Understanding the Holocaust Today

by Kathryn Hadley

On Wednesday January 27th, Holocaust Memorial Day, a panel of leading historians of the Holocaust, including David Cesarani, Dan Stone, Zoe Waxman and Peter Longerich, gathered at the Imperial War Museum London to discuss the historiography of the Holocaust over the past ten years. The event marked the tenth anniversary of the museum’s Holocaust exhibition and the founding of the Royal Holloway, University of London, Holocaust Research Centre.

All four historians are in some way investigating a previously unexplored aspect of the Holocaust and each began by introducing his, or her, particular area of research. Whilst Longerich’s research is focused on both the perpetrators of the Holocaust and how existing thematic and geographic studies can be integrated into the general history of the Third Reich, Waxman is primarily interested in the ‘lived experience of those who suffered’. Waxman’s research seeks, in particular, to explore and integrate issues of testimony and gender into studies of the Holocaust. David Cesarani is currently researching the historiography of the Holocaust in the years immediately after the Second World War, and Dan Stone is writing a book about the history of Holocaust historiography.

How have studies of the Holocaust evolved since the end of the Second World War? More specifically, how has historiography changed over the past decade? Furthermore, how is research set to evolve in coming years?

It is generally assumed that studies and public commemoration of the Holocaust largely developed over the past decade. During the 1990s, historical studies came to focus increasingly on the victims of history. Rather than writing the history of the ‘great’, historians sought to redress the imbalance and to give a voice to those who had suffered and had been largely silenced. Increased commemoration of the Holocaust was a core feature of this general trend. On November 1st, 2005, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/7 designated January 27th as an International Holocaust Remembrance Day. January 27th has been celebrated as Holocaust Memorial Day in the UK since 2001.

However, the perceived contrast between the considerable attention paid to the Holocaust by contemporary politicians compared to that in the years after the Second World War may be no more than an illusion. According to Cesarani, in the aftermath of the Second World War, there was a big drive to research the Holocaust and considerable efforts to gather testimonies and commemorate its victims. Jews dominated British politics, in part as a result of the campaign led by Holocaust survivors to emigrate to Palestine. Although research into the Holocaust was later sidelined, this was, in Cesarani’s view, largely a reaction against its ‘over-commemoration’ in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. In the United Kingdom in particular, attention had been focused on the Jewish population for years and there was a sense that the British public had had enough.

Efforts to research and commemorate the Holocaust may be no more widespread today than sixty years ago; nevertheless, studies of the Holocaust have undoubtedly evolved. The changing shape of Europe since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, in particular, has been a major influence on views of the Holocaust. According to Dan Stone, the effects of the collapse of communism and of European integration have been twofold, both positive and negative. On the one hand, the collapse of communist governments in Eastern Europe has given rise to far-right parties such as the Yobbik in Hungary, which were silenced during the communist era. On the other hand, there is also a sense in eastern European countries of an obligation to carry out national investigations into the Holocaust in their bid to join the European Union.

There remains considerable research to be carried out, especially in Eastern Europe, and views of the Holocaust will continue to change. Dan Stone highlighted important voids in Holocaust studies on the ‘micro level’, once again, in particular in Eastern Europe. Archives in Eastern Europe have only been opened in recent years and remain understudied. These untapped and unexplored archives are notably expected to reveal a great deal about mentalités in eastern European countries at the time and may help historians to understand what led to collaboration in some countries. However, a major obstacle to the study of eastern European archives is that they are mostly written in eastern European languages or in Yiddish. Interestingly, there has been a drive in recent years, in American universities in particular, to train historians in Yiddish. Nevertheless, according to David Cesarani, the future direction of Holocaust studies is clear: ‘the centre of gravity of writing history will shift eastwards’.

For more information on some of the controversies surrounding Holocaust Memorial Day read our article, Holocaust Memorial Day in Britain.

For an insight into the general debate surrounding the commemoration of historical disasters, read The Memory of Catastrophe.

People Power in 1989 ... and Today

Did civil resistance bring about the end of the Soviet Empire? That was the question posed before a distinguished panel at the British Academy in London last night. Former Polish defence minister, and leading Solidarity figure, Dr Janusz Onyszkiewicz was joined by the former British General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, and the Oxford professors Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton-Ash. The latter are editors of the newly launched publication Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present.

