Unwanted Cultural Heritage of the Republics of the Former Yugoslavia

Abstract

The subject of this paper is the systematic destruction and the current state of monuments to the national liberation struggle in the former Yugoslavia. The aim of the paper is to point out the fact that after the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in 1990, in all republics, to a greater or lesser extent, deliberate neglect or targeted destruction of cultural heritage created in the period between 1945–1990. Monuments erected to commemorate the anti-fascist struggle in the Second World War are desecrated, neglected or demolished. For the purposes of this article, the secondary data sources have been used, including information available on the Internet, daily newspapers, as well as in the relevant literature on. The method of qualitative data analysis was applied. In addition to the above, the paper will use relevant examples on the topic of destruction of monuments. The politicization, revision and mythologizing of history in our time is particularly expressed in the way we treat cultural heritage. There are positive examples of restoration of demolished monuments from that period, but for now it is still not enough.

1. Introduction

The Second World War, as the most massive loss, is marked by examples of terrible suffering and unimaginable destruction of humanity. After the end of that terrible war, numerous monuments were erected all over the world in order to remember that dark period of human civilization, but also as a warning to the generations to come, so that something similar does not happen again. Monuments are silent witnesses of the time in which they were created, they provide us with knowledge about customs, culture, religion, wars, etc.

And yet, some authors [1] ask the question what to do with architectural heritage that has strong symbolic connotations? Is it acceptable that we guard the camps that others have formed, but not the mausoleums that they have erected? Where is the limit? Is morality its sole arbiter? Should the new government demolish in Spain the Valley of the Fallen where Franco is buried, in Bulgaria the mausoleum of Georgy Dimitrov, in Berlin Hitler’s bunker which today is located under the parking lot in the very center of the city, marked only by a small sign? Or is it taken for granted that we should selectively take care of unwanted heritage? Who is to decide that?

Not far from Weimar, there was an oak tree under which Goethe (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) liked to sit and talk about literature with his friend Eckermann, a tree in whose canopy “one feels great and free.” In 1937, that forest was cleared to build a concentration camp. But unlike the life that no law could protect, Goethe’s oak was preserved by a special Law on the Protection of Nature, which was passed by the Nazi regime. For the Germans and the prisoners, the oak tree had completely opposite meanings. While the “SS” believed that by preserving it they were preserving the image of Germany as a protector of the highest heritage values, until then it was a symbol of “life” in the concentration camp for the inmates.

For example, in the Polish forests there are the remains of Hitler’s infamous “Wolf’s Den”. The hermetically sealed and well-guarded complex was most likely built in 1940 on about two and a half square kilometers. That fortress was supposed to be impregnable, with about 50 bunkers, 70 barracks, two airports, a railway station and anti-aircraft defense systems. After the Second World War, the locals were supplied with construction materials here, and tourists started coming in 1959—when the mines were removed. It is now an attractive tourist destination. After a private investor invested 1.6 million euros in 2012, since 2017 the “Wolf’s Lair” has been under state administration, and about 300,000 visitors come every year [2].

Ancient places represent an example of the existence of our collective culture. Baghdad’s famed “House of Wisdom,” the city’s first university, was deliberately demolished when Genghis Khan invaded Baghdad in 1258. Islamic State militants ransacked the central museum of Mosul, destroying priceless artefacts dating back thousands of years [3].

Recently, we have witnessed a new “popular” movement of memory cultures in former colonial countries: the demolition and performative destruction of monuments that celebrate the memories of colonialism, as well as the racist political order and ideology.

A statue of Thomas Jefferson (Figure 1) was removed from New York City Hall because of his involvement in the slave trade. After the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, there were new demands to remove the monument. His statue is an identical replica of the bronze sculpture by Pierre-Jean David D’Angers that is on exhibit at the US Capitol and has been there since 1915. It will now be transferred to the New York Historical Society. Similar monuments have recently come under fire from anti-racism demonstrations, and several statues of Jefferson, particularly those in Georgia and Oregon, have already been taken down or destroyed. Statues of Confederate commanders from the American Civil War were also demolished [4].

Figure 1.

Statue of Thomas Jefferson (left) and workers removed statue (right). Source: https://www.novosti.rs/planeta/svet/1058696/tomas-dzeferson-njujork.

In Italy, a debate was recently launched at the national level about the fascist monuments erected throughout the country. Experts say that some are wondering if the monuments of those who promoted racist ideas should be destroyed.

