the Ukrainian national idea in the Subcarpathian Rus’/Carpathian Ukraine induced the strengthening of the national consciousness of the Yugoslav Ruthenians who started giving help to the refugees who came to Ruski Kerestur from the Carpathian Ukraine after its collapse in the March of 1939.
-
- СИРМИЈУМ И ЋИРИЛОМЕТОДИЈАНСКО НАСЛЕЂЕ
- The paper looks at the issue of the seat of Methodius's Pannonian Archdiocese. In the opinion of a number of scientists, the seat of the archdiocese was located in the city of Sirmium, i.e. modern day Sremska Mitrovica. Based on rather scarce narrative, diplomatic, and archaeological sources, the author concludes that the seat of the archdiocese could not have been in Sremska Mitrovica. The paper presents the conclusion that any church organisation that was likely to have existed in the territory of Srem, now and then, was more likely to have been in connection to the church organisation of the Bulgarian state than it would represent a remnant of the abandoned Methodius's Pannonian Archdiocese.
-
- СИРОМАШТВО И ФРАЊЕВАЧКИ РЕД У ЈУГОИСТОЧНОЈ ЕВРОПИ
- The founders of the Franciscan order prescribed complete, absolute poverty for their followers through norms that regulated their way of life. Regulations included the prohibition of possession of personal property and acquisition of resources for living through begging. In southeastern Europe, Hungary and within the Balkan Peninsula, the regulation could not be applied because of inadequate circulation of money. Thus, rulers and feudal lords gave them small land holdings, so that they possessed serfs, led property and inheritance disputes, subsequently turning into the ruling landowning class, with all the consequences of the status. Such deformation of the Franciscan rule of poverty in southeastern Europe astonished contemporaries from developed urban areas of the Mediterranean and Western Europe. This phenomenon, however, with the consent of the supreme ecclesiastical and secular authorities survived until well into the twentieth century.
-
- СПОЉНА ПОЛИТИКА РУСИЈЕ ОД КРИМСКОГ РАТА ДО ПОЧЕТКА ВЕЛИКЕ ИСТОЧНЕ КРИЗЕ (1856–1875)
- The evolution of the foreign policy of Russia after the Crimean war was conditioned by the necessity to reform the country, as well as by changed circumstances in the international relations. Russia had to ‘have a break after the lost war in order to implement internal reforms’. At the same time, Russia had to find a way out of ‘dangerous and degrading position’ to which it was brought by the Paris Peace Treaty. It was necessary to took the country out of international isolation, which it faced before the anti-Russian, ‘Crimean coalition’ of the European countries. Russian diplomacy managed to implement its tasks in Europe primarily through rapprochement with France, and when this proved unsuccessful, it reproached Prussia. The first step in the rapprochement with Prussia was made at the time of the uprising in Poland in 1863, and in 1871, after the defeat of France, Russia used the right moment and diplomatic means, with the support of Prussia, to change Articles of the Paris Treaty which had limited its rights in the Black Sea. This success was also ‘purchased’ with high price, by agreeing to the unification of Germany under Prussian leadership, what substantially changed situation in Europe, and thus the position of Russia as well. After that, there were raised issues related to the Western borders of the country, and there was emerged a need to find new allies to ensure the country's position in the international relations. Primarily, the way out was found in the rapprochement with Germany and Austria-Hungary, in the form of the Union of Three Emperors. However, this ‘consultative pact’ of conservative countries proved to be insufficiently stable, due to the contradiction of interests among its members in Europe and the Balkans.
-
- СПОЉНА ПОЛИТИКА РУСИЈЕ ОД КРИМСКОГ РАТА ДО ПОЧЕТКА ВЕЛИКЕ ИСТОЧНЕ КРИЗЕ (1856–1875)
- The evolution of the foreign policy of Russia after the Crimean war was conditioned by the necessity to reform the country, as well as by changed circumstances in the international relations. Russia had to ‘have a break after the lost war in order to implement internal reforms’. At the same time, Russia had to find a way out of ‘dangerous and degrading position’ to which it was brought by the Paris Peace Treaty. It was necessary to took the country out of international isolation, which it faced before the anti-Russian, ‘Crimean coalition’ of the European countries. Russian diplomacy managed to implement its tasks in Europe primarily through rapprochement with France, and when this proved unsuccessful, it reproached Prussia. The first step in the rapprochement with Prussia was made at the time of the uprising in Poland in 1863, and in 1871, after the defeat of France, Russia used the right moment and diplomatic means, with the support of Prussia, to change Articles of the Paris Treaty which had limited its rights in the Black Sea. This success was also ‘purchased’ with high price, by agreeing to the unification of Germany under Prussian leadership, what substantially changed situation in Europe, and thus the position of Russia as well. After that, there were raised issues related to the Western borders of the country, and there was emerged a need to find new allies to ensure the country's position in the international relations. Primarily, the way out was found in the rapprochement with Germany and Austria-Hungary, in the form of the Union of Three Emperors. However, this ‘consultative pact’ of conservative countries proved to be insufficiently stable, due to the contradiction of interests among its members in Europe and the Balkans.