--Jean-Paul Sartre

A Memory Explored

         The park itself is a lovely tangle of wooded areas and winding, narrow walking- paths that impulsively open up into clearings. And more often than not, the clearing is dominated by one or more monuments, some reveling in their new, white glow, and others shrinking to ground in their relative dilapidation. Memorial Park, a two-acre expanse dedicated solely to the memory of the victims of the 1941 massacre at Kragujevac, lies on the edge of the city and hosts a large three-story museum on its western perimeter. The museum stands at the entrance to the park like a sentinel, guarding the stone monuments and the memory of the fallen within. There is a billboard-sized map near the museum outlining the layout of the park, directing visitors to the various monuments and park facilities: the library, the hotel, and the lecture hall.²⁶ The more prominent monuments are drawn in miniature in their proper places. The grounds have a tousled look about them, as if the park is a popular attraction during the warmer seasons. I arrived on a beautiful spring day, early in March 1998. The grounds and the museum were both practically deserted. I found one sleepy attendant sitting just inside the entrance to the museum. He was rather displeased at my arrival, as he had intended to close up early due to the lack of visitors. However, after I had explained my business in my best Serbian, his Balkan sense of hospitality came out. He was amused at my attempt to use Serbian and that broke the ice. He gave me a guided tour of the museum and managed to find me a brochure, which was no easy feat considering the fact that my visit was in the off-off season. Thus began my excursion to Kragujevac's Memorial Park.

         Kragujevac October, 1941 is a thin brochure, complete with color photographs of all the major monuments in the two-acre park. It contains a brief synopsis of the events in October 1941 and it also offers biographical information about some of the victims. The cover is graced with a photo of the most famous and poignant of all the monuments: Monument to the Dead Schoolchildren.²⁷ This statue is a very large stone reproduction of the Roman numeral five. It is commonly accepted that the Roman numeral symbolizes both victory and the grade of the class to which most of the child-victims belonged. Every year, on October 21, "The Great School Class," a musical and artistic extravaganza, is held in the area surrounding this monument.²⁸ This is only one of many public events that take place at Memorial Park in Kragujevac each year. Other monuments throughout the park are titled One Hundred for One, Against Evil, Stone Sleeper, and Monument of Pain and Defiance.²⁹ The monuments characterize various aspects of the massacre. Some, like One-Hundred for One, are fierce and embody outrage at such a bestial crime. The ire is of course expressed in the monument itself: layer upon layer of dead rise high up into the sky on a thick pedestal. Monument of Friendship explores a different set of emotions evoked by the tragedy.³⁰ It reflects the sentimental nostalgia that must accompany such a tragedy. Other monuments, Monument of Pain and Defiance, for example, commemorate the agony and grief the massacre spawned in those who fell in at Kragujevac, in those who carried on during the war in the shadow of Kragujevac, and in those who visit Kragujevac years later to remember.

         It is interesting that a monument was erected to pain and defiance. "Defiance" is the usual element. The park stands in memorial to a massacre of massive proportions that was directly triggered by defiance. The very trigger of the massacre, excluding German complicity, is thus being commemorated. There is reason to memorialize the fallen, but it seems that those who commissioned the monument feel the need to justify their actions. Are the Partisans perhaps a little defensive about their role in the Kragujevac tragedy and the Second World War in general? Objectivity becomes very difficult, as many of the facts have been obscured by Tito's interpretation of historical events during the war. The perspective and interpretation that have survived in the historical consciousness of the Serbian people are those of Tito and the Partisans. Schoolbooks, television programs, museums, monuments, all of these things serve first to shape and, later, to proliferate, a certain historical consciousness. The process at work is best defined by one popular cliche: History is written by the victors. A world of wisdom exists in that simple sentence. In this situation, conflict is at issue. When conflict occurs among people and a battle ensues, there is always a winner and a loser, even if the status is relative. There are always two (or three or four...) sides to every story and the "victor" will pick the "version" that is passed on to future generations. The victor will be, of course, tempted by the desire to justify all of his doubtful acts; thus, history with a distinct slant is handed down as absolute fact.

         Such instances permeate our modern-day society to such an extent that we are barely aware of the slanted point of view being presented to us. Few people have the time to think critically about everything that touches our senses. We assume that CNN is adhering to the most important and rudimentary rule of journalism: just present the facts will minimal commentary. Tito and his supporters commissioned Memorial Park, and the erected monuments were carefully planned and considered. Which emotions in particular did Tito want to evoke in his public? How did he want them to remember Kragujevac? Of course such devastating loss of life must be lamented, but, Tito asks himself, is it possible to lament and defend the Partisan image at the same time? The monuments, inscriptions, and museum presentation all lead the discriminating person to the following conclusion: Tito decided to highlight the struggle at Kragujevac to remind the public of the anger and noble intentions that motivated the Partisans. Memorial Park was most certainly meant to glorify and protect the Partisan image, even as it simultaneously offered a forum for the understandable grief felt by many visitors, testified to the barbarity and danger the resistance movement faced, and promoted historical awareness of the massacre. Memorial Park is a tribute to the fallen innocent, but its alter-agenda is to remind the public under whose banner so many died: Tito's hindsight, as demonstrated by numerous displays, quotes and arrangements throughout the park and the museum, would have us believe that the victims at Kragujevac were indeed innocent victims but they were also victims under a Communist, or Partisan, banner. Of course, this does not imply that all the victims were Communists, but those who were Communists are certainly showcased in the museum. The tragedy of the children is also understandably prominent in Memorial Park; their tragedy is beyond political affiliation, but it does effectively demonstrate the depths of German hostility and bestiality during World War Two and it reminds the visiting public quietly that no matter the cost, the Partisan activities were absolutely necessary to halt the German war machine.