Many monuments from the period of the Soviet regime were destroyed or removed in the 1990s, and some countries decided to deal more actively with them. In 2015, a “decommunization” law was passed in Ukraine, which made it possible to remove from the public sphere works of art with communist symbols. In addition, communist monuments are a frequent target of vandals in Ukraine, as happened to the monument in Lviv dedicated to all the heroes of the Second World War. Grutaš Park is a place in the southwest of Lithuania where most of the monuments from the communist era are located. After declaring independence in 1990, Lithuania removed all statues of leaders and other communist figures. After a heated parliamentary debate, most of them were placed in designated shelters, but a large number of them were destroyed completely. In 2007, the authorities in Estonia removed from the center of Tallinn a monument to a Soviet soldier who, with his head bowed, mourns the death of a soldier during the conflict with the Nazis.

The peoples of Yugoslavia knew how to repay those who won their freedom in 1945, with monumental monuments reminding them of the famous battles of the People’s Liberation Struggle, naming streets, squares, schools and institutions after deserving individuals and national heroes, as well as brave units.

These monuments of the late Soviet era, some of which were built to commemorate the struggle of the Yugoslav people against the occupation of the Axis Powers during the Second World War, are very attractive today. Monumental structures stand as memories and symbols of the unity of that nation. Today, they are mostly valued for the amazing sculpting skills displayed on them.

After the victory over fascism, the construction of various memorials in the period from 1945 to 1990. year, throughout the former Yugoslavia and its republics (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Macedonia), efforts were made to preserve the memory of all those who gave their lives for freedom. Monuments glorifying the struggle of the Yugoslav peoples against fascism were signed by the greatest artists of that era. The monumental creations built all over the country that testified to the five-decade socialist heritage of the country were a superb combination of sculpture and architecture, and today no museum of contemporary art would be ashamed of them. One of the hopes behind the creation of these abstract, forward-looking monuments is to create an atmosphere of unity, forgiveness, and reconciliation in the post-World War II era.

However, the countries of the former Yugoslavia also dealt with monuments from the period when they were not independent in their own way. Almost immediately after the declaration of independence, the statues of Josip Broz Tito, president for life and marshal (SFRJ), were removed from most public places in Croatia and Macedonia. Later also in other republics.

Unwanted heritage, that is, the negative remains of the past resulting from the conflict, by the nature of (p)remaining, carries a pluralism of opposing ideas, which is why different groups attribute to it different interpretations, values ​​and meanings [5]. The way history is taught in classrooms all throughout the world, which continues to emphasize our differences rather than our similarities, may be one factor. The importance of this issue is unquestionably rising as the globe appears to be splitting into diametrically opposed groups that are unable to communicate with one another [6].

2. Method

With the beginning of the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990, the monuments from the Second World War suffered the fate of devastation and various forms of vandalism. Each newly formed state built its own image of the past in accordance with the needs of the present. Monuments have become one of the tools of the political elite, with which the public was presented what and how to remember and what to forget, from the period of the Second World War. For the purposes of this research, primarily sources from the republics of the former Yugoslavia, secondary data sources were used. They range from scientific, academic works to information available on the Internet, daily newspapers, as well as relevant monographic and teaching literature. The method of qualitative data analysis was applied. In addition to the above, the paper will use relevant examples on the topic of destruction of monuments.

3. Cultural heritage as an encumbrance of historical revisionism

History is explored by summarizing previous knowledge and studying available remains and traces. The awareness of the past of the people, to a lesser or greater extent, has been present since the earliest past, so it was nurtured even before the appearance of literacy. Oral and written tradition has preserved numerous examples to this day: jubilees, commemorations, monuments.

The term “cultural heritage” can be used to describe items passed down through the generations that are related to the cultural evolution of a community. This covers landmarks, structures, and locations with extraordinary historical, artistic, or scientific worth. Although “cultural property” is the term used in the majority of international accords, the word “legacy” has gained popularity since it suggests that the item should be preserved and taken care of.

