Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the 1938 treatise History of the All- Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), abbreviated AUCP(b) - an official treatise from the Stalin era of the USSR which was published on a mass scale. The author puts his reflections in two contexts: 1. the internal Marxist dispute over "orthodoxy", which Stalin resolved by publishing (and co-authoring) this "canonical book", and 2. the myth-forming context, which shows how totalitarian regimes present themselves with their "canonical books". He considers publications preceding the analyzed book, which after Lenin's death included texts by Grigory Zinoviev, Nikolai Bukharin and Leon Trotsky. Then he considers the actual book, focusing in more detail on the absence of two topics and concepts - the state and culture. He pays particular attention to the chapter on dialectic and historical materialism written by Stalin, which completes the simplistic interpretations in the so-called Stalinist Marxism. Like L. Kolakowski, he concludes that the entire Stalinist concept is naturalistic (meaning the naive naturalism of the late 19th century: Marxism guarantees a "scientific world view") and naively nomothetic (all fundamental claims have the form of unquestionable laws).

U radu se prikazuje kronološki razvoj javne rasvjete i elektrifikacije naselja Gospić od sredine druge polovice 19. stoljeća, pa do kraja 1950-ih godina kada se gospić- ka energetska mreža uklapa u državni distribucijski sustav. Začeci gospićke javne rasvjete tehnologijom petrolejskih lampi evidentirani su u posljednjim godinama postojanja Vojne krajine, a u takvom obliku zadržali su se pola stoljeća. Analiziran je kontekst javne rasvjete u društvenom životu Gospića kao i u kompleksnim političkim situacijama uslijed kojih je Gospić u svakom, a pogotovo tehnološkom pogledu, zaostajao u odnosu na ostale krajeve. Poseban osvrt dan je razdoblju dvadesetih godina 20. stoljeća kada u Gospić napokon dolazi električna energija, a s njom i moderno svjetlo. Godine 1925. puštena je u rad Općinska munjara Gospić, a kolika je bila potreba stanovništva za strujom pokazuje i podatak da je već četiri godine poslije izvršena prva rekonstrukcija kojom su značajno povećani kapaciteti. Kao takva, centrala je bila u upotrebi sve do sredine '50-ih godina 20. stoljeća kada Gospić dobiva novu dizelsku termoelektranu, koja je uslijed skupe proizvodnje struje radila vrlo kratko. Osnivanjem "Elektrolike Gospić" 1956. godine, jedinstvenog poduzeća za distribuciju struje na području Like, te dovršenjem petogodišnjeg projekta izgradnje niza dalekovoda, Gospić je napokon 1961. godine dobio moderan i siguran izvor električne energije. ; The paper presents the chronological development of public lighting and electrification of Gospić in the period from the middle of the second half of the 19th century until the decade after the end of the Second World War when the energy network of Gospić was fitted into the state distribution system. The beginnings of public lighting in Gospić with the technology of kerosene lamps was recorded in the last years of the Croatian Military Frontier, and it remained in such a form for half a century. The context of public lighting in the social life of Gospić was analysed, as well as the complex political situations due to which Gospić lagged behind in other areas, especially in terms of technology. Special attention is given to the period of the 1920s, when electricity finally came to Gospić, and with it modern light. In 1925, the Municipal Lightning Plant Gospić was put into operation, and the fact that the first reconstruction was carried out after only four years shows how much the population needed electricity. As such, the plant was in use until the mid-1950s when Gospić received a new diesel thermal power plant, which operated for a very short time due to expensive electricity production. With the founding of "Elektrolika Gospić" in 1956, a unique company for the distribution of electricity in the Lika area, and the completion of a five-year project to build a series of transmission lines, Gospić finally in 1961 got a modern and secure source of electricity.

The article deals with the idea of Central Europe and aims to identify common developmental tendencies of the region in the medieval period and early modern age. The author emphasizes the advantages of the comparative approach primarily in the case of the medieval and early modern Polish, Czech and Hungarian states. Alongside common developmental tendencies the author emphasizes also important differences which cast doubt on the very idea of Central Europe.

