Today, values are changing, and the world is returning to the notion that ‘might is right’, and that will not stop.
I am a historian of the 20th century, particularly of the Cold War. The history of the Cold War is the most dynamic and widely represented sub-discipline, present in virtually every historiography, says Tvrtko Jakovina, Croatian historian, political advisor, author, and university professor, in an interview for Diplomacy & Commerce. Yes, of course I am also a ‘Yugoslav historian’ — after all, what 20th-century history could I possibly study that would be relevant if not that one?, Jakovina explains.
- In a country and region where history is part of identity and more than just past events, where everyone has their own interpretation, what is your opinion – is such an attitude toward history unique to the nations of this area, or is it similar elsewhere?
In many nations, the past is extremely important. When there aren’t many historical sources – and the further north you go, the fewer there are for earlier periods compared to us – that often means more mythology. In itself, that doesn’t have to be problematic, provided a society is mature and aware of what science and history truly are. The problem arises when the past – even an imagined one – becomes a burden for the future, when lies are embedded into the interpretation of history in a way that suffocates scientific research and ends up guiding society and politicians. Unfortunately, we have all the worst examples of that. And it gets even worse when, decade after decade, you keep having the same conversations with the same people about the same topics. Croatia is one of the rare European societies whose permanent museum exhibitions – with only a few exceptions, no more than five or six – contain not a single mention of Croatia in the 20th century! Listen carefully: nothing about the 20th century, not a word. Because of their politics, Croats do not know how to deal with Yugoslavia – in any of its forms. To me, that is a defeat of both the profession and the society.
- Which peoples of this region would you historically single out as the most important (largest, most influential), and how would you describe the genesis of their relations up to the present? Is it possible to reduce some of the tensions (primarily between Croats and Serbs, then Albanians, then Bosniaks, etc.) through history (even though it seems to be a source of problems)?
Ah, all of them are important, because numbers are often not a measure of success. Look at the Jews in our region and the exceptionally high impact they had. The same goes for Armenians. However, if I were to conclude anecdotally, whenever historians from the region meet, the discussion is mostly between Serbs and Croats, along with the Slovenians. Others mostly remain silent (except when there are a few talented Montenegrins). I have often thought about the Federation and how it functioned, especially after the war. What is worrying is the freezing of almost all peoples in the past: the ancient past, as in Macedonia; the medieval period, as in Bosnia and Herzegovina (were they connected to Tvrtko or the Ottomans?); the pre-war periods, as in Serbia (who was at fault in 1918 and 1945?); and May 1945 and 1991, as in Croatia. This fixation lasts so long, while the cities are shrinking, villages are disappearing, and the world around them changes.
- There are many topics that provoke both emotions and misconceptions. In your opinion, what is the biggest problem for Croats today, and how is it interpreted (since it seems that everyone has their own truth and interpretation)? How much of a burden is the NDH on modern Croatia, and do we really know what actually happened? Is revisionism present?
We are living in revisionism; it has been internalized. Revisionism is not present only when it comes to the restitution of property confiscated between 1941 and 1945 – only here in Croatia are we firmly based on the anti-fascist principles of the Constitution. In everything else, due to internal politics, we have chosen the position of the defeated in World War II. It is rare for a country to deliberately make its opportunities in the world more difficult, to renounce all of its Yugoslav heritage almost in the same way it abandoned industrialization, knowledge, and ambition. When the 80th anniversary of the victory over fascism was commemorated in May 2025, no one from the Croatian government attended the event, even though speeches were delivered by the ambassadors of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. When the 80th anniversary of D-Day was commemorated, Americans, Brits, Poles, Canadians, Germans, and French, along with their ambassadors, came to Split, but no one from the Croatian authorities, not even local representatives. Do you think this was coincidental and not revisionism? Instead of firmly embracing its victory in World War II, the majority of Croatia’s population chose differently – they chose defeat. From this stem many of our other policies, mostly domestic, but sometimes foreign as well. Take, for example, the policy toward Gaza.
