Contributions to Contemporary History <p><em>Contributions to Contemporary History</em> is one of the central Slovenian scientific historiographic journals, dedicated to publishing articles from the field of contemporary history (the 19th and 20th century).</p> <p>It has been published regularly since 1960 by the <a title="Institute of Contemporary History" href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Institute of Contemporary History</a>, and until 1986 it was entitled Contributions to the History of the Workers' Movement.</p> <p>The journal is published three times per year in Slovenian and in the following foreign languages: English, German, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Italian, Slovak and Czech. The articles are all published with abstracts in English and Slovenian as well as summaries in English.</p> <p>The archive of past volumes is available at the <a title="History of Slovenia - SIstory" href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>History of Slovenia - SIstory</strong></a> web portal.</p> <p><strong>The printed version of the journal</strong> is available at the Institute of Contemporary History, in humanities literature bookstores and through the Institute website (publications &gt;&gt; <a title="Publications Ordering" href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Publications Ordering</a>).</p> <p>Further information and guidelines for the authors are available <a title="Informacije za avtorje" href="/index.php/pnz/about/submissions#authorGuidelines" target="_self">here</a>.</p> <p><a title="Ethical Principles" href="/pnz/ethics" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ethical Principles</a>.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> en-US <p>Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:</p> <ul> <li class="show">Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a <a title="Creative Commons" href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Creative Commons Attribution License</a> that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.</li> <li class="show">Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.</li> <li class="show">Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See <a title="The Effect of Open Access" href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Effect of Open Access</a>).</li> </ul> (Jure Gašparič, PhD) (Andrej Pančur, PhD) Tue, 22 May 2018 12:26:54 +0000 OJS 60 Introductory explanation Jure Gašparič, Jurij Perovšek ##submission.copyrightStatement## Tue, 22 May 2018 09:27:19 +0000 Introductory explanation Jure Gašparič, Jurij Perovšek ##submission.copyrightStatement## Tue, 22 May 2018 09:27:54 +0000 "What does it have to do with us?" – Rethinking the Russian Revolution in Germany <p>The author reviews exhibitions and recent publications in Germany which commemorate the centennial of the October Revolution 1917. After a full century of research there is little left of glory and heroism that had been present at the dawn of the »Great Socialist October Revolution«. A de-mystification has taken place which relocates the proclaimed »World Revolution« into the frame of Russian history. But this nationalization of the revolution tends to marginalize the global effects of the Red October, especially when the Bolshevik seizure of power is simply explained as a successful effort to transform anarchy into an organised regime of terror practised by a determined and self-sacrificing Avantgarde. While the totalitarian approach neglects the social origins of the Revolution, recent cultural studies emphasise contingent factors downrating revolutionary uprisings as an escalation of civil war in contaminated »landscapes of violence«. Leaving behind such entire explanations and grand designs, the second part of this paper wants to draw attention to the enduring structural changes which the Russian Revolution caused in post-war Europe. The author concentrates his arguments on three levels, beginning with the political institutions, secondly, the economic and social order, and thirdly, the demographic change.</p> Andreas Schulz ##submission.copyrightStatement## Mon, 07 May 2018 15:03:21 +0000 On the Global Impact of the Russian October Revolution of 1917 <p>The 1917 Russian October Revolution upset the political order in Europe, causing a significant geopolitical change on two continents and exerting various degrees of influence on the politics on six continents for several decades. However, the Revolution failed in its primary declared strategic objective – to destroy and abolish world capitalism. Moreover, it became discredited in its own country of origin and in most of Europe – much more than in many non-European countries, particularly Asia.