Српска историографија о завршетку великог рата и формирању југословенске државе (1918–1941)

Abstract

Рад који је пред читаоцима представља покушај на учног вредновања резултата српске историографије посвећене завршетку Ве ликог рата и формирању југословенске државе у годинама 1918–1941. Истра живање је показало да се историографија посвећена тим темама рајзвијала без континуитета и плана. Написано је често прекорачивало границе рацио налног разумевања прошлости, што је значило да српско друштво, истовре мено, има варљиви привид да о наведеним догађајима и процесима подоста зна, али да рационално знање о прошлости, које стиче историчар, никада није довољно да доминантно обликује критичку историјску свест савреме ника. Оно што се у рату догодило и како се догодило добијало је, с протоком времена, у сећањима појединца и трауматизованог српског друштва, облике и форме у којима су се преплитали и срастали некадашња ратна стварност и мит о управо завршеном рату. Настојања сведока историје да наметну своје виђење прошлости и присвоје монопол на истину о крају рата и настанку југословенске државе, неминовно су се сучељавала са жељом историчара научника да досегну до истине о прошлости. Важан сазнајни допринос ра зумевању историјских процеса који су одређивали историјску улогу Србије на крају Великог рата и у тренутку настанка југословенске државе дали су Владимир Ћоровић, Станоје Станојевић, Јован М. Јовановић и др. Уметнич ка и мемоариска проза, из пера српских писаца, представљала је можда и најубедљивију историју времена у којима се „ватају у коштац живот и смрт“.

Research shows that historiography dedicated to the end of the Great War and creation of Yugoslav state was being developed without any continuity or plan, but also that in it we can notice collective knowledge which is not small, but we can also notice plenty of controversies, diff erent interpretations of the past, disputes, stereotypes, emotional reviews of the past, political and ideological stances, propaganda content, subsequent constructions of the history and expressions of political, and not scientifi c beliefs. What was written about the end of the Great War was oft en beyond limits of rational understanding of the past. Th e mentioned was a sign that the society has a deceptive illusion that it knows a lot about events which were happening one century ago and about processes which were giving meaning to those events and determining their place in history, but that, at the same time, rational knowledge about the past, gained by a historian, is never suffi cient to dominantly shape critical awareness of his contemporaries. Contemporaries’ facing with historical notions about the war whose end was nearing and about future Yugoslav state point to numerous diffi culties in simultaneously “assessing” the past, the present and the future (i.e. the outcome of the war and its results). Th is peculiar “history of the moment” which precedes or matches with the process during which the Yugoslav state was being created (“history of the present”), was only partially written by historians. It is noticeable that even for the best among them it was diffi cult to detach from their feelings, stances, beliefs, bias and that those works were of pronounced propaganda nature. Knowledge was oft en used for the purpose of successful ending of the Great War. Interpretations which can be found in this type of historical sources and literature testify about the time in which they were made, about specific interests and goals of history writers and of society as a whole, maturity of historians and of the science they are devoted to. Topics covered by this generation of witnesses of the war and history writers concern: national unifi cation of Yugoslav peoples and problems which accompanied it starting from 1914; atrocities, suff erings and victims which were built into the foundations of the common state and its future; highlighting war accomplishments, importance of army and its victories in war; role of the allies, but also of the enemies in creation of Yugoslav state, etc. As time passed, individuals’ and traumatized Serbian society’s memories of what happened in war and how it happened, started receiving shapes and forms in which reality of the war was interlaced with the myth about the war that just ended. Beautifi cation or uglifi cation of the past was inevitably “opening” arguments with history “as it really happened”. Subsequent records on what was experienced were simultaneously keeping, but also adjusting the perception of the past to the new, post-war circumstances, to “offi cial stances” of the state, partisan beliefs, realized ideals or great disappointments. Eff orts of witnesses of the history to impose their own views of the past and assume monopoly on the truth about the end of the war and creation of the Yugoslav state, are inevitably met with eff orts of historians-scientists to learn the truth about the past. Th is provided additional encouragement to the “search for new historical sources”, required thorough and repeated “reading” of the collected material, imposed the need for constant research of the past. In clash with political needs of the time, over several decades historians were diff erently “allocating” the “merits” and “responsibility” for creation of the Yugoslav state. Th e specifi city of historiographical literature created by military writers and historians is in its combination of memoirical, historiographical and expert military moments. Important cognitive contribution to the understanding of historical processes which were determining historical role of Serbia at the end of the Great War and in moments of creation of the Yugoslav state was made by, among others: Vladimir Ćorović, Stanoje Stanojević, Jovan M. Jovanović, as well as by foreign writers and intellectuals such as Hermann Wendel, Emile Haumant, Ernest Denis. Artistic and memoirical prose of Serbian writers was maybe the most convincing and deepest history of the time in which “life and death wrestle”