Monuments in honor of victims, soldiers, leaders, victories and defeats have become an important component of the inventory of our civilization. Since ancient times, they have existed in continuity and have taken different forms in the environment. War artefacts of various statuses can be found all over the world, including monuments, historical monuments and tourist attractions. They can be found in city centers or appear out of nowhere. These objects are both the result of historical events and the result of the way we see rituals of remembrance. A monument directs attention to things that are significant, respected and worth remembering. Both the construction of the monument and its eventual removal or relocation have different emotional repercussions. The shape of the state or structure encourages introspection and acts as a reminder, but it also shapes certain attitudes and imagination. Memorials are the product of negotiation or imposition of a certain interpretation of historical events, as well as an effort to confirm a certain historical perspective [7].

No matter how straightforward, every spatial reality is the result of various social, political, artistic, and, last but not least, economic choices. War memorials cross many delicate lines that may both unite and divide; while they can deepen societal ties, they can also lead to conflict. In a universe of symbols and ideals that make us feel rooted in reality and history, they provide the appearance of solidity. A memorial directs attention to the things that are significant, revered, and worth remembering. Both the construction of a monument and its eventual removal or relocation have various emotional repercussions. The range of movement and emotion present across all of these tasks is incredibly diverse. As implied by the Latin derivation of the word memorialis, the primary purpose of monuments is to act as a reminder. Form of state or structure encourages introspection and acts as a reminder, but it also molds certain attitudes and imagination. Memorials are a product of negotiating or enforcing a certain interpretation of historical events, as well as an effort to validate a particular historical perspective. They may be considered the tangible results of these efforts to create communal memory.

Changed social values and new political circumstances have made internationally recognized works of art undesirable and the target of vandalism and demolition attacks. According to Alois Riegl, who is the founder of modern monument protection, ‘unwanted heritage’ is heritage that has been lost to the descendants of those who created it, heritage for which there is no longer any interest. Just as history is written, important monuments are erected, remembered, but also forgotten by the victors. In the consolidation of the first national states in the region, the monuments were transmitters of moral and ideological values, and the restoration of these efforts after the collapse of Yugoslavia was artistically unoriginal. The demolition of communist monuments marked the thanatopolitical symbolization of renewed capitalism. Parades of dead bodies, as well as the reburial and demolition of statues symbolize the deeper restorative value turns of “dead body politics”. Everywhere religion and nationalism were renewed through the dead [8].

Attacks on monuments—accompanied by a continuous quasi-scientific, revisionist counter-revolution—apart from attacks on civilization itself, are actually a brutal devaluation of the two highest forms of human creativity—science and art. Monuments are historical sources, testimonies of the past and a necessary condition for its interpretation. What has no source, has not been studied or does not exist anymore, it did not happen for today’s man.

Some of the most important and dramatic events from recent history in these areas are marked with unwanted cultural heritage, monuments, that is, events, individuals and collectives that (re)defined the course of the twentieth century and decisively influenced our lives today. However, the historical context that is necessary for reading these monuments conflicts with the dominant politics of memory, especially the fact that the organizational structure that lay in the background of effective anti-fascist resistance was the merit of the Communist Party as the only political factor in these regions that consistently resisted fascism. That is why today the monuments that recorded the development and activity of that political subject between the two world wars, either through the organization of workers, connection with the international movement or the subversion of the monarchist system, are mostly destroyed and forgotten. Maintaining these narratives in the collective memory represents an obvious danger to those who even today destroy them or seek to ideologically ‘neutralize’ them.

But the cynicism of our democratically underdeveloped society reaches its maximum when we publicly marvel and condemn the violence and devastation of world cultural heritage in the war-torn and UNESCO-protected Palmyra, the Iraqi city of Mosul or the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud, where ISIL militants destroyed statues, shrines and manuscripts, mercilessly and fanatically destroying everything that reminded them of ‘those others’ who do not belong to their worldview. Terrifying images of those demolitions filled our media space, while almost no one publicly thought to compare similar demolition activities from our recent past.

Identity and patriotism, and history is a key tool in this, are formed predominantly by stories about wars, battles, heroes, crimes, enemies, criminals. With the radical change in politics and social consciousness created by the ruling policy through various ideological mechanisms, epochal social consciousness also changes. When needs change, a new narrative is sought and produced. This requires an image of the past that provides a foundation as far back as possible. The past legitimizes the new present or provides the basis for the projection of the future that the ruling policy offers. This is why revisionism occurs, the fixing of the past or the production of a desirable history. For these needs, old myths and legends are revived, until then “undesirable” or forgotten personalities, ideas and events are raised, sufferings, crimes are emphasized, and new myths are produced. As a rule, the new history is based on the negation of the existing historical story. It causes ideological and political conflicts in society. On one side, there are “defenders” of the old story about the past (regardless of how accurate it is), on the other, producers of “new history”, finally discovered and until then forbidden, necessarily national, are multiplying. This is how desirable identities are established or created.