</p> Anton Bebler ##submission.copyrightStatement## Mon, 07 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 The Changing View of the 1917 Russian Revolution – Slovenia in the Global Perspective <p><em>THE CHANGING VIEW OF THE 1917 RUSSIAN REVOLUTION – SLOVENIA IN THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE</em></p> <p><em>&nbsp;</em></p> <p><em>This year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolutions (of February and October), which shook the world with their far-reaching consequences.</em> <em>The changing outlook on the Revolution by all means represents a part of its history, and therefore it has to be examined more closely, as this is the only way to understand the Revolution's global impact as well as give meaning to the current and future political standpoints.</em> <em>The contribution presents an overview of the changing global perspective of the Russian Revolutions in the short 20th century and the Slovenian space within it.</em></p> Jure Gašparič ##submission.copyrightStatement## Sun, 20 May 2018 08:03:20 +0000 The Outlooks of the Slovenian Bourgeois Politics on the October Revolution until World War II <p>On the basis of their understanding of the human society and individuals in it, the members of the Slovenian bourgeois camp – who possessed a thorough insight into the revolutionary October and the country it took place in – saw the October social overthrow and the consequent Soviet social, political, and economic development as a fundamental threat to the civilised world in which they lived and which they consciously advocated. Even though they understood the October phenomenon historically, they did not accept its consequences. While simultaneously exhibiting an anti-Semitic viewpoint, they would underline the totalitarian, all-encompassing class-based Bolshevik power, the collectivist and anti-religious character of the Soviet community, its inherent personal insecurity, and its unpromising social and economic development – even though they did recognise some of its economic and educational achievements. Ivan Tavčar stood out with his negative opinion of the October Revolution on the liberal side, just as Dr Ivan Ahačin and Fran Erjavec did on the Catholic side. Dr Aleš Ušeničnik, the leading Catholic philosopher, rejected it theoretically as well. The bourgeois camp saw Bolshevism as its key opponent, and the declared struggle against it represented a permanent feature of the bourgeois politics in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This was an integral part of its ideological foundations, which the Catholic side provided with a distinct world-view moment as well. With such an ideological and political attitude, the bourgeois camp saw the end of the Yugoslav Kingdom and entered the time of World War II in Slovenia.</p> Jurij Perovšek ##submission.copyrightStatement## Thu, 17 May 2018 08:18:28 +0000 Slovenian Communists on the October Revolution Between 1920 and 1945 <p>Prispevek obravnava percepcijo in prezentacijo pomena oktobrske revolucije v krogu slovenskih komunistov v času 1920–1945. Temelji predvsem na sočasnem legalnem in ilegalnem tisku, ki ga je izdajala komunistična stranka, in je bilo vsaj delno dostopno širšemu krogu bralcev. Analiza gradiva izkazuje izjemno afirmativen odnos do oktobrske revolucije, saj so jo slovenski komunisti kot del jugoslovanske komunistične stranke in mednarodnega komunističnega gibanja pod okriljem Kominterne smatrali za najpomembnejši prelom v zgodovini človeštva. Ob &nbsp;obletnicah revolucije so ponavljajoče se poudarjali temeljna načela, ki so pod vodstvom boljševiške stranke omogočila zmagovito izpeljavo revolucije, in zatem na tej osnovi uveljavitev socializma v Sovjetski zvezi. Medtem ko so med obema svetovnima vojnama poudarjali predvsem napredek na gospodarskem, kulturnem in socialnem področju, so med drugo svetovno vojno poudarjali moč sovjetske države in njene Rdeče armade, ki je bila sposobna zoperstaviti se Hitlerju, vendar je tudi ta moč utemeljena na »pridobitvah« Oktobra.