Meeting Hitler-Horthy in 1936 and the International Position of Yugoslavia

The author has based the article on the analysis of the meeting between Hitler and Horthy, in August 1936, as it had been of a great importance for the international position of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The meeting had represented one more part of the final forming of the fascist bloc inside Middle Europe, and the conclusive surrendering of Hungary was according to Hitler\u27s requiring: »everybody smooth handedly with Yugoslavia, everybody in a headlong attack on Tcheckoslovakia.« Mussolini\u27s joining in with Hitler coinciding with it, had led to the Italian intervention in the Yugoslav-Hungarian Treaty. So there it was all laid out: war for Prague, neutrality and gradual joining the fascist bloc for Belgrade. The very preparations for destroying peace in Europe were forcing the two fascist leaders to lead Hungary and Yugoslavia to approach. Though the president of Yugoslav government, Milan Stojadinović, had brought the Yugoslav-Hungarian relations to the spheres of friendship and cordiality, he had still refused to sign a treaty with Hungary inspite of ever-increasing pressure of Hitler and Mussolini. He could not find it convenient as yet to be exposed as a breaker of the Little Entente. Meanwhile, refusing to sign the treaty with Hungary, Stojadinović was only masking his real abandonning of the Little Entente. The Axis, again, did not dare increase the pressure on Stojadinović in order to make him sign the treaty, as a »Stojadinović refusing the Hungarian-Yugoslav treaty« was more of a gain, than the enfeebled Belgrade regime with pact would have ever been

Svetska ekonomska kriza i jugoslavensko-italijanska trgovina (1930-34)

During the great economic crisis the volume of all international trade was lowered; all countries attempted to balance their imports and exports, so that Europe was covered with a veritable net of prohibitive measures: restrictions and import quotas, measures for control of foreign exchange, reciprocity in foreign trade, favoritism and preference for imports from those countries which purchased goods from some others, drastic limitations of imports and unlimited systems of control. Italy had a deficit in its foreign trade for a long time, but its losses were reclaimed by earnings from shipping transport, insurance, tourism, payments from emigrants, etc. During the economic crisis the supplemental earnings dropped and Italy needed to balance its foreign trade, and this meant cutting its imports drastically, particularly from Yugoslavia (although this was not a dominant factor in the Italian economy). Italian restrictions strongly affected Yugoslav exports-food, lumber, and stock. Rome also used political pressure in order to lower imports from Yugoslavia, but this political intensification did not determine trade. Yugoslavia, then tremendously affected by the crisis and falling prices of exported goods, fell into misfortune and political dissatisfaction, so that Italian political autarchy carried harsh consequences for it. A series of new, complementary Italian-Yugoslav agreements legalized the Italian limitation of imports. Yugoslavia futilely attempted to direct its agrarian exports to France and Czechoslovakia; France limited its imports of agrarian products, and Czechoslovakia even had a favorable balance of trade with Yugoslavia. Thus Italy carried out its political action against Yugoslavia (»breaking up«) and with political autarchy limited imports from Yugoslavia. So for the Yugoslav regime and exporters Germany became more significant than ever (with whom King Alexander\u27s regime had begun a »political flirtation« against Mussolini around 1927). Berlin ad Belgrade feared integrated plans in the Danube Valley (the Italian and Czechoslovakian bloc), and Germany in 1932 demonstrated that the French idea of eliminating German economic-political influence from the Danube Valley was illusory. New Italian measures for attaining autarchy in 1934-35 cam at a time when Hitler\u27s Germany was carrying out a plan to include the Southeast in the German »Grosswirtschaftsraum« and when Germany began to buy products on a massive scale from countries in the Southeast. So quite simply, Italy menaced Yugoslavia politically and limited its purchases of Yugoslav products, while Germany (especially after 1933), emphasized that it wanted the survival of the Yugoslav state and its regime, and at the same time was prepared to purchase Yugoslav agrarian surpluses. The result was that Yugoslavia, even before the economic sanctions against Italy (after October 1935), directed its exports to Germany. The economic crisis, which decreased European trade, and Fascist Italy\u27s politics of autarchy, dealt a sharp blow to Yugoslav exports which in the 1920\u27s, a fourth of its capacity was going to neighboring Italy. Paris and Prague were unable to help and it was logical for Belgrade to look to Berlin, on which the Belgrade regime had counted for a long time as a potential supporter against Italy and its allies. Changes during the crisis period significantly effected a reorientation of Yugoslav foreign policy, which is commonly, but mistakenly, identified with the person of Prince Paul and the president of the government, Dr. Milan Stojadinović