On the territory of the former Yugoslavia, politically motivated historical revisionism can be identified after the First World War, when the legitimacy and necessity of the creation of the Yugoslav state had to be proven in the new state through the past. The problem in the countries created by the breakup of Yugoslavia is that historical revisionism has become a state project and that the project has taken on the character of settling “old scores”, settling political opponents, emphasizing the intolerance of the people and religious communities. All of them have in common anti-communism, anti-Yugoslavism and pronounced nationalism.

In the process of breaking up Yugoslavia (Figure 2), the national identity based on traditional consciousness and historical rights was the basic argument of the republic’s political and military structures for the restoration of former states or the creation of new states. To that end, it was necessary to destroy and devalue everything that held peoples and nationalities together, to compromise the communist ideology [9] by means of criminalization and emphasizing single-mindedness and political terror, to divide peoples and nationalities by reminding them of the old and causing new conflicts, crimes, by producing myths and places of suffering and thereby compromise the idea of Yugoslavia and the possibility of living in a common state. In this way, the League of Communists was compromised and broken, then the Yugoslav army, security services, diplomacy. Everything that was unifying and was based on the ideas of communism and Yugoslavia was commodified and criminalized through historical revisionism.

Figure 2.

Yugoslavia after 1945 (left) and after the collapse of the state in the early 1990s (right), last century. Source: Authors works.

At the next level, the renewed national and state identity or the created new identity had to be historically grounded as far into the past as possible, insisting on tradition, historical rights, the glorious past and national idols. For this purpose, “forgotten” or “forbidden” national myths are being restored, new biographies of historical figures are being created as fighters for national, state or religious dignity and rights. This is done by recalling old conflicts, crimes, places of suffering, creating new idols and inventing examples of injustice and crime. Individuals and groups that were once condemned by their contemporaries are being rehabilitated, without proving that they were not guilty, it is enough to say that they were tried for political reasons or as fighters for statehood and national rights and that they did not have a fair trial. Losses, conflicts and problems in the past and present are readily explained by conspiracy and victim theory.

As the 1990s in the Western Balkans brought a new perspective through which ethnic groups viewed their own states, but also the past, the interpretation of the dissonant heritage acquired an additional, aggravating feature. That thread has not been broken even today - the old, official versions of history are still rejected, and almost every day we witness the rehabilitation of yesterday’s enemies of the people and the change in the culture of memory. That’s why often, instead of taking care of heritage for the sake of preserving knowledge about the past, the goal is to build a national identity, and instead of encouraging critical thinking, in that act we have its negation.

4. The concept of genocide of cultural heritage

War memorials become real and true manifestos to which they strive to give maximum visibility, not only physically, but also through echoes in time, registering their name and construction in the inscriptions; their destruction brings loss and misfortune, and thus an attempt is made to seal its immortality in time. War produces monuments, and at the same time monuments are involved in war by becoming one of its targets. By inscribing their name and construction in the inscriptions, war monuments acquire the status of real and legal manifestos that are sought to be given maximum visibility, not only physically but also through echo in time; by destroying them, one tries to ensure their indestructible durability in time [10].

The 1944 book by Polish attorney Rafael Lemkin is where the notion of cultural genocide first appeared. A concerted plan of numerous activities geared against the destruction of the vital foundations of the life of national groups, with a view to their full extinction, is how Lemkin defined genocide. Lemkin asserts that the destruction of the national patterns of the oppressed group and the imposition of the national patterns of the oppressors are the two stages of the social process of genocide. Analyzing the methods by which the Nazis carried out the genocide of the Polish people, Lemkin in his study Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944) listed eight techniques by which it is possible to carry out the genocide. He categorizes as a political, social, cultural, economic, biological, physical, religious, and moral strategy before giving a brief description of each. Lemkin, who paid close attention to cultural tactics, also created the idea of “culture genocide,” which is a concrete application of the notion of genocide in general. Cultural genocide means the intentional destruction of cultural heritage and property of a certain social group, such as cultural or religious monuments, banning the use of language or certain cultural activities, and banning the work of cultural institutions. Since, for Lemkin, culture is a key element of social integration and the fulfillment of basic social needs, any form of suppression of culture or destruction of cultural symbols can be considered genocide according to him [11].