</p> Vida Deželak-Barič ##submission.copyrightStatement## Mon, 07 May 2018 15:03:05 +0000 "Communism - the Gratest Danger of Our Time" About the Ideological and Political Profile of the Leadership of the Political Catholicism in Slovenia on the Eve of the Axis Powers Aggression on the Kingdom of Yugoslavia <p>Prispevek obravnava &nbsp;idejnopolitični profil vodstva političnega katolicizma na Slovenskem na predvečer napada sil osi na Kraljevino Jugoslavijo, ki je&nbsp; stremelo k korporativno urejeni družbi, organizirani na podlagi papeških okrožnic in cerkvenega nauka. Zgled so bili stari stanovski koncepti iz »zlate dobe srednjega veka«. Pri tem katoliškim ideologom ni bilo jasno, kako naj bi jih v praksi uresničili. Poleg tega je bil politični režim v Sloveniji &nbsp;določen z režimom širše jugoslovanske države. V takšnih okoliščinah je bil brezkompromisni antikomunizem v času med svetovnima vojnama na Slovenskem&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; instrumentaliziran predvsem kot sredstvo, ki naj bi&nbsp; katoliškemu taboru pripomoglo&nbsp; k rekatolizaciji slovenske družbe.&nbsp; Sicer je&nbsp; bil družbeni koncept, ki ga je&nbsp; zagovarjala katoliška hierarhija na Slovenskem, povsem&nbsp; kompatibilen s totalitarnim in rasističnim&nbsp; Hitlerjevim »novim redom«.&nbsp; Kot tak je bil &nbsp;povezan z usodo sil osi v vojni in&nbsp; je po letu 1945 v celoti izgubili svojo legitimnost v demokratični evropski družbeni stvarnosti.</p> Bojan Godeša ##submission.copyrightStatement## Thu, 17 May 2018 08:20:24 +0000 Yugoslav Revolution and Red October <p>To compare similar historical "actions", for example revolutions in two different countries, is an ungrateful task. The author outlines the essential features of the socialist revolution in Yugoslavia/Slovenia, which took place during World War II in the circumstances of the resistance against the occupiers. He "looks for" (but cannot identify!) any common points with the first socialist revolution, which had occurred in Russia in November 1917. Both of these socialist revolutions – the Russian as well as the Yugoslav – occurred in different historical, social, political, and military circumstances, with different starting points and causes, and yet with the same purpose: to take over the power and change the social relations. Both were successful. These two successful socialist revolutions do exhibit some similarities, yet disparities are much more prominent. The author establishes that due to the different circumstances the socialist revolution in Yugoslavia was completely unlike the one in Russia in 1917, even though they both shared the same intention. Most importantly, the Yugoslav socialist revolution was original. It started and developed on its own, without any external assistance or influences. The similarities between the two revolutions lie mostly in the fact that they both took into account the so-called stages of revolution, but in the Yugoslav case this was less evident. The Yugoslav socialist revolution consisted of two stages, though most of the so-called second, i.e. class stage, took place after the war. In the first post-war period, however, the Yugoslav revolution emulated a lot of what had been achieved in the Soviet Union or had an impact on the development of the Soviet Union – for example the wartime communism, new economic policy, and collectivisation. Therefore most similarities between the two revolutions can be found in regard to these particular characteristics.</p> Zdenko Čepič ##submission.copyrightStatement## Thu, 17 May 2018 08:17:29 +0000 The »Russian October« in the Scientific Opus of the Historian Marjan Britovšek <p><em>Marjan Britovšek (1923–2008) was the first Slovenian historian to systematically and scientifically research the history of the international workers movement’, especially Stalinism and destalinisation in the Soviet Union, while he was at the same time known as the foremost Slovenian/Yugoslav expert in the conflicts between the fractions in the former Soviet Union and Comintern. Britovšek’s work on this topic culminated in the lengthy books, crowning the author’s research of the “Russian reality” since the beginning of the 19<sup>th</sup> century until the destalinisation in the 1950s and 1960s: </em>Revolucionarni idejni preobrat med prvo svetovno vojno (Revolutionary Ideological Watershed During World War I., 1969); Boj za Leninovo dediščino (The Struggle for Lenin’s Legacy, 1976); Carizem, revolucija, stalinizem (Tsarism, Revolution, Stalinism. Social Development in Russia and the Pespectives of Socialism, 1980); Stalinov termidor (Stalin’s Thermidor, 1984).