On the occasion of marking the anniversary of the World War II Battle of Sutjeska and the Day of Anti-fascist Struggle holiday on June 22, we talked with activist Zoran Pusic of the Anti-fascist League of Croatia.

The Battle of the Sutjeska, which took place in May-June 1943 near the river Sutjeska in southeast Bosnia and Herzegovina, was a heavily fought conflict in which Axis powers sought to destroy the Yugoslav Partisan forces. Even though Yugoslav casualties in the battle were heavy, with over two thirds killed and wounded, the offensive eventually failed, with Sutjeska marking a turning point for the Partisans in World War II.

The anniversary of the 1943 Battle of Sutjeska was just the other day. What do you think of the state officials ignoring the battle in which, to say the least, several thousand of people from Croatia had been killed? Veteran Affairs’ Minister, Tomo Medved, said he didn’t go to the commemoration ceremony because he hadn’t received an invitation, while yesterday Defence Minister Damir Krsticevic attended the unveiling of a plaque to killed allied airmen on the island of Vis. However, Sutjeska was never mentioned.

I think it’s hypocritical and disgraceful not to go to the marking of the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Sutjeska, which was the biggest battle in occupied Europe in World War II. If Croatian politicians who are currently in power did not stay silent, deny, or falsify the contribution of their own people to the anti-fascist struggle – which is something to be proud of – the Vis commemoration would just have been a normal act of remembrance of our common and righteous fight since 74 years ago. This way it just seems hypocritical.

The Parliament even refused the proposal by Social Democrat MP Ranko Ostojic to send a parliament delegation to the marking of the anniversary. Speaker of Parliament Gordan Jandrokovic said that since it happened in another country, it didn’t concern Croatia. That explanation does not exactly hold, as Bleiburg is not in Croatia either, and a delegation led by Parliament Speaker went there, without anyone from Austria inviting them. It’s fine remembering fallen American and British soldiers on Vis, but there were fewer Americans and the British killed in World War II in this region than there were people from the Croatian cities of Sibenik or Split killed at Sutjeska.

This should be regarded as an important historic event. Just like the French Revolution was an important event in the history of France or the humankind in general. But at the moment in which the very values that were defended by anti-fascism are in jeopardy again, the event has a deeper meaning, more than just in history terms. It’s as if somebody questioned the values of the French Revolution today which itself was very bloody and went through many deviations, but whose values – liberty, brotherhood, and equality – are something the modern society is built on. In essence, these are the values that fascism tried to suppress, and the defence of which gave birth to anti-fascism.

We have seen a flood of revisionist tendencies in Croatia, since the 1990s until the present day. Can this be fought by just presenting facts to the public?

What else can we do? I sure hope so. On the other hand, it is true that any demagogue or forger can call their half-truths and fabrications “alternative facts”. There are 500-page books published out there claiming that the Earth is flat, and that is being portrayed as the right to a different opinion.

The topic of Jasenovac concentration camp is not far from that. There is a list of victims who perished there, more than 80,000 of them. Even if 800 people on the list were found to have been inscribed by mistake, it would still make only 1 percent of the total. It would still be a very accurate list overall.

And at the same time, you’ve got books being promoted on public television which claim that this was just a place to gather labour force to be sent to Germany. I talked to people who had escaped from Jasenovac, people who had relatives, entire families, perish there, and now here comes a guy who says this was all invented, that all these unconnected people are in fact part of a huge conspiracy. If he could prove that, it would be like proving that the Earth is flat.

Who is responsible for this, there have been entire generations which know very little about World War II and anti-fascism. Politicians often mention anti-fascism, only to add that they oppose all totalitarian systems?

The biggest responsibility is on those who have the biggest influence on forming the public opinion, which are politicians in power. Here’s an example – when in the early 2000s there was fierce debate over the extradition of the Croatian Army general Janko Bobetko to the Hague tribunal, some 80 percent of people were against it. Then President Stjepan Mesic said Croatia is a serious country which had signed an international agreement and that it was our obligation to recognise the Hague court. And three days later, the percentage of those opposing it fell to 50 percent.

Even in that case, which was very delicate for the Croatian public, the person in power had more influence on changing the public opinion than any independent journalists or NGOs who had been vocally advocating the same view for years.

Or an example of inaction – if Prime Minister Plenkovic had condemned the blasphemous putting up of a plaque containing the Ustasha-era slogan in the town of Jasenovac, next to the site where the worst Ustasha-run concentration camp operated, many relativising views of the criminal character of the Ustasha movement – which are so detrimental for younger generations – might have been avoided.

Today in Croatia there is a problem with relativist views regarding only one kind of totalitarianism. Some described it as the beginning of fascism in society. I would call it the loss of immunity to fascism, kind of like the expiry of vaccination. Immediately after World War II. people remembered the horrors, what the racial laws resulted in, the inciting against ethnic minorities, the dehumanising of everyone who isn’t “us”, “the people”. That’s how it started, and it ended with concentration camps.

After World War II there was immunity to ideological movements which promoted inequality. But over time, it seems to me, it weakened. For younger generations, this weakened immunity – which was helped by historical revisionism they were taught – made them non-resistant to even the primitive kind of demagoguery.

Can this kind of singling out groups that are different, be related to the recent referendum initiatives, or, for example, the matter of migrants?

I think so. The referendum on changes to election law has two aims. One is to weaken the moderate factions with the ruling Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) party, the other is to abolish minority rights that have already been inscribed by law. In open democratic societies there is a reverse trend – to try and fix centuries-long injustices. For example, when there’s a law saying that at least 40 percent of government officials and MPs should be women, it’s a way to help a group that had been discriminated against for centuries, so that it ceases to be that way. And ending discrimination is not easy, for that to happen society needs to make an effort.

But this referendum is going the opposite way, towards removing existing rights. Towards reducing freedoms and equality in the society.

On the referendum to revoke the Istanbul Convention there is very little to say. It’s a garden variety example of fear mongering and dumbing down of people with fabrications like gender ideology, in order to defend their own prejudices.

As for refugees, it’s a problem that is difficult to solve because there are two sides to it. On the one hand, these are people who escaped the horrible wars for which, by the way, the responsibility of the EU and the United States cannot be ignored. They played a part in starting those wars, but also in the fact that they cannot seem to end. It’s a humanitarian disaster, and any state, any society, that upholds elementary ethical principles should help them.

On the other hand, the arrival of a great number of refugees into the country helps to politically strengthen the far right, exactly the groups that are against accepting refugees, and which are normally against freedom and equality in their own country.

To politicians, like the President of Croatia (Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic), who keep talking about the problem of population drain, it never occurred that receiving a larger number of refugees would help ease that problem. Instead, they say they regret not being able to limit the free movement of their own citizens.

Croatia could receive ten times more refugees than it currently does. It wouldn’t just be a humane gesture – which would not be entirely irrelevant for the health of the society – but also, I believe, it would turn out to be a pragmatic move in the best interest of the country. How do you do this? Well, just listen to the Pope, who recommended that every parish should accept a family of migrants, and in Croatia there are more than 1,500 parishes. Those people would be grateful for the help, and would make very loyal citizens of Croatia.

Follow N1 via mobile apps for Android | iPhone/iPad | Windows| and social media on Twitter | Facebook.