Meeting Hitler-Horthy in 1936 and the International Position of Yugoslavia

The author has based the article on the analysis of the meeting between Hitler and Horthy, in August 1936, as it had been of a great importance for the international position of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The meeting had represented one more part of the final forming of the fascist bloc inside Middle Europe, and the conclusive surrendering of Hungary was according to Hitler\u27s requiring: »everybody smooth handedly with Yugoslavia, everybody in a headlong attack on Tcheckoslovakia.« Mussolini\u27s joining in with Hitler coinciding with it, had led to the Italian intervention in the Yugoslav-Hungarian Treaty. So there it was all laid out: war for Prague, neutrality and gradual joining the fascist bloc for Belgrade. The very preparations for destroying peace in Europe were forcing the two fascist leaders to lead Hungary and Yugoslavia to approach. Though the president of Yugoslav government, Milan Stojadinović, had brought the Yugoslav-Hungarian relations to the spheres of friendship and cordiality, he had still refused to sign a treaty with Hungary inspite of ever-increasing pressure of Hitler and Mussolini. He could not find it convenient as yet to be exposed as a breaker of the Little Entente. Meanwhile, refusing to sign the treaty with Hungary, Stojadinović was only masking his real abandonning of the Little Entente. The Axis, again, did not dare increase the pressure on Stojadinović in order to make him sign the treaty, as a »Stojadinović refusing the Hungarian-Yugoslav treaty« was more of a gain, than the enfeebled Belgrade regime with pact would have ever been

Conférence de Prague, « Le théâtre français contemporain »

Cette conférence fut prononcée par Michel Vinaver à la faculté de philosophie de l’université Charles IV à Prague, quelques mois après la chute du Mur. Dans les années précédentes, il s’était déjà rendu à plusieurs reprises dans cette ville, dans le cadre d’une association apportant de l’aide à l’édition clandestine dans les pays de l’Est du bloc communiste. S’il est important de souligner la force du contexte historique, il l’est tout autant de remarquer la profonde pertinence et l’actualité de cette conférence tant d’un point de vue dramatique – pour les filiations qu’elle propose, les lignes de force qu’elle dessine – que d’un point de vue éthique et politique. L’intérêt de ce texte dépasse de loin les circonstances qui sont à son origine et rejoint aussi cette constante discrète qu’est l’engagement politique et social de l’auteur. À la lecture de la conférence, on ne peut manquer de penser au texte de La visite du chancelier autrichien en Suisse, où Michel Vinaver expose les raisons qui l’ont poussé à refuser de participer à une Journée littéraire en Suisse, après qu’il a appris la visite du chancelier Schüssel dans ce même pays. C’est dans cette marge que prend place ce texte adressé à de jeunes étudiants tchèques. Ce texte, inédit en français, raconte aussi l’histoire d’un regard, celui d’un point de vue sur la vie théâtrale entre 1920 et 1990 – et c’est sous ce regard, à travers cette lecture en accéléré, que s’esquissent des saillances, des impasses, des lignes de fuites. Le paysage qui est ici proposé, l’auteur l’a arpenté, en a sillonné l’espace sur plus de cinquante ans. Et c’est cette voie là que l’on peut suivre ici.Barbara Métais-Chastanie