<em> With his books, based on the archive and documentary materials, he asserted himself as one of the renowned international researchers of Stalinism.</em></p> <p><em>Britovšek did not research the “Russian October” merely as the Bolshevik act of the revolutionary takeover of power (the envisioned Bolshevik Revolution), but rather – as it is obvious from the titles of the aforementioned books – understood and examined it in the wider framework of issues, topics, and time. This framework began with Russian Revolution 1905–1907 as a “dress rehearsal” for both revolutions that took place in 1917, and extended into the middle of the 1930s when Stalin with his “administrative revolution from above” (“Thermidor”), ultimately put an end to the ideals of the October Revolution.</em></p> Avgust Lešnik ##submission.copyrightStatement## Mon, 07 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 Reflections on the Russian Revolution The Russian revolution of 1917 was one of the turning points in world history, even if its radical (communist) stage proved to be a historical blind street. There was just one revolution – not two, as it had been interpreted by the Soviet historiography. The uniqueness of the Russian revolution results from the fact that the radical seizure of power in November 1917 turned to be the beginning of a long process of totalitarian dictatorship, which lasted for mor than seventy years. Today, it is the heritage of the victory in the Second World War that constitutes the founding myth of modern Russian state. Jerzy J. Wiatr ##submission.copyrightStatement## Mon, 07 May 2018 15:05:15 +0000 Salus revolutiae, ultima lex <p><em>Ruski boljševiki, predvsem njihov voditelj Vladimir Iljič Uljanov Lenin, so spremenili osnovno Marksovo predstavo, da bo socialistično revolucijo izvedel industrijski proletariat, ko bo dovolj številen in se bo povzpel do razredne zavesti. Njihovo vodilo je bilo, da lahko majhna čvrsto centralistično organizirana stranka nadomesti proletariat v izvedbi revolucije. Boljševiki so fetišizirali revolucijo. Na svojem kongresu v Londonu leta 1903 so v resolucijo zapisali nesrečno tezo, ki je imela hude posledice za socializem: »Salus revolutiae, ultima lex.« Ta je, če bi strankini voditelji tako sklenili, v prid revolucije dovoljevala omejiti in oškodovati temeljne meščanske pravice, svobodo in nedotakljivost človekove osebe. Na taki ideološki podlagi so boljševiki leta 1917 osvojili oblast. Kratka oznaka boljševističnega režima bi lahko bila vsestranski revolucionarni voluntarizem, ki ga je izvajala ena sama politična boljševiška stranka. Vse druge so prepovedali. Po zatrtem uporu mornarjev in delavcev v Kronstadtu marca 1921 je boljševiški režim predstavljal le strankarsko birokratsko elito, čeprav se je s spretno intenzivno propagando poskušal prikazovati kot delavska vlada v delavski državi. Tej propagandi so nasedali mnogi levičarski revolucionarni delavci pa tudi tako usmerjeni intelektualci, organizirani v komunističnih strankah, ki so dolga leta verjeli v delavsko naravo sovjetskega sistema in sledili politiki Sovjetske zveze.</em></p> Janko Prunk ##submission.copyrightStatement## Mon, 07 May 2018 15:01:44 +0000 Jure Gašparič in Katja Škrubej, ur. Odvetnik in oblast: dr. Igor Rosina (1900–1969). Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2017, 234 strani, ilustr. Miroslav Stiplovšek ##submission.copyrightStatement## Thu, 17 May 2018 08:15:52 +0000 Aleksandra Gačić, Gregor Jenuš, Znameniti Velenjčan Karel Verstovšek (1871–1923), zaslužni slovenski politik: politična biografija: ob 145. obletnici rojstva. Velenje: Ustanova Velenjska knjižna fundacija, 2016 – (Fundacijska zbirka Velenjana), 174 strani Miroslav Stiplovšek ##submission.copyrightStatement## Thu, 17 May 2018 08:16:45 +0000 Josef Till, Rudolf Blüml. Unverstanden in der turbulenten Welt des 20. Jahrhunderts [Studia Carinthiaca; XXXI]. Klagenfurt / Celovec: Hermagoras Verlag / Mohorjeva založba 2017, 351 strani Avguštin Malle ##submission.copyrightStatement## Mon, 07 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 Johanna Gehmacher, Klara Löffler (izd.), Storylines and Blackboxes. Autobiographie und Zeugenschaft in der Nachgeschichte von Nationalsozialismus und Zweitem Weltkrieg = Beiträge der VWI zur Holocaustforschung 4. zv. Wien: New academic press, 2017, 260 st Avguštin Malle ##submission.copyrightStatement## Mon, 07 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000