This study deals with application of the Norbert Elias's theory of sociogenesis to the case of early Czech state formation. For this purpose we focus on the mechanisms of emergence and establishing of the state monopoly, as well as on the aspects of decentralization and privatization of state power during reign of first Premyslid dukes - from 860 to 1230 AD. In the second place, the article tries to compare the process of sociogenesis in the Western Europe with the dynamics of state formation that was typical for the contemporary Czech lands. In this context we claim that Elias made several mistakes, because he supposed that features and mechanisms of state formation were fairly unitary everywhere Europe. We try to challenge this notion show that the history of state making in the Central European region has many autonomous and unique aspects that differentiate it from social dynamics in other parts of the continent. From this critical pointof view, the article attempts a reformulation of Elias's theory for the Central European area.

Na osnovu analize izvornih arhivskih dokumenata i propisa objavljenih u službenim listovima, opisuje se djelokrug, ustroj i sastav Prezidijuma Sabora NRH. Njegovi temelji postavljeni su u radu Zemaljskog antifašističkog vijeća narodnog oslobođenja Hrvatske (ZAVNOH), odnosno njegova Predsjedništva, koje je kao uže tijelo plenuma osnovano 9. svibnja 1944. godine. Na Četvrtom zasjedanju održanom 24. i 25. srpnja 1945. u Zagrebu, ZAVNOH je promijenio naziv u Narodni sabor Hrvatske, a njegovo Predsjedništvo od tada djeluje kao Predsjedništvo Narodnog sabora Hrvatske. U razdoblju 1945.–1953. njegovo djelovanje može se podijeliti u četiri mandatna razdoblja: Predsjedništvo Narodnog sabora Hrvatske/Prezidijum Sabora NRH (25. srpnja 1945.–30. studenoga 1946.), Prezidijum Ustavotvornog sabora NRH (30. studenoga 1946.–20. siječnja 1947.), Prezidijum Sabora NRH prvoga saziva (20. siječnja 1947.–4. prosinca 1950.) i Prezidijum Sabora NRH drugoga saziva (4. prosinca 1950.–6. veljače 1953.). U prvom dijelu rada opisuje se osnivanje i prestanak rada Prezidijuma Sabora, u drugom njegov djelokrug, a u trećem ustroj i sastav po mandatnim razdobljima. Njegov ustroj i djelokrug uspoređeni su s ustrojem i djelokrugom Prezidijuma Narodne skupštine FNRJ i prezidijuma drugih jugoslavenskih republika. Rezultati istraživanja prezentirani su kombinacijom tematskog i kronološkog pristupa, a dijelom su sistematizirani u obliku tabelarnih prikaza. ; This paper describes the scope, structure and the composition of the Presidium of Parliament of the People's Republic of Croatia (PRC) which was active as a political governmental body in Croatia from 1945 to 1953. According to the Yugoslav constitutional system of government, the same political body existed on the federal level as the Presidium of the People's Assembly of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY), as well as in every republic-member of the Yugoslav federation and the scope, organization and composition of the Presidium of Parliament are compared with the scope, organization and composition of those bodies. The foundations of the activities of the Presidium of Parliament, as well as other central governmental institutions in Croatia (namely, Parliament, Government, and Supreme Court) were laid in the work of the State Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Croatia (ZAVNOH) i.e. its Presidency, since until the end of the war they together performed the legislative, executive and judiciary government. During the 4th session that took place in Zagreb from 24 to 25 July 1945 ZAVNOH changed is title to the People's Parliament of Croatia and since then its Presidency worked as the Presidency of the People's Parliament of Croatia. In the period from 1945 to 1953 its activity can be divided into four mandate periods: the Presidency of the People's Parliament of Croatia/the Presidium of the Parliament of the PRC (25 July 1945–30 November 1946), the Presidium of the Constituent Parliament of the PRC (30 November 1946–20 January 1947), the Presidium of the 1st Session of the Parliament of the PRC (20 January 1947–4 December 1950) and the Presidium of the 2nd Session of the Parliament of the PRC (4 December 1950–6 February 1953). Its existence in the system of governmental power is the result of taking over the Soviet constitutional solutions about organizing the state and governmental institutions in the 1946 constitution of the FPRY and through it also in the constitutions of each federal unit. It was the main legislative body in the period until the constituting of the Constituent Parliament of the PRC, since the Parliament of the PRC only had a single short five-day session in late August 1946. This is confirmed by the information about 29 laws passed by the Presidium of Parliament in the period from 8 September 1945 to 20 November 1946. Besides legislative, it also performed other functions from the