Facing history : French memoirs abouth the 1789-1799 Revolution

Disertacija nastoji da utvrdi odnos izmedju francuskih memoara o Revoluciji i istorijske i knjiţevne epohe kojoj pripadaju. “Istorija” iz naslova uzima se u nekoliko značenja: kao francuska istoriografija, kao francuska istorijsko-knjiţevna memoarska tradicija, kao racionalizovan i usmeren istorijski proces, kao istorijsko zbivanje uobličeno pripovedanjem. Najpre se memoari o Revoluciji posmatraju u kontekstu francuske profesionalne istoriografije romantičarskog doba. Pokazuje se da se njihov status u prvoj polovini XIX veka razlikuje i od prethodnog i od potonjeg perioda: romantičari sakralizuju memoare, videći u njima ne samo validan istorijski izvor, nego i stilski i kompozicioni uzor za istoričara. Status memoara kao povlašćenog istorijskog izvora preispituje se na osnovu programskih, normativnih tekstova uvaţenih istoričara kao što su Ogisten Tjeri, Prosper de Barant, Adolf Tjer, te na osnovu analize zastupljenosti memoara o Revoluciji u romantičarskim istorijama Revolucije (čiji su autori Bolije, Tulonţon, Šarl de Lakretel, Adolf Tjer, Fransoa Minje, Luj Blan, Mišle Barant). Zatim se pravi pregled francuske memoarske i autobiografske tradicije (na osnovu radova glavnih savremenih teoretičara i istoričara autobiografskog ţanra) i odredjuje krunsko mesto koje memoari o Revoluciji zauzimaju u toj tradiciji, zahvaljujući izuzetnom obimu korpusa i tematici, romantičarskoj usmerenosti na Istoriju i na Subjekat, izdavačkom i čitalačkom interesovanju za memoare u prvoj polovini XIX veka. Na kraju poglavlja se skiciraju opšte karakteristike korpusa memoara o Revoluciji (u pogledu autorstva, pripadnosti knjiţevnom i istoriografskom modelu, raznolikosti stilova i knjiţevnih registara, preovladjujućeg raspoloţenja i vrste istorijske gradje, delimične fikcionalnosti i teškoća oko razgraničenja od drugih memoarskih korpusa i autobiografskih podţanrova). Drugi deo disertacije usredsredjuje se na knjiţevno i istoriografski vredna dela pet memoarista izabranih tako da se razlikuju po političkoj orijentaciji, ţivotnom putu i karijeri, mentalitetu, generacijskoj pripadnosti. U pitanju su memoari Pola Barasa, grofa de Lavaleta, Matjea Molea, gospodje Rolan i grofa de Tijija. U opštem prikazu njihovih dela obraća se paţnja na istorijat nastanka i objavljivanja memoara, ranu recepciju, sastav memoara i njihovo ţanrovsko odredjenje, pokazuje se njihov dug prema ţanrovskim modelima i aspekti originalnosti, izvesni narativni izbori, kao i determinantan značaj Revolucije u njima. Zatim se ispituje kako ovi memoaristi koncipiraju istorijski tok i tradicionalne pokretače istorije, u okviru kategorija progresa, dekadencije i cikličnosti, te Boţjeg providjenja, sudbine, slučaja i sreće. Najzad, u poglavlju o pisanju istorije, ispitane su oglašene pobude i namene memoarskih projekata, vrste istorije koje su zastupljene, te slike kojima se predstavlja Revolucija.This dissertation aims to establish the relationship between French memoirs about the Revolution and the historical and literary epoch that they belong to. The term “history”, as used in the title, is taken in several of its meanings: as French historiography, as the French historical-literary memoir tradition, as a rationalised and orientated historical process, and as historical events shaped through narration. The memoirs dealt with in this thesis are first reviewed in the context of the professional French historiography of the era of Romanticism. As it turns out, their status in the first half of the 19th century differs from their status in both the preceding and the subsequent period: romanticists sacralise memoirs, viewing them not just as a valid historical source but also as a stylistic and compositional role model for a historian. The status of memoirs as privileged historical sources is examined on the basis of programmatic, normative texts of well-respected historians such as Augustin Thierry, Prosper de Barante, Adolphe Thiers, and also on the basis of the degree and the ways of presence of memoirs on the Revolution in romanticist histories of the Revolution (by authors such as Beaulieu, Toulongeon, Charles de Lacretelle, Adolphe Thiers, François Mignet, Louis Blanc, Jules Michelet, Prosper de Barante). We then go on to provide an overview of the French memoir and autobiographical tradition (based on the works of the main contemporary theorists and historians of the autobiographical genre) and to determine the key position that memoirs of the Revolution occupy within the framework of that tradition, owing to the exceptional volume of the corpus of these works and their topics, the romanticist orientation towards History and the Subject, the publishers’ and readers’ interest in memoirs in the first half of the 19th century, etc. At the end of this chapter, we sketch out the general characteristics of the corpus of memoirs about the Revolution (concerning their authorship, which literary and historiographical model they belong to, the variety of styles and literary registers, the predominant mood and the type of historical material, their partially fictional character and the difficulties encountered when it comes to differentiating between this and other memoir corpuses and autobiographical subgenres). The second part of the dissertation focuses on the works of five memoir authors that are worthy in literary and historiographic terms, selected in such a way that they differ in their authors’ political orientation, biography and career, mentality and generational affiliation. We deal with the memoirs written by Paul Barras, comte de Lavalette, Mathieu Molé, Madame Roland, comte de Tilly. Within the framework of a general overview of their works, we pay attention to the history of the creation and publication of these memoirs, their early reception, the contents of the memoirs and their genre orientation, while also pointing out their indebtedness to genre models and aspects of originality, some narrative choices, as well as the determining significance of the Revolution upon them. Then we examine how these memoir writers conceive of the flow of history and the traditional propulsive forces of history, within the framework of the categories of progress, decadence and cyclicality, the providence of God, fate, chance and fortune. Finally, in the chapter dealing with writing history, we examine the declarative motives and intentions of memoirists’ projects, the types of history represented here, and the images used to represent the Revolution