Given the gathered experiences of the panel, the discussion naturally centred on eastern Europe, and in particular, the night of the 9th November 1989 in Berlin. This was the moment when the borders between east and west Berlin were forced open and, in the wake of the resignation of the government, the communist authorities' plan for a controlled passage of only a few dozen 'refugees' to the west was overtaken, and overpowered, by the gathered will of hundreds of thousands of people.

Lord Guthrie, the head of the British Army in east Berlin on the night in question, described the feeling of being carried by the surging, singing and dancing crowds, as they swept down Unter Den Linden to the Brandenburg Gate. His relationships with his opposite numbers among the GDR and Soviet military had led him to believe there would be no brutal repression of the uprising, as in past times. He was proved correct. The handful of soldiers stationed on the border refused to open fire on the massive crowds, or even to perform rudimentary passport checks. The dreaded concrete was breached and, in one epic movement, the Iron Curtain torn down.

A less impulsive, but equally momentous process of people power had been happening in Poland for years. Dr Onyszkiewicz described how several tributaries of civil resistance built up, gathering into a flow of opposition before combining to force democratisation. Having had demonstrations violently suppressed by the authorities in the 1970s, the opposition learnt to maximise the effects of their actions by gradually gathering resources, pointedly avoiding the open conflict that formerly been their failing.

Instead of facing troops, for example, the 1980 Gdansk shipyard held a sit-in strike. This more refined, controlled approach paid dividends. Led by Lech Walesa, encouraged by the church, and combined with the organisational skills honed during the 1979 visit of Pope John Paul II, the Solidarity movement - as the opposition had become known - gained not only millions of members but serious concessions over the course of the next decade: unions were officially recognised; pamphlets were circulated; high-level links were established with the Polish Politburo.

Even imposition of martial law in the early 1980s did not significantly hamper the groundswell of civil resistance that was gathering. Even before the floodgates were opened in Berlin, limited elections followed by defections had handed Lech Walesa the unique role of the only non-Communist leader of an authoritarian Communist state.

Such narratives are imbued with ambiguities. How far can people power fully explain the events in Gdansk, Warsaw, Leipzig and Berlin? Where are the limits of civil resistance? Unavoidably, economics has a large part to play. As is well-documented, the situation within the Soviet economic sphere contributed significantly to its eventual downfall. Decades of mismanagement and overspending on defence had left it in a critical state. Garton-Ash noted how the Carter administration had begun to tie IMF loans in the Eastern Bloc to factors such as human rights, thus directly linking the internal treatment of civil society to economic conditions.

For these and other reasons, Gorbachev was reluctant to intervene directly when dissident movements struck in 1989. Surprisingly, Garton-Ash stated that the Soviet leader actively discouraged the leaders of Eastern Bloc countries from doing so too. As Dr Onyszkiewicz added, the effects of civil resistance may have been drastically different had this policy been reversed.

The media had a part to play too, often catalysing actions on the ground into something more powerful. A prime example was the West German newsreader who began his 9th November evening news broadcast with a cryptic message, hinting that the frontier gates had been opened. Although this wasn't strictly true, large amounts of east Berliners could receive both the television and the coded signal. The rumour soon spread, and many thousands gathered on the streets.

The panel underlined the relevance of the topic to the present day. The 'Colour Revolutions' of the 21st century - in the Ukraine, in Iran, in Burma - have largely ground to a halt. Why then, the panellists were asked, has democratisation not occurred in these places? The simple answer, is that the world has changed. Although critical information is more readily available via outlets such as the internet and satelite television, that information is also more readily controlled. Do Google, for example, have to answer for helping Chinese authorities limit the spread of dissent? Has the new media landscape - so lauded in developed countries as an educational, 'inherently democratic' device - become a tool of repression?

The altered geo-political situation, as shown by today's multipolar power politics, is another key factor. It is not that the developed world does not express its desire for democratisation. However, the leverage its leaders, medias and populations once exerted to bring about that change, has been diluted. This fact is linked inextricably to a more globalised economy. In another age, as Carter and Reagan well knew, the US President could control how developing countries acted via economic pressure. Now, mass manufacturing and internal markets such as India and China are central to the global and US economies. Likewise, energy-rich regimes such as Russia and Saudi Arabia can leverage the actions of more democratic but energy-dependent states. Bilateral alliances between these regional powers, and the spread of nuclear weaponry, further muddy the waters.