- You are a tenured professor of 20th-century world history at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, and you also teach Balkan history in Bologna. Considering the events of the past century, how would you describe the world today? Can it be compared to anything we already know, and how do you see the development of global events in the coming years (new world order, proxy wars…)?
Changes have often frightened people in their own age. Today, we see them more clearly because they are felt everywhere and are arriving faster. Values are changing, and the world is returning to the ‘might is right’ mentality – and that will not stop. There is less democracy, fewer liberal values. A difficult time is coming for small European states, for the EU, which in its most favourable periods – the Trente Glorieuses, those three brilliant decades – were not able to build stronger bonds,. And yes, I believe we will live in a world with more violence and injustice, especially for the smaller players.
- You are the head, among other things, of the postgraduate Diplomacy program at the University of Zagreb and the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, and you were also a member of the Council for Foreign Policy and International Relations of Croatian President Ivo Josipović. How do you see Croatian diplomacy today? Do you have the impression that it has somehow “fallen asleep” since we became an EU member and transferred part of our foreign policy competences to Brussels? What are the strengths and weaknesses of Croatian diplomacy, if we leave aside daily politics?
I am, indeed, still formally the head of the postgraduate Diplomacy program. The program was shut down by this Government, with the support of the former rector, in its very first incarnation – despite the fact that students came from 15 countries, and the goal was to have a mechanism to showcase what Croatia wants. One of the instructors was a long-time Minister of the Interior in nearly all incarnations of this HDZ government and a former head of President Mesić’s cabinet. Apparently, the University of Zagreb, with so few foreign students, no English-language programs, and no cooperation with major faculties, and with four large faculties integrated into the Diplomacy program, was seen as a problem rather than as a boutique program representing Croatia internationally. According to Eurostat, in 2024 there were 449 foreign students in Croatia, while at the same time Slovenia had 2,793. The program was destroyed; instead of replacing a leader or faculty who might not have been performing well with better, smarter, or more capable people, the decision was simply to shut it down. This is often the case in Croatia, but if you act this way, you stay off the radar, you don’t stand out being so small, and internally you can do whatever you want. Our foreign policy is often similar. There is nothing. In an internal 2025 survey, our diplomats did not even list Australia as a desired posting, yet two small European countries, of limited importance for us, attracted over 40 applicants each. This says a lot about professionalism, and not in a good way. Australia or Japan are not just distant countries, they are gateways to understanding China, Asia, and the Pacific. And yet, when Western diplomats in Brussels tell me that Croatia is invisible there, it bothers me even more.
- You are often criticized for being a ‘Yugoslav historian.’ What do you think drives some people to degrade and belittle everything that Croatia was within Yugoslavia, even though, historically speaking, it arguably gained more than it lost?
That is somewhat amusing. I am a historian of the 20th century, particularly of the Cold War. The history of the Cold War is the most dynamic and widely represented sub-discipline, represented in virtually every historiography. Yes, of course, I am a ‘Yugoslav historian’ – what 20th-century history could I possibly study that would be relevant if not that? Do you know any foreign historian who has built a career the way it is done here – provincially, in isolation, narrowly, detached from the broader context in which Croatia existed? Critics are simply uneducated. The significance of Yugoslavia for Croatia comes only after understanding that context. For example, it would be nice if someone in this country – aside from us at the Department of History at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb – remembered that the Treary of Osimo of 1975 defined Croatia’s borders, that thanks to the victory in 1945 we gained the third- and fifth-largest cities in the country, and that, thanks to the SFRY, we acquired a region that accounts for half of our tourism. Would Croatia have been better off without that? Would it have been better without Edo Murtić, Antun Augustinčić, Miroslav Krleža, without the fact that Croatian – mostly Croatian – musicians founded the Egyptian Philharmonic (M. Lorković, B. Papandopulo, J. Klima, Ž. Zdravković), without the Brodarski Institute, without the fact that we once knew how to build a submarine and that INA independently explored whether there was gas under the Adriatic in the 1960s? Today, INA can’t even bid on tenders. That is what is Yugoslavian, but I also believe it is very much Croatian, in my research.