jurisdiction then belonging to the Parliament. The constitution of the PRC from 1946 bestowed upon it performing tasks that are usually given to the president of the state (representing in the country the people's and state sovereignty of the PRC, calling the general elections, granting pardons, awarding medals and recognitions), as well as other executive tasks partly closely linked to the legislative activities. The special function pertained to supervising the people's committees. The important difference in the scope in relation to the Presidium of the People's Assembly of the FPRY was that it did not have the authority in the area of foreign affairs. Even though the constitution of the PRC from January 1947 lists it together with the Parliament in the chapter on the highest bodies of the governmental power in Croatia, the sources and constitutional-legal texts of the time, in accordance with the principle of unity of power, define it as a body which "stems from the Parliament" and is subordinated to it. Also, despite being formally constitutionally defined as one of the highest bodies of governmental power in Croatia, in reality it was the Party's transmission, since the actual power and monopoly in decisionmaking was in the hands of the bodies of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia/the League of Communists of Yugoslavia i.e. the Communist Party of Croatia/the League of Communists of Croatia. It was a collegiate body comprised of members of the Parliament. The decision of its composition was formally passed by the Parliament, but based on the conclusions reached during sessions of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Croatia. It was elected for the same term as the Parliament, but it continued to perform its duties after the dissolution of the Parliament, until the election of the new Presidium of Parliament. From 1945 to 1953 the total of 45 MPs were included in its activities. 13 of them were members during all four mandate terms, 11 during two and 14 during only one. The structure and the way of work were determined by the Rulebook dated from 7 August 1947. They were the exact copy of the structure and the way of work of the Presidium of the People's Assembly of the FPRY, with differences deriving from different jurisdictions (federal, republic) of these two bodies.

Parental leave reforms that aimed at higher father's involvement in childcare began in the 1970s. However, the number of fathers who took parental leave increased only in the 1990s when Scandinavian countries began introducing father's quotas or paternity leaves, that is, earmarked leave periods to be used by fathers or otherwise lost. Croatia introduced the two-month father's quota as late as in 2013. Although the reform did not contribute to a sudden increase in the number of fathers on parental leave, there is always a steady, albeit small, number of fathers taking up leave. This article aims to provide an insight into fathers' experiences on parental leave in Croatia. Relying on interviews with 11 middle-class fathers in the City of Zagreb, the article explores father's motives for taking leave, their experience regarding the initial decision and the procedure of exercising their right to leave and their experience of being on leave. Results suggest that the fathers were very eager to use their right to leave and spend time with their children. They mostly used longer leaves (more than 3 months) and the experience of being home alone with the child made the fathers learn new skills in relation to childcare and housework, but also rethink their relation to work and family. ; Reforme roditeljskih dopusta usmjerene na uključivanje većeg broja očeva u brigu o djeci započele su 1970-ih, međutim broj očeva koji su koristili roditeljske dopuste povećao se tek 1990-ih kada su skandinavske države počele uvoditi kvote za očeve, odnosno očeve dopuste. Te su kvote periodi dopusta namijenjeni isključivo očevima te u slučaju neiskorištenosti od strane oca propadaju. Hrvatska je uvela dvomjesečnu kvotu za očeve tek 2013. Iako reforma nije doprinijela značajnom povećanju broja očeva koji koriste dopuste, u Hrvatskoj uvijek imamo određeni stabilan, iako mali, broj očeva koji koriste dopuste. Namjera ovog rada je pružiti uvid u iskustva očeva na roditeljskom dopustu u Hrvatskoj. Intervjuima s 11 očeva srednjeg društvenog sloja u Gradu Zagrebu dobiven je uvid u motivaciju očeva za korištenjem dopusta, njihova iskustva u vidu donošenja odluke i postupku ostvarivanja prava na dopust te njihova iskustva tijekom samog korištenja roditeljskog dopusta. Rezultati pokazuju kako su očevi bili jako motivirani koristiti svoje pravo na dopust i provesti vrijeme s djetetom. Uglavnom su koristili duže dopuste (više od 3 mjeseca) te im je iskustvo bivanja samih s djetetom omogućilo stjecanje novih vještina u brizi za djecu i za kućanstvo, ali ih je i potaknulo da promisle o svojem odnosu prema poslu i obitelji.

