![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
The construction of New Belgrade as the new capital of socialist Yugoslavia was the most symbolic modernizing act initiated by the country's communist government. Yet, its precise meanings were suspended between the complicated and permanently transitory concepts of socialist Yugoslavia's federalism and its international aspirations. Focusing on three characteristic “snapshots” of the city's physical development, this paper analyzes how New Belgrade and its most important buildings represented the shifting concepts of socialist Yugoslavia as a multiethnic community and its even more changeable place in the world. The first snapshot deals with the years immediately following World War II, during which New Belgrade was conceived as the seat of a centralized Stalinist state in close alliance with the USSR. The second deals with the effects of Yugoslavia's break from the Soviet bloc in 1948, especially its rapprochement with the West and the start of the decentralization of the federal state. Finally, the third explores the late socialist period: the dwindling of New Belgrade's role as the political heart of the federation, and at the same time its emergence as a locus of Yugoslavia's ambition to play a leading role in international relations, especially through its activity in the Non-Aligned Movement.
Notes
The agreement, brokered by Churchill to prevent the Communists from taking over the country, was signed by Tito and Ivan Šubašić, the former Ban of Croatia, who was exiled in London with the former royal government. For details, see among many other sources Ridley (1994, 238).
Tito's close collaborator and a high party official Milovan Đilas claimed that even the ministers in the coalition government who were loyal to the King did not object to Tito's intrusion into the royal property; see: Đilas (1980, 82).
The Communist Party of Yugoslavia adopted the Leninist doctrine of solving the “national question” as one of the main tenets of the socialist revolution as early as 1923. On the debate about the national question in the CPY, see: L. Perović (1983).
This is just one of typical statements that sums up how Belgrade was cast at the time: “The rage [of Hitler] was unleashed upon a city in which on 27 March [1941]… the hatred against fascism and love for the Soviet Union spoke most expressively of a will that annulled the traitorous pact of rulers with Berlin. From that very same Belgrade, comrade Tito called on all the people to join the armed uprising against the occupation and against domestic traitors, from that very same Belgrade the Central Committee of the CPY organized the armed resistance, from that very same Belgrade came countless combatants on the front, heroes of battlefields and concentration camps” (see Popović 1948, 7).
On the construction of Belgrade Fair, see: Vukotić Lazar (2004).
On the history of the camp, see the website by Dr Jovan Byford, which also lists an exhaustive bibliography about the Semlin Jugendlager (Byford 2008).
As Edvard Ravnikar summed up the role of New Belgrade in 1948, “The area between the Danube and the Sava, the new railway line and the winter canal, should become a center of everything that has federal significance in Yugoslavia, so mass housing and industry should not be built here, although such buildings on a smaller scale should not be entirely excluded” see: Ravnikar (1947a, 451–456).
See, for example, the speech of Vlada Zečević, federal Minister of Construction, at the groundbreaking ceremony: “…Building on this soil represents an immense break-through for all the peoples of Yugoslavia, because New Belgrade will be a model of the New Yugoslavia…” (see: Zečević 1948, 7). His aide, Ljubo Ilić, claimed on the same occasion: “New Belgrade will be our first socialist city. It will be the first in our history center of people's government. For all our peoples the first and unique administrative, cultural, and ideological center; center of brotherhood and unity. That is the national significance of New Belgrade” (see Ilić, 1948, 9).
See: Zbirni perspektivni plan izgradnje Velikog Beograda u odnosu na prvu etapu izgradnje obuhvaćene prvim petogodišnjim planom, ASCG, Fond 50 Pretsedništvo Vlade FNRJ, Fascikla 78 Građevinarstvo, no. 78-422.
“The highest government and political authorities approved this scheme in principle, and gave full support and encouragement for the research and realization work” (see Đorđević 1961, 11). Also: “The state and party leadership, especially comrade Tito, offered their full support for the construction of New Belgrade” (see Marković 1968, 24).
On the other hand, Bratislav Stojanović repeatedly credited the leadership with the very idea for the creation of New Belgrade: “Thanks to the initiator of the construction of New Belgrade, comrade Tito, and to the vision of our state and party leaders, we approached these problems broadly and bravely” (see Stojanović 1947, 141–147).