The wealth of cultural objects as symbolic resources greatly contributes to the strengthening of group cohesion and self-awareness. Symbolic goods in contemporary armed conflicts represent one of the key targets of attack, given that they embody the identities of other communities or nations. The conflicting parties in such conflicts deliberately seek to destroy the cultural artifacts of the “other” because, in addition to reflecting their identities, they are also in the service of building national history. By destroying them, the symbols of the enemy nation also disappear, which makes it even more difficult for the opponent to construct a coherent national narrative that could be applied in the context of the political mobilization process. Another key reason for the destruction of cultural artifacts concerns the issue of territories. As Smith points out, territorialization is one of the fundamental properties of nationalism. Through the process of building an “ethno-landscape”, the people and their homeland become symbolic entities. In this way, members of a particular identity group identify with the space they live in, which ultimately creates the illusion that the landscape they inhabit is an integral part of their identity and that they “emerged” from it in the past. Myths about autochthonous origins are additionally established by cultural objects such as palaces, bridges, churches and cemeteries that occupy the space in which a certain identity group lives. By destroying cultural property and clearing a certain territory of its historical and cultural objects, the ultimate goal of culturocide is to make a certain territory homogeneous and foreign to the existing community that inhabits it [12].

A nation’s national and cultural identity is established, among other things, by a region’s monumental legacy. Monuments related to fallen heroes are mediators between politics, the trauma of collective memory and public art. The cultural heritage of each nation also belongs to the universal cultural heritage, and this is its greatest value [13].

Monuments should connect and be in the function of peace. For example, the monuments of the World War II liberation effort in Istria, a territory on the border of Slovenia and Italy, serve as mirrors for the competing memories of the two nations and the many ethnic groups residing there on a national and regional level. Monuments serve as physical representations of official memory while also reflecting conflicts between personal recollections and the community’s continued silence decades after the official memory of the former Yugoslavian system was dismantled [14].

5. Genocide of cultural heritage in the former Yugoslavia

Destroying heritage means trying to modify, falsify, mutilate, remove and, ultimately, kill the identity of a certain social group to which it belongs. In the destruction of monuments to the People’s Liberation War, which was carried out during the 1990s, many sculptures, memorials and plaques dedicated to the fight against the darkness of Nazism and fascism were destroyed. In the Republic of Croatia, the “Day of the Anti-Fascist Struggle” is still celebrated, and since independence in 1991, approximately half of the anti-fascist monuments in that country have been either destroyed or damaged. After the victory over anti-fascism in 1945, around 6,000 monuments to anti-fascist fighters who laid down their lives for freedom were built in the Republic of Croatia until 1990. From 1990 to 2000, in Croatia, according to incomplete data, 2,964 memorials were demolished, damaged, desecrated or removed from public view, including 731 monuments and other memorials of great artistic and cultural-historical value and 2,233 different memorials representing with piety towards the victims and humanistic values ​​for the local environment, for the family, future generations. In Dalmatia, for example, out of 1,030 monuments demolished or damaged, 482 or close to 50%. In the former municipality of Makarska, the destruction of memorials to the anti-fascist struggle is 100% [15]. In the wartime circumstances of the 90s of the last century in Croatia, the facts by means of which socialization was carried out during the communist rule were “forgotten” overnight. Therefore, the demolition of partisan monuments or their damage has become an almost everyday occurrence [16].

An exceptional work, located in the small town of Opuzen, the work of the famous Croatian sculptor Antun Augustinčić. A city where all traces of the monument that Opuzen erected in 1978 in honor of his most famous son, Stjepan Filipović, who was a member of the Yugoslav partisan army, a metal worker, and commander of a partisan battalion, have been lost. He was hanged by order of the German occupiers in 1942 in Valjevo. There is a well-known photograph in which Filipović with a noose around his neck is standing under the gallows, his hands raised in the air while calling for resistance against the occupying power (Figure 3). One woman immortalized that moment, and the image became an icon and is now in the Holocaust Museum in Washington.

Figure 3.

Stjepan Filipović on the left, the monument erected in his memory on the right. Source: https://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/430174/Slika-Stjepana-Filipovica-na-vesalima-je-u-UN-ali-ga-se-Hrvatska-stidi.