Jedna od najznačajnijih obitelji hrvatsko-ugarske povijesti jest porodica Gorjanski (Garai). Podrijetlom je iz nekadašnjega sela Dorozsme, koje se danas nalazi u sastavu Szegeda, trećega po veličini mađarskoga grada. Selo je ime dobilo po rodu Drušini(Drušbi) iz kojega potječu Gorjanski. Utemeljitelj obitelji je Ivan Gorjanski koji je 1269. od hercega Bele dobio grad i utvrdu Gorjani (Gara) u tadašnjoj Vukovskoj županiji. Gorjanski su tijekom dva stoljeća zauzimali visoke državne položaje u Hrvatskoj i Ugarskoj te su uz Karla Khuen-Hedervaryja (bio je predsjednik središnje vlade u Budimpešti 1903. i 1910.–1912. godine te hrvatski ban od 1883. do 1903.) bili najviše pozicionirani državnici iz Hrvatske. Naime, oni su u tri uzastopna naraštaja nosili najviši dvorski naslov palatina (1375.-1385., 1402.–1433., 1447.–1458.), a i u njihovoj drugoj, tzv. "banskoj" lozi imali su važnu ulogu kao hrvatski i slavonski, odnosno mačvanski banovi. Najvažniju ulogu u obitelji imao je Nikola Gorjanski mlađi, šurjak i najbliži suradnik kralja Sigismunda (Žigmunda) Luksemburgovca, koji je bio kraljev zamjenik za njegovih čestih izbivanja iz zemlje, a obavljao je i najdelikatnije diplomatske zadaće u Njemačkoj, Francuskoj i Engleskoj. Za to je nagrađen ne samo golemim posjedima, nego i Redom zmaja i Redom rupca. ; One of the most notable families in Croatian-Hungarian history is the Gorjanski (Garai) family. The family hails from Dorozsma village of old, which is part of present-day Szeged, the third largest city in Hungary. The village was named after the clan of Drušina (Drušba), from which the Gorjanski family draws its lineage. The progenitor of the family was Ivan Gorjanski, who received the Gorjani (Gara) town and fortress in the Vukovska County from Duke Bela in 1269. For two centuries members of the Gorjanski family held high level court positions in Croatia and Hungary and were, along with Karoly Khuen-Héderváry (the president of the central government in Budapest in 1903 and 1910-1912 and the Croatian ban from 1883 to 1903), the most notable political figures from Croatia. Namely, they held the highest court title of palatine (1375 – 1385, 1402 – 1433, 1447 – 1458) throughout three successive generations, while their other so-called "banal/Bánfi" branch also had an important role as Croatian and Slavonian bans, as well as bans of Macsó. The most significant figure of the family was Nikola Gorjanski Junior, brother-in-law and closest associate of King Sigismund of Luxembourg, who stood in for the King during his frequent travels. He also performed the most delicate diplomatic duties in Germany, France and England, for which he was rewarded not only with huge estates, but also the Order of the Dragon and Order of the Scarf.