This dichotomy, famously described in Friedrich Engels' The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, was a staple of socialist thought. Socialism would redress that injustice and bring good life to everyone through scientific planning of everything: from economy to cities. The particular rhetoric that linked capitalism with filth, illness, and dilapidation and socialism with cleanliness, health, and order was strikingly similar throughout the Soviet-dominated Europe and its application to New Belgrade was hardly an exception.
For a summary of US-Yugoslav relations in the first post-war years, see Lees (1997, 1–42).
About the Balkan federation, see: Petranović (1990).
The ambition to make New Belgrade into a capital of the Balkans, it seems, was kept secret and only leaked outside the narrow circle of the highest officials long after the intentions to create a Balkan federation were shelved. In 1986, Belgrade planner Branko Bojović claimed that he had heard “a few years before… what very few people knew: that New Belgrade was supposed to be the seat of the announced and expected Balkan federation.” However, he did not reveal his source. See: Bojović (1986, insert, 11).
The First Five Year Plan, launched in April 1947 and modeled on the Soviet plans of the thirties, was grandiosely envisioned to “eradicate economic and technical backwardness” in a mere half of a decade. Đilas later admitted that the leadership at the time “did not have a clear idea” of what they were doing; see: Đilas (1991, 58).
For more details, see my dissertation (Kulić 2009, especially Chapters 1 and 3).
“Uslovi konkursa za zgradu Centralnog komiteta Komunističke partije Jugoslavije i za zgradu Pretsedništva Vlade Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavije,“ Tehnika I, no. 11-12 (November, 1946): 339–342.
When awarding the remaining prizes, the jury made sure to apply the principles of “brotherhood and unity.” The three second prizes were given to the teams from Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia, the only three republics at the time with their own architectural schools and substantial numbers of architects. The lead designers of all three teams enjoyed a privileged position in the new society, either thanks to their participation in the liberation war or to direct involvement in communist politics. The Slovenian Edvard Ravnikar and the Serbian Nikola Dobrović were both war veterans. The Croatian team was especially politically powerful, led by the prominent sculptor and Tito's portraitist Anton Augustinčić, at the time also the Vice-President of Yugoslavia's National Assembly.
Edvard Ravnikar extensively reported on this meeting. See: Ravnikar (1947b, 363–364).
Tito most likely knew the Soviet Pavilion in Paris first hand, since he spent several months in the city that year facilitating the transfer of Yugoslav volunteers to Spain to fight in the civil war. Indeed, the exhibition was used as an excuse for large numbers of volunteers to travel to France without raising suspicion of their true destination; see: Ridley (1994, 131).
The debate raged on the pages of Arhitektura, Yugoslavia's only architectural journal at the time. For details, see Kulić (2009, Chapter 1).
The plaque is reproduced in Beograd-Novi Beograd (Belgrade: Direkcija za izgradnju Novog Beograda, 1967), 17.
Quoted in a number of publications, including Čukić and Kokotović (1981, 256).
On volunteer labor, see: Lilly (2001, 115–128).
See: “Referat po predmetu izgradnje nasipanja Novog Beograda po petogodišnjem planu 1947–1951 god.,” 5 April, 1947; ASCG, Fond 50, Pretsedništvo vlade FNRJ, Fascikla 78, no. 78–440.
Mihailo Janković, “Kratak opis rada,” transcript of an original document made for the Management for the construction of the building of Federal Executive Council (Direkcija za izgradnju zgrade Saveznog izvršnog veća,” n.d., Aleksandar Janković Collection.
On the Balkan Pact with Greece and Turkey, see: Bekić (1988, 488-511). Also: Bekić (2004, 125–142).
Janković made his name as the architect of the Yugoslav People's Army Stadium in Belgrade, built between 1947 and 1954. Besides redesigning the Federal Executive Council, he also designed the realized version of the Central Committee building, as well as the Museum May 25, which accommodated the collection of gifts that Tito received on his numerous trips across Yugoslavia and the world.
For Janković's original sketches for the redesign, see Archive of Yugoslavia, Belgrade, Fond Projekti zgrade SIV-a, Fascikla SIV-Idejni projekat, razne varijante – skice. For a criticism of his proposals, see “Stenografske beleške sa sastanka revizione komisije stručnjaka po pitanju adaptacije zgrade SIV na Novom Beogradu,” Sept. 29, 1954, private collection of the Janković family.