Filipović’s monument in Opuzen was detonated by several young men in 1991. They were paid for it by political dissidents. Although the perpetrators were identified, they were never prosecuted, nor was a serious investigation conducted in connection with the demolition of the monument [17].

Therefore, the devastation of monuments in the sense of demolition is most pronounced in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, where around 50 percent of national liberation movement monuments were destroyed. Numerous memorials and memorial complexes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, created in the Yugoslav period and dedicated to the victims of the Second World War, are today mostly neglected or even adopted in order to promote ethno-national interests [18]. In Figure 4, we see the devastated Partisan memorial cemetery in Mostar in 1996, some parts of the monument demolished and plaques with the names of the fallen Partisans scattered and destroyed (left) and the monument on Makljen (right), mined and completely destroyed in 2000.

Figure 4.

The memorial cemetery in Mostar and the monument on Makljen (BiH). Source: [19].

The most widespread is devastation with graffiti, swastikas and local nationalist and fascist symbols of the Ustasha and Chetniks and combinations with fascist statements appear most often. In Serbia, the appearance of newly created monuments to the Chetniks has also been expressed. In Slovenia, a monument to anti-fascism was desecrated, this act was condemned by the Ministry of Culture and is being investigated by the police. Serbian medieval cultural heritage is unequivocally a victim of negation of memory, forgetting and silence in North Macedonia, and numerous historical sites in Montenegro left to the ravages of time and decay

During the destruction of war, many monuments and heritage units were destroyed (Figure 5). Most of them accidentally, even inevitably. However, we are witnessing the deliberate destruction of the heritage of others, with the aim of collapsing the national identity and morals of both the people and the army. Many inspirers and principals did not even hide it. So Goebbels wrote in his diaries that soldiers must target cultural centers. After the war conflicts in 1999, and as an indicator of Albanian dominance in this area, the destruction of Serbian cultural, spiritual and religious heritage gained momentum. As the heritage of others for the new political community, that heritage not only physically suffered in brutal destruction, but was also interpreted and treated differently: it was presented as its own, that is, Albanian, neglected as unwanted and used according to the needs of current politics.

Figure 5.

Destroyed monument of the Partisan Sixth Slavonic Corps, 1992 years. Source: https://www.antifasisticki-vjesnik.org/hr/prenosimo/6/Jak_vjetar_ili_cetnici_/350/.

In Kosovo’s Vitina, where Serbs and Albanians live, at the beginning of 2013, an excavator demolished a monument to partisans killed in World War II. A group of about a hundred Albanians, led by the president of the organization of veterans of the former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), initially tried to demolish the monument by pushing, and then an excavator was brought in. The demolition of the monument was accompanied by excitement and applause. The demolition of this monument to the anti-fascist struggle was watched by members of the Kosovo Police. The Kosovo Police suspended five police officers because they did not prevent the demolition of the monument in Vitina.

The monument to Boro and Ramiz - which for decades were symbols of friendship and brotherhood of Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo was destroyed. Partisan heroes who were captured and shot together in 1943, hugging each other on the road from Djakovica to Prizren, had a monument in the city park in Pristina, where today only Ramiz remains (no Boro) (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Destroyed monument to partisans (Serb and Albanian - Boro and Ramiz). Source: https://balkaninsight.com/sr/2016/01/15/zaboravljeni-heroji-srpsko-albanskog-prijateljstva-01-14-2016/.

The erasure or transformation of monument meanings is particularly visible in the case of monuments erected in honor of an idea or personality. The current community intervenes on them to show which history it does not want to remember. Monuments reminiscent of the anti-fascist struggle were destroyed, and there were also interventions that offered a symbolic upgrade, i.e. alteration of the monument. Thus, in Pristina, after 1999, members of the so-called KLA were buried at the Partisan Cemetery, while in 2006, Ibrahim Rugova, the first president of the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo, was buried in the same complex. The monument to Brotherhood and Unity in Pristina from 1961 was painted in the colors of the flags of the countries that recognized Kosovo as an independent state. The careless attitude towards the monuments of the anti-fascist past is a common characteristic of all areas of the former federation, but the direct destruction they suffered in the Albanian community in Kosovo and Metohija points to the identity crisis that accompanies this society [20]. The effort to revise or completely change the existing scientific interpretations of certain events for ideological (individual or group) and political motives is to mitigate or completely remove the “negative influence” on the collective national consciousness and identity and erase “undesirable” pages of national history.