U članku se uspoređuju politike povijesti Drugoga svjetskog rata u Estoniji i Hrvatskoj poslije državnog osamostaljenja. Pokazujući kako su estonski i hrvatski nacionalno-integracijski procesi dominantno bili obilježeni "potragom" za samostalnom državom, temeljna je teza članka da revizionističko sjećanje na estonske i hrvatske osovinske borce kao na "borce za naciju i državu" opstaje zbog isključivog shvaćanja Sovjetskog Saveza i Jugoslavije kao velikoruske odnosno velikosrpske "tamnice" estonskoga i hrvatskog naroda. Iako službeno sjećanje u objema zemljama ističe europsko antifašističko nasljeđe, oklijevanje vlasti u odmicanju od ekskluzivističkih državotvornih politika povijesti potiče pozitivnu interpretaciju estonskoga i hrvatskog fašizma. Autori zaključno prikazuju razlike među dvjema zemljama te upućuju na pogubnost aktualnih europskih politika spram totalitarizma kao obrasca suočavanja s Drugim svjetskim ratom, a koje Estoniju i Hrvatsku još više udaljuju od suočavanja s prošlošću. ; This article offers a comparison of the politics of history of WWII in Estonia and in Croatia after their independence. Following an introduction demonstrating how Estonian and Croatian national integrative processes were predominantly marked by their "pursuit" of independency, the main thesis is exposed – that the revisionist memory of Estonian and Croatian Axis fighters as "fighters for the nation and the state" has survived primarily due to the exclusivist understanding of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia as the Greater-Russian or Greater-Serbian "dungeons" of Estonian and Croatian people, respectively. Although the official historical memory in both countries highlights the European anti-fascist heritage, the authorities' reluctance to move away from the exclusive statehood politics of history serves to promote a positive interpretation of Estonian and Croatian fascism. The authors in conclusion depict the differences between the two countries and warn of the fatal consequences of the current European policies towards totalitarianism as a pattern for dealing with World War II, which are pushing Estonia and Croatia further away from facing the past.

U ovom radu prikazuje se razvoj političkih stranaka i opis političke atmosfere u Grubišnom Polju između dva svjetska rata. Raspadom Austro-Ugarske i stvaranjem jugoslavenske države 1918. godine neke stare političke stranke nastavile su svoje djelovanje u novim prilikama, ali su nastajale i nove političke stranke. U Grubišnom Polju kao izrazito multietničkom gradiću u kojem su većinu stanovništva činili Hrvati i Srbi te u manjem broju Mađari i Česi, artikuliranje njihovih političkih interesa i opredjeljenja bilo je vrlo slojevito. Kod hrvatskog stanovništva vrlo brzo uzima primat Hrvatska (pučka) seljačka stranka braće Radića, sa svojom seljačkom i republikanskom političkom sastavnicom i ideologijom, koju je zadržala do sloma Kraljevine Jugoslavije, dok je srpsko stanovništvo bilo podijeljeno u svom političkom odabiru. U početku je njihovo opredjeljenje bilo na strani Pribićevićeve Demokratske stranke (kasnije Samostalne demokratske stranke) da bi se usložnjavanjem političke situacije u državi (posebno zbog nerješavanja hrvatskog pitanja, ali i nagomilanih socijalnih i društvenih problema) njihove političke preferencije okrenule prema režimskim strankama s unitarističkim programom – Jugoslavenska nacionalna stranka (JNS) te Stojadinovićeva Jugoslavenska radikalna zajednica (JRZ). Svaka od ovih političkih organizacija stvarala je svoje društvene, socijalne i sportske organizacije u kojima je njihova ideologija bila važnija od rada tih organizacija. Dvije nacionalne zajednice – hrvatska i srpska – bile su dobro integrirane u tamošnju društvenu zajednicu i bez većih antagonizama i sukoba se odvijalo politički život. Ipak na marginama političkog života možemo pratiti začetke ekstremnih ideologija poput ustaškog pokreta, ustrojavanje četničkog udruženja i polako uzdizanje komunističkog pokreta i njegove ideologije. Ove do tada marginalne skupine u političkom smislu preuzet će političku pozornicu izbijanjem Drugog svjetskog rata u Kraljevini Jugoslaviji. U istraživanju se koristila izvorna arhivska građa iz Hrvatskog državnog arhiva u Zagrebu i Državnog arhiva u Bjelovaru, sekundarna literatura te nacionalni i regionalni tisak. ; This paper presents the development of political parties and describes the political atmosphere in Grubišno Polje between the two world wars. By the downfall of Austro-Hungary and the formation of the new Yugoslav state in 1918, some of the existing political parties continued to operate in the newly established circumstances. However, new political parties were formed too. In Grubišno Polje, a pronouncedly multi-ethnic town, in which the majority were the Croats and the Serbs, and the minority the Hungarians and the Czechs, articulating one's political interests and orientations was extremely complex. Among Croatian population, Croatian People's Peasant Party established by the Radić brothers very soon became the principal party thanks to its peasant-oriented and republican political component and ideology, which it held on until the downfall of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Serbian population was however not as united in its political choice. At first, the Serbs were on the side of Pribićević's Democratic Party (later Independent Democratic Party). However, as the political situation in the country grew more complex (in particular due to not solving Croatian issue, but also due to growing material and social problems), their political preferences were directed towards regime parties with unitarianist programme – Yugoslav National Party and Stojadinović's Yugoslav Radical Union. Each of these political organizations formed its social and sports organizations, in which the ideology played an important role, being an immanent part thereof. The two national communities – Croatian and Serbian – were well integrated in the social community, and political life proceeded with no major antagonism or conflicts. Nevertheless, the beginnings of extremist ideologies may be followed on the margins of political life – for instance the Ustasha movement, the establishment of the Chetnik association, as well as gradual rising of the communist movement and its ideology. These groups, until that time marginal, had taken over the political scene when World War Two burst out in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In this research, original archival materials from Croatian State Archives in Zagreb and State Archives in Bjelovar, secondary literature, as well as national and regional press were used.