         In essence, the post-war Communist movement, directed by Tito, adopted the tragic memory associated with the Kragujevac massacre, and while preserving the integrity of the tribute, it orchestrated a memorial that would claim some of the martyrdom of the victims as its own. The same is true of many other monuments that were erected under Tito's watchful eye. Is it a malicious attempt to distort the truth of the matter? It is meant to manipulate extensively public historical consciousness? It is fostered by the desire to taint the historical interpretation of a given event, here the Kragujevac tragedy?

         I assert that the Communists followed a strict, subtle program regarding the interpretation of the history of the entire Second World War, and Memorial Park is an excellent example of this. It was a program meant to protect their image, to complement and further their power. Naturally, very few governments want to undermine their own image, historical or contemporary. The crucial points in determining the extent of the affect of the government's program are the scale and the severity of the manipulation. In post-World War Two Yugoslavia, every possible step was taken by the victorious Communists to stamp out controversy and possible unflattering speculation about Partisan conduct during the war. Due to the civil war and the conflict with Croatia during the German occupation, such measures were necessary to retain bratstvo and jedinstvo, or brotherhood and unity. Kragujevac, as a popular site for public events, offers the perfect stage for Partisan revisionism.

         Toward the end of the war, Tito was still in the process of convincing the Allied powers to relinquish their support of the royal government, which had spent the war in England lobbying to insure their return to power after the war. Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt were naturally suspicious of Tito as a Communist. The balance of Allied power was definitely in Tito's favor with the Allied decision to support the Communists with supplies, but it was clear that England would reevaluate the situation after the conclusion of the war. At the urging of the English government, the king agreed to a coalition with Tito in July 1944. Essentially, the "coalition" was a victory for Tito, as all of his demands were met and the resolutions he had drawn up with other Communists throughout the war were upheld. The relationship between the two factions was redefined in a series of agreements between Tito and Prime Minister Subasic, the Prime Minister of the royal government. These negotiations extended into 1945, and Tito, who pragmatically held no real interest in sharing power with the king, astutely sidestepped any responsibility to the royal government and managed to draw up a government, with himself as Prime Minister, in which the royalists had minimal representation. The culminating point was reached when the Provisional Government of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was established on March 7, 1945.

         In post-war Yugoslavia, it was not only advisable for the Communists to keep a tight leash on dissent regarding their wartime activities; it was necessary for their political survival. Thus Tito had sufficient motivation to pursue a subtle campaign of "damage control" regarding Partisan wartime activities, and it is a certain fact that Tito's consolidation of power was anything but peaceful. On the political front, Tito executed his enemies, sometimes with little more than a show-trial, as in the case of his archrival in the civil war, Draza Mihailovic. On the public-relations front, Tito demurely and almost indiscernibly manipulated public opinion one public display at a time. Kragujevac had its turn as the doors to Memorial Park opened. The process of manipulation itself is a passive process, but the political motivation behind it is definable and concrete. Each monument, museum, and street sign was carefully rationalized to glorify the Partisan efforts. A selection of interpretations exists for any given historical event, and one must be chosen for posterity. The Partisans chose the most flattering. Millions of people visited Kragujevac, a majority of them Yugoslavs, and the impression with which they walked away was certainly grief at the human tragedy, but it was grief filtered through the protective, though very subtle, veil of Titoism.

         Thus, as time wore on, and objective memories faded, the people of Serbia were constantly reminded in subtle ways of the Partisan victory. The value of the Partisan war effort would be repeatedly emphasized so that the masses would be properly grateful and docile. The Partisans won the war, they would be the entity to celebrate victory and mourn the cost, dutifully, at sites like Kragujevac. It is a strange mixture of defiance, and defensiveness of that defiance, with pain and a-political, human tragedy. The struggle against the Germans cost lives but in Partisan ideology, the end justifies the means. The Chetniks would have had reason to commemorate suffering and struggling, both of which they certainly endured, but with their conservatism and caution in the struggle against the Germans, I doubt Memorial Park would have the same character if the Chetniks had won the civil war. There would be a slant, simply a different one.

         Monument of Pain and Defiance is a graceful stone piece, with the unnatural and anguished postures of the miserable. A serene and peaceful flower garden is situated directly behind it. The message is clear: "We, as Partisans, suffered deeply, as did the victims of the Kragujevac massacre, but our fight was not in vain, we were victorious and now we have peace. Let us celebrate our victory, but never let us forget our pain." Dutifully, there is expression of pain, but the element of "advertisement" is again present. There is no plaque or inscription, as so many other pieces have. In its Spartan simplicity, this statue speaks very loudly. The statue is, from an apolitical point of view, an appropriate memorial to a deeply disturbing and sad event, and if one looks a little deeper into the presentation, it is also an excellent example of party-line history.