L’animalité dans l’oeuvre de Tristan Garcia: un roman philosophique contemporain

Un des genres favoris du XVIIIe siècle français fut le roman philosophique: le bien-fondé d’une position ’philosophique’ (au sens encore très large caractéristique des Lumières) y était examiné par le biais de la fiction, du déroulement des aventures des personnages. Le présent travail envisage comment un roman d’anticipation contemporain façonne cette pratique ancienne (qui de nos jours paraît quelque peu artificielle) d’une manière littérairement et philosophiquement pertinente. Après une analyse des vues sur l’animalité que le philosophe et romancier Tristan Garcia expose dans ses études philosophiques, l’article considère le contexte dans lequel s’insère son roman Mémoires de la Jungle (2010), à savoir celui des études animales et d’un tournant animal dans la fiction et la critique littéraire en langue française. Ensuite est analysée la mise en récit de la relation humanité/animalité dans le roman, notamment le problème de l’acquisition du langage par les grands singes et les courants de pensée et concepts philosophiques relatifs à l’animalité que sont le mouvement éthique, scientifique et politique en faveur des singes anthropoïdes, le spécisme, le devenir-animal deleuzo-guattarien et le transhumanisme. Au sein du roman, l’analyse porte sur les fils entrelacés de la diégèse et sur sa prise en charge narrative (procédé de l’enchâssement, confrontation des niveaux et instances narratifs, absence de clôture). De l’incapacité des singes à parler (démontrée dans son étude philosophique), Garcia ‘dévie’ vers un roman sur le singe parlant, et ce glissement épistémologique non seulement propose une aventure philosophico-scientifique au lecteur du roman, mais encore légitime la ‘singerie’ des mémoires du singe et la vérité sublime de la fiction