Top 76,2 mm M1942 (ZisS-3) se zbog svojih odlika smatra jednim od najboljih topova Drugog svjetskog rata, no njegova je proizvodnja prestala po završetku ratnih operacija. U radu je dan sažeti povijesni prikaz razvoja ovog srednje teškog topa. Razmatrani je top po završetku rata Sovjetski Savez izvozio u druge zemlje, najvećim dijelom u savezničke komunističke države, pa tako onda i u Jugoslaviju. Top M1942 (ZiS-3) je, zbog svojih dobrih karakteristika, i danas u upotrebi u nekim manje razvijenim dijelovima svijeta. U radu je najvećim dijelom opisan postupak restauriranja i konzerviranja jednog primjerka topa ovog tipa koji je danas u vlasništvu grada Karlovca, odnosno tamošnjeg muzeja. Analiza konkretnog topa je pokazala da je proizveden 1945. te da je u Jugoslavensku narodnu armiju najvjerojatnije stigao između 1945. i sredine 1948. kada su Rezolucijom Informbiroa prekinuti odnosi između Jugoslavije i Sovjetskog Saveza, kao i sovjetska vojna pomoć Jugoslaviji. U vrijeme Domovinskog rata top je prešao u ruke Hrvatske vojske. ; The M1942, better known as ZiS-3, is a multifunctional medium caliber field gun used for infantry support on flat terrain, as well as against tanks and armored vehicles. The German Reich advocated the production of big caliber guns, which prompted the Marshal of the Soviet Union G. I. Kulik to order a cessation of the production of small and medium caliber guns. The work on the gun, which was secretly constructed by engineer V. G. Grabin in Gorki and later known as the 76,2 mm divisional field gun M1942 (ZiS-3), began in 1940. Soon after the German attack on the Soviet Union, the Soviet military command realized that small and medium caliber guns were needed in battles after all, which prompted the production of the aforementioned gun despite certain problems caused by the fact that the gun in question was never officially developed. Its official production began in 1942 and lasted until the end of the World War II. After the war, the Soviet Union exported this gun to other countries, mostly to allied communist countries, including Yugoslavia. It is still in use in some less developed parts of the world due to its characteristics. Less qualified personnel were able to work on the production and gunners quickly passed training on the operation of the gun due to the simplicity of its construction.