There is no doubt that remembering the past should create a sense of continuity and be a driver of development [21]. In the paper, we focused on the destruction of cultural and historical heritage created in the period between 1945–1990, however, there are numerous examples of the destruction of cultural heritage created in the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, as well as after the First World War. Globalization has strengthened the role of culture as a source of local identity, and the increasing level of education and the aging of the population have contributed to the increased interest in cultural and national heritage. Heritage, that is, natural and cultural treasures should be preserved for future generations in order to preserve the identity that has become one of the most important pillars for the recognition of the tourist product [22]. Some authors remind us of the insufficient use of historically known destinations from the time of communism. The memory of communism in Serbia should be restored and shaped in a way that is acceptable to the expectations of tourists, and they suggest the creation of thematic cultural routes [23].

With the changes in government structures, a favorable climate was created for the gradual restoration of damaged monuments and memorial areas. One example of the monuments devastated in the 1990s that have been restored is the monument in the Jadovno concentration camp. The reconstruction of the monument was initiated by the Serbian National Council and financed by the Government of the Republic of Croatia. The monument is the work of sculptor Ratko Petrić, whose original work was erected in 1988, but was soon, in the early 1990s, completely destroyed [24].

6. Conclusions

Monuments are important. We can consider them silent objects and relics of history. In order to preserve the monumental heritage from further devastation, the most important thing is to clearly define the criteria for the evaluation of the memorial heritage, whereby a revisionist attitude towards the existing register of cultural monuments, on which professional names of the profession have worked devotedly for decades, should be avoided.

The culture of memory intertwines and lives through oral and written histories, memorials, monuments and toponyms. It recalls that the official memory of the Second World War and the official narrative about the past were replaced in the nations formed as a result of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia by a different narrative and a different memory, i.e. by forgetting the past, and it notes that this memory was just as official as the one that existed during Yugoslavia. In that new narrative, he continues, there was no place for remembering the common past, but that narrative was exclusively ethno-national.

Monuments became one of the tools of the new government, with which the public was presented what and how to remember and what to forget from the period of the Second World War. Just like the partisan movement, the partisan monuments commemorating the national liberation movement underwent an ideological and ethno-national transformation in order to replace the common Yugoslav past, which became undesirable in the new dominant historical narrative, with the past of the Yugoslav peoples. For this reason, during the war in the 1990s, many monuments in Croatia were damaged or demolished. Former greats of the socialist revolution, numerous monuments from the time of Yugoslavia, today in our country are forgotten, desecrated, ignored or deliberately destroyed.

A potentially better solution than removing these monuments is to provide them with additional context. Several Eastern European countries have done this by placing additional explanations next to the monuments, indicating the complex history behind them.

For example, many Roman rulers, such as Nero, were not models of morality, but there are no calls for the destruction of their monuments today because they no longer have the power to influence the definition of national identity and the dominant interpretation of history. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the battle to define the history and identity of the nation will always have to include monuments, which, as a physical legacy of the past, play a major role in the political life of the present with their messages.

In the discourse in which conflicting politics of memory are being developed in the areas of the former Yugoslavia, the process of establishing a new relationship with the Second World War is noticeable. In the new interpretation, anti-fascism acquires a national content, due to which numerous monuments of the Second World War experience an ethno-national transformation. Monuments, memorial ceremonies, celebrations of selected dates, places of remembrance, etc. they are used as a resource for raising national awareness, separate histories, stories about national uniqueness, sacrifices made in the name of one’s own nation and for its good, but also revisions of history. It is the expansion of ideology and collective identity.

Due to the location and year of its adoption, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, often known as the “Hague Convention of 1954,” is an international agreement that was ratified on May 14, 1954, in The Hague, Netherlands. Its purpose is to safeguard cultural property from desecration or damage, theft, robbery, and other unlawful forms of seizure, as well as military use during times of armed conflict. Any deliberate harm, intentional destruction, or misuse of the aforementioned cultural assets is prohibited by the Hague Convention [25, 26, 27].

However, what is even more important, it is not known exactly how many built memorials in the former Yugoslavia have survived to this day. This lack of information is not only a by-product of the lack of cataloging and inventory of these memorial sites, but also because they continue to be actively neglected and destroyed, not only by vandals and thieves, but also by the power of local self-governments and the governments of the former Yugoslav republics themselves.