著者

門間 卓也

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2016, no.45, pp.103-118, 2016 (Released:2018-06-02)

参考文献数

43

---

The Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH) was constructed as a Nazi-puppet state, which spanned across a large part of what is now Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, after the occupation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in April 1941. Because of its close relationship to the Nazi Party, Ustasha—a notorious Croatian political organization—attained power over NDH. Core members of the group emulated the fascist movements during WWI and WWII in Europe and forged ahead with a similar totalitarian policy in NDH, revising previous systems of governance.The highest aim of these reforms was the achievement of national unity, implanting the ‘Ustasha spirit’ throughout the nation. Considering the nationalistic character of the Ustasha movement, it seems reasonable to suppose that ideological discourses on nationalization were consistent inside the regime. However, previous studies have argued that the relationship between Ustasha and Tias Mortigjija—the chief editor of the major weekly newspaper Spremnost from May 1943 to the end of 1944—became tense due to disagreements regarding the editorial policy. Considering the variable nature of Croatian nationalism at that time, which was caused by increasing communist resistance and tangled relations with the Axis powers, the specific course of action of nationalization under the NDH regime must be investigated.This article analyses how Spremnost carried on propaganda work about Croatian nationalism during the period when Mortigjija was the chief director. Regarding the ideology of the Ustasha movement, it must be noticed that the leadership coped with the mobilization of the youth from the outset of NDH, training them as ‘elites’ who would conduct state affairs in the future. Ustasha thus implemented various educational policy measures to establish elitism in the mind of the younger generation (founding the Ustasha Youth, ‘purifying’ the school and the university and so on). As a result of this fascistic attempt, Zagreb University students were encouraged to develop their own political consciousness and became radicalized to adopt a resolution in April 1944 that asserted their loyalty to the Ustasha movement. Despite the discordance with the regime, Mortigjija seemed to sympathize with the appearance of the ‘elite’. The propaganda of Spremnost thus began to feature content associated with the Zagreb University students’ resolution and the student journal Plug, which was published in 1944.Initially, Ustasha defined the image of the Croatian state as one that belonged to the ‘West’, including it in the cultural circle of Europe, and one that had a vital role as a bulwark against the ‘East’. However, through the political rhetoric of Spremnost and Plug, this image was transformed, arguing that the Croatian state was a guardian of the Balkan States and emphasizing the cultural legacy of the ‘West’. On the other hand, the image of Croats was modified to reflect changing religious policies. The leadership reinterpreted Orthodoxy as a traditional faith in Croatia and instituted the Croatian Orthodox Church in June 1942 to assimilate Serbs to NDH.Following this ‘political tolerance’, an article of Spremnost advocated that Croats must possess three types of faith: Catholic, Islam and Orthodoxy. Moreover, it was highlighted and reiterated that the integrated nationalism of Croats was a Balkan-oriented one. In conclusion, the ideological discourse on nationalization in NDH was obviously altered to include religious pluralism during WWII in response to the international environment and to internal conflicts. ‘Balkan’ thus became a symbol of the nation.

著者

浅谷 公威 門間 卓也 沖 澄弘 坂田 一郎

雑誌

2023年度 人工知能学会全国大会(第37回)

巻号頁・発行日

2023-04-06

著者

門間 卓也

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2012, no.41, pp.91-107, 2012 (Released:2014-05-27)

参考文献数

32

---

The author examined the context of political violence which happened in June 1928 in the national parliament of the First Yugoslavia, referring to both national relations between Serbian politicians and Croat ones on one hand and relations between a Serbian party, National Radical Party (NRS), and a Croat party, Croat Peasant Party (CPP) on the other. This political violence broke out due to serious national problems in the First Yugoslavia; however, the context linking conflict between national parties with their nationalism, “Context of Violence”, is still not clear in previous studies on the political history in the First Yugoslavia. This is why the subject of this paper is focused on imagined “Context of Violence” dependent on political leaders’ attitudes toward other political leaders. In the First Yugoslavia, political relations between NRS and CPP had been influenced profoundly by their partnership with Svetozar Pribićević, who was the leader of Independent Democratic Party (IDP) and was considered as the main political representative of Serbians in the region of the former Hapsburg Empire, called “prečani”, in the First Yugoslavia. As long as he supported NRS, there was little national confrontation in the parliament because political power of CPP was limited as an opposition party. Yet, in 1927 when Pribićević chose by a political decision to cooperate with Stjepan Radić, the leader of CPP, a new structure of conflict came into the parliament. That was the territorial conflict between parties originated from the region of the former Serbian Kingdom and from the region of the former Hapsburg Empire. It was because the region of the former Serbian Kingdom was the base of support for NRS, while the region of the former Hapsburg Empire was the base of support for Peasant-Democratic Coalition (PDC), a coalition party established in 1927 from CPP and IDP. This division which appeared in the parliament was interpreted for NRS as a serious political crisis for two reasons. First, under this political situation, NRS was faced with an obstacle to mobilization of Serbians. Second, politicians belonging to PDC, designated as “prečanski front”, in the parliament enhanced the possibility of dismembering the First Yugoslavia. Especially, Radić unfolded harsh criticism to the effect that NRS gov­erned in such a way as to ruin political and economical equality among nations and frequently disturbed parliamentary procedures. As for Radić’s position, his stubborness for NRS was justified from the political crisis over Croats and their historical territory. At that time in the parliament, the ratification of the Nettuno convention from which Croattia was to suffer disadvantage resulting from intrusion of Italy to Dalmatia was placed on the agenda. Radić repeatedlly required NRS to refuse their sanction to the Nettuno convention and blamed them for political confusion in the First Yugoslavia. This paper makes it clear that “Context of Violence” for NRS and CPP derived from their fears of both the territorial conflict which interrupted Serbian nationalism and a threat to Croats caused by Italy’s laying claim to Dalmatia against the First Yugoslavia. These two political problems over the First Yugoslavia remained as such even after beginning of the dictatorship, entailing a risk of breaking up the nation and the state.

著者

門間 卓也

出版者

東欧史研究会

雑誌

東欧史研究 (ISSN:03866904)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.40, pp.3-27, 2018 (Released:2022-02-13)

著者

門間 卓也

出版者

現代史研究会

雑誌

現代史研究 (ISSN:03868869)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.61, pp.67-72, 2015-12-21 (Released:2018-06-28)

参考文献数

7

著者

福田 宏 姉川 雄大 河合 信晴 菅原 祥 門間 卓也 加藤 久子

出版者

成城大学

雑誌

基盤研究(C)

巻号頁・発行日

2020-04-01

---

本研究は、社会主義期の旧東欧諸国を事例として権威主義体制の強靱性を明らかにしようとするものである。従来の政治学の議論では、全ての国や地域は民主化されるべきであり、実際においても、その方向に向かっているという暗黙の了解が存在した。ところが、2010年代半ば頃より、民主主義の「後退」や権威主義体制の「しぶとさ」が盛んに議論されるようになってきている(例えば、モンク『民主主義を救え!』2019)。その点において、東欧の権威主義体制は今こそ参照すべき歴史的経験と言える。本研究では、史資料の公開やオーラルヒストリーによって急速に進みつつある歴史学上の成果を活かしつつ、当時における体制の内実に迫りたい。

著者

門間 卓也

出版者

日本スラヴ学研究会

雑誌

スラヴ学論集 = Slavia Iaponica = Studies in Slavic languages and literatures (ISSN:21880573)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.19, pp.6-26, 2016