Povećanje nezaposlenosti, loš životni standard i opća besperspektivnost, ali i politički razlozi bili su glavni potisni čimbenik iseljavanja iz Jugoslavije tijekom 60-ih i 70-ih godina prošloga stoljeća. U fokusu ovoga rada je iseljavanje građana iz Hercegovine kao regije s najvećom stopom iseljavanja u vrijeme komunističke Jugoslavije. Zbog velike potrebe za radnom snagom i zbog postojanja razgranatih migrantskih mreža (rodbinskih i inih veza), najveći dio iseljenika odlučio se za Saveznu Republiku Njemačku. Prilikom dolaska u SR Njemačku iseljenici se susreću s mnogobrojnim nedaćama i problemima koje ćemo razmotriti u ovome radu. Rad se temelji na metodi pripovjedne povijesti i pripovijesti šestero kazivača. Cilj je predočiti etnološku i kulturno-antropološku sliku života tadašnjih iseljenika, koji se u ovome radu izjednačuju s terminom "gastarbajteri". Jedan od ciljeva rada jest otkriti uzročno-posljedične veze i motive iseljavanja iz komunističke Jugoslavije u SR Njemačku u razdoblju od 1960. do 1973. te prikazati svakodnevicu iseljenika u Njemačkoj. Zaključak rada jest da su razgranate hrvatske migrantske mreže jedan od glavnih poticajnih čimbenika iseljavanja u Njemačku. ; Rising unemployment, poor living standards, and general lack of prospects, but also political reasons were the main drivers of emigration from Yugoslavia during the 1960s and 1970s. The focus of this paper is on emigration to Germany from Herzegovina as the region with the highest emigration rate during the communist Yugoslav political framework. Due to the huge need for the workers and due to the developed migrant networks (family-based or other) the majority of the emigrants decided to go to the Federal Republic of Germany. After their arrival the emigrants are faced with numerous problems, that this paper discusses. The paper is based on the method of oral history and the narrative of six narrators with the aim of acquiring an ethnological and cultural-anthropological picture of the life of the then emigrants, who are in this paper equivalent to the term "Gastarbeiters". One of the aims of the paper is to unveil causes, consequences and motivation for the emigration from the communist Yugoslavia to the Federal Republic of Germany in the period 1960 till 1973 as well as to depict everyday life of the emigrants in Germany. The conclusion of the paper is that the branched Croatian migrant networks were one of the main incentives for the emigration of Croats to Germany.

Autor priređuje i analizira neobjavljenu listinu, izdanu 1386. godine u Dvigradu, kojom je sklopljen savez između dvigradske komune, nominalno pod jurisdikcijom akvilejskih patrijarha, i Hugona VIII. Devinskog, kapetana susjedne Istarske grofovije, upravne regije pod vrhovnom vlašću kuće Habsburg. Ističući razne nedaće koje su pogodile Akvilejski patrijarhat i Markgrofoviju Istru tijekom zadnjih desetljeća 14. stoljeća, imenovanje je Hugona VIII. kao novoga advokata (tj. zaštitnika, lat. advocatus) Dvigrada interpretirano u svjetlu jurisdikcijskoga pluraliteta, poroznih granica istarskoga srednjovjekovlja i, najvažnije, recipročne naravi odnosa između gospodara i podanika. Autor zaključuje da je novoutemeljeni savez bio prvenstveno motiviran nemoći tadašnjih istarskih markgrofova da svojim podanicima pruže primjerenu vojnu zaštitu, pogotovo u kontekstu tradicionalnih graničnih sporova između podanika akvilejske Crkve s jedne i Istarske grofovije s druge strane. Štoviše, kako je Akvilejski patrijarhat potonuo u građanski rat, koji je suprotstavio promletački tabor na čelu s Udinama protiv propadovanskoga, koji su vodili de iure patrijarh Filip d'Alençon i Čedad, Hugon VIII. Devinski postao je jedan od najmoćnijih regionalnih vlastodržaca. Istovremeno, tadašnji istarski markgrof, Dujam od Castella, otvoreno je podržavao promletački front te mu je stoga zakoniti patrijarh d'Alençon osporavao legitimitet ureda; Hugon VIII., s druge strane, ostao je službeno neutralan u ovom sukobu, ali je prešutno podržavao propadovanski savez, postajući de facto neprijatelj istarskoga markgrofa Dujma, de iure gospodara Dvigrada. Upravo je u tom kontekstu neprijateljstva, krize i neizvjesnosti građanskoga rata dvigradska komuna, na čije su teritorije najvjerojatnije pljačkaški upadali podanici Pazinske knežije uz podršku samoga Hugona VIII., odlučila sklopiti savez sa svojim moćnim susjedom, preferirajući imenovati tadašnjega kapetana Pazina kao svojega službenog zaštitnika i plaćati mu godišnji danak (tj. reket), nego ostati vjerna nemoćnoj akvilejskoj