That is how Aline Louchheim, the art critic of the New York Times, interpreted Yugoslav modernist art at the Bienal of Art in Sao Paulo in 1953, thus providing a precedent for many similar interpretations; see: Aline B. Louchheim, “Cultural Diplomacy: An Art We Neglect,” New York Times (Jan. 3, 1954): SM16.
Harrison E. Salisbury, “Building Pattern Set by Belgrade,” New York Times (Aug. 22, 1957): 8.
Here I refer to Dejan Jović's thesis that socialist Yugoslavia defined itself largely negatively, i.e., through a set of “Others;” see: Jović (2004, 277–302).
The Federal Committee for Cultural Connections with Foreign Countries was responsible for the invitation. See: Savremena umetnost u SAD: Iz zbirki Museum of Modern Art, New York, (1956, 3).
Janković won the invited architectural competition for the building organized in 1959, collaborating with two younger architects from his office, Dušan Milenković and Mirjana Marjanović.
A 1961 book published in Serbo-Croatian, English and French still cast the city as the “center of the brotherly union of Yugoslav peoples,” see: Novi Beograd 1961 (Belograde: The Direction for the Construction of Novi Beograd, 1961), 5.
The mosaic, created by the Slovenian artist Marij Pregelj and titled Sutjeska I, celebrated the battle of the Sutjeska, in which Yugoslav partisans fought the much stronger German troupes in the impassable Bosnian mountains in 1943.
The Salon of Croatia was designed by Vjenceslav Richter, a celebrated architect and artist from Zagreb. Ironically, the Salon of Macedonia was also designed by a Croat, Miho Čakelja, who was sent to the underdeveloped Macedonia after World War II to help its modernization.
The political scientist Aleksandar Pavković argued that the concept of “brotherhood and unity,” which implied certain kinship ties between Yugoslav people's, was replaced by the late socialist period with the even vaguer concept of “togetherness” (zajedništvo), which the different nations only lived together, but had no essential ties. See: Pavković (2000).
See: “Natječaj za idejno rješenje zgrade Muzeja revolucije naroda Jugoslavije,” in: Arhitektura, no. 5–6 (1961): 19–20.
For a succinct history of the Museum of the Revolution, see: Blagojević (2007).
About Protić's experience in New York, see Protić (1965).
“Slavs Without Marx,” in: Newsweek (February 7, 1966): 40.
Quoted, among other sources, in Denegri (2003, 174).
The photo collection of the Museum records the visits of, among others, the wife of the French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the wife of the German president Willy Brandt, British Princess Margaret, Danish Princess Benedicta, Dutch Queen Juliana, Queen-Mother Fabiola of Belgium, the Mayor of Vienna, the official delegation of the City of Moscow, etc. Archive of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade, photo collection “Život.”
“Peaceful coexistence” was also a doctrine in the Soviet bloc, implying the coexistence of capitalism and socialism, thus the abandonment of aspirations towards a global revolution. In the context of non-alignment, the phrase had different, anti-colonial connotations, rejecting the imperialism of both blocs, but also striving to regulate the often unstable relations between the movement's member states.
Politika, September 5, 1961.
An image was published in Politika (Belgrade), September 4, 1961, p. 5.
Kongresni centar u Beogradu (Belgrade:Kulturni centar Beograda, c. 1976), 4.
The Genex twin towers were designed by the Belgrade architect Mihailo Mitrović for the Directorate for the Construction of Belgrade, but half-way through the construction Geenx took over, which required some limited redesign. The building was completed in 1980.
The Army was the de facto client for much of New Belgrade's housing, imposing its higher standards of design and construction even when it shared the project with smaller civilian clients, such as various self-managing enterprises.
The process was described in detail in a public workshop with the planners of New Belgrade, Branislav Jovin and Dragomir Manojlović, May 7, 2011, at the Museum of the History of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
The project for the “center of friendship” was published in: Dom prijateljstva (1975). One of its chief initiators and designers, Miloš Perović, subsequently revealed the real motivations for the project in his lectures at the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade in the late 1990s, as well as in conversations with the author.