Crkvi. ; The author edits and analyzes an inedited charter, issued in Dvigrad in 1386, by which an alliance was forged between the Commune of Dvigrad, nominally under the jurisdiction of Aquileian patriarchs, and Hugo VIII of Duino, the captain of the neighboring County of Istria, a jurisdictional region under the supreme authority of House Habsburg. Highlighting various calamities that plagued the Patriarchate of Aquileia and the Margraviate of Istria during the final decades of the 14th century, the appointment of Hugo VIII as the new guard (Lat. advocatus) of Dvigrad is interpreted in the light of jurisdictional plurality, porous boundaries of Istrian Middle Ages, and, most importantly, the reciprocal nature of the lord-subject relationship. The author concludes that the newly forged alliance was primarily motivated by the inability of the incumbent Istrian margraves to offer adequate military protection to their subjects, especially in the context of traditional border disputes between the subjects of the Church of Aquileia and the subjects of the County of Istria. Moreover, as the Church of Aquileia plunged into civil war which pitted the pro-Venetian faction led by Udine against the pro-Paduan faction led by the de iure patriarch, Philip d'Alençon and Cividale, Hugo VIII of Duino emerged as one of the most powerful regional potentates. At the same time, the incumbent margrave of Istria, Domnius of Castello, openly supported the pro-Venetian front and as such the legitimacy of his office was disputed by the lawful patriarch Alençon; Hugo VIII, on the other hand, remained officially neutral in the conflict, but he tacitly supported the pro-Paduan alliance, becoming a de facto enemy of Margrave Domnius, the de iure lord of Dvigrad. It was in this context of enmity, crisis, and the uncertainty of civil war that the Commune of Dvigrad, most probably pillaged by the neighboring subjects of the County of Pazin backed by Hugo VIII, decided to forge an alliance with their more powerful neighbor, preferring to constitute the incumbent captain of Pazin as their official guard and to pay him a new annual tax (i.e. a protection racket) than to remain faithful to the powerless Church of Aquileia. ; L'autore dispone e analizza un documento inedito, rilasciato nel 1386 a Duecastelli, con il quale fu stabilita l'alleanza tra il comune di Duecastelli, nominalmente sotto la giurisdizione dei Patriarchi di Aquileia, e Ugo VIII di Duino, capitano del vicino Marchesato d'Istria, regione amministrativa sotto l'autorità suprema della casa d'Asburgo. Sottolineando vari disagi che colpirono il patriarcato di Aquileia e il Margraviato d'Istria negli ultimi decenni del XIV secolo, la nomina di Ugo VIII a nuovo avvocato (ovvero protettore, lat. advocatus) di Duecastelli fu interpretata alla luce della pluralità delle giurisdizioni, dei confini porosi del medioevo istriano e, la più importante reciprocità del rapporto tra autorità e sudditi. L'autore conclude che la nuova alleanza stabilita fu motivata soprattutto dall'incapacità dei margravi istriani di allora nell'offrire una protezione militare adeguata ai propri sudditi, soprattutto nel contesto delle tradizionali controversie frontaliere tra i sudditi della Chiesa d'Aquileia da una parte e il Marchesato d'Istria dall'altra parte. Inoltre, dato che il patriarcato di Aquileia sprofondò nella guerra civile che vide opporsi la parte pro veneziana, con a capo Udine, contro quella pro padovana guidata de iure dal patriarca Filippo d'Alençon e Cividale del Friuli, Ugo VIII di Duino diventò uno dei più potenti sovrani regionali. Contemporaneamente, il margravio istriano di allora, Doimo di Castello, sosteneva apertamente il fronte pro veneziano e per quel motivo, il patriarca legittimo d'Alençon, contestava la legittimità dell'ufficio; Ugo VIII, dall'altra parte rimase ufficialmente neutrale in quel conflitto, però sostenne tacitamente l'alleanza pro padovana, diventando de facto nemico del margravio istriano Doimo, de iure padrone di Duecastelli. Proprio in quel contesto di ostilità, crisi e incertezza della guerra civile il comune di Duecastelli, su cui territorio presumibilmente le invasioni dei rapinatori erano effettuate dai sudditi della Contea di Pisino con il sostegno di Ugo VIII stesso, decise di stipulare l'alleanza con il proprio vicino potente, preferendo nominare il capitano di Pisino di allora a proprio protettore ufficiale e a pagargli il tributo annuale (ovvero il racket) che rimanere fedele all'impotente Chiesa di Aquileia.