If one lesson can be taken from last night's discussion, it is that only time will tell whether civil resistance alone can effectively bring about democratisation and regime change. If true change is to come to people still living in repressed circumstances, or without a vote, it will not simply be a matter of gathering together in suitably large numbers. Multiple, perhaps infinite, factors were involved in producing the momentous events witnessed across eastern Europe in November 1989. An alternative, more provocative, conclusion is that it is democracy itself rather than authoritarianism which is now outdated, and that other methods of gaining political and civil freedom should be explored.

Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present is edited by Sir Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash, and published by Oxford University Press.

David Williamson explains why events in the ancient German capital twice threatened to unleash a third world war, in Berlin: The Flash-Point of the Cold War, 1948-1989

The Collapse of Communism in Europe: A Re-examination 20 Years After

by Kathryn Hadley

Why did communist systems in Europe collapse twenty years ago? A big question. A question that has been repeatedly asked and a question that has been tentatively answered time and time again.

It was the question that a panel of six speakers sought to answer yesterday evening at The British Academy. All speakers were present and involved in various ways in the events and through each of their presentations they sought to both recapture the spirit and views of the time and to assess the latest research. Speakers included the British academic Professor Timothy Garton Ash; Dr Andrei Grachev, who was Deputy Head of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1989 to 1990 and Presidential Press Spokesman for Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991; Bridget Kendall, the BBC Moscow correspondent at the time; US Professor Robert Legvold; the Hungarian Professor Ferenc Miszlivetz, who was part of a Hungarian movement promoting East-West dialogue; and Dr Lilia Shevtsova, who was Deputy Director of the Institute of Economics of the World Socialist System in Moscow in 1989.

How were the changes perceived at the time? Was there a sense of the scale of events? Did people know that communist systems in Europe were about to collapse?

Professor Timothy Garton Ash warned against the dangers of studying the events in retrospect and of ‘hindsight bias’. In the light of these ‘illusions of retrospective’, even asking such questions may be misleading. There is a tendency to believe that the collapse of communism was bound to happen. However, it is not lose sight of what Garton Ash described as the ‘real alternatives that were there at the time’ and to examine why these real alternatives did not happen.

Indeed, most speakers stressed the unexpected outcome of the events at the time. According to Garton Ash, it is impossible to recapture the excitement of the time and times were exciting because nobody knew what would happen the following day. The outcome was also unexpected for Gorbachev. Bridget Kendall met Gorbachev on various occasions and argued that he did not want the collapse of the communist system. He ‘wanted evolution not revolution’, both to ensure popular support for his policies and that he remained in control.

As a student and member of a small group of East-West dialogue formed in 1985, Ferenc Miszlivetz remembered the hope and optimism of the time. The group sought to ‘give life’ to the Helsinki Accords signed in 1975 by establishing, for the first time, networks between students in the East and West. He described a growing sense of central European ‘togetherness’ which inspired a hope that things were gradually changing. Miszlivetz and members of similar groups that may have contributed to the collapse of communist systems on a local level had no sense, however, of the scale of what would come just a few years later.

If the collapse of communism was so unexpected, how then and why did it eventually fall?

On the whole, historians agree to a variety of causes. The fall of communism was the result of the complex interaction of all these causes on various levels, between different states, but also between states and societies.

Both Dr Andrei Grachev and Dr Lilia Shevtsova argued, however, that the collapse of communism in Russia came primarily from within due to the distinct nature of the Russian communist model. It fell victim to the contradictions of its own identities and ambitions, which were to realise social justice for all and to build and project the image of a Russian superpower in the world.

Shevtsova reiterated the words of Arnold J. Toynbee stressing the ‘suicidal statecraft’ of Russia. It gradually became increasingly difficult to realise these ambitions, in particular as war came to an end and states instead sought cooperation rather than conflict. Dr Lilia Shevtsova highlighted the uniqueness of the Russian civilisation: it was a militarised civilisation, which survived on conflict and war. The Russian economy had best performed in times of war. It was dependent on war and, from the First World War, to the Russian Civil War, the Second World War and the Cold War; war had been a constant feature throughout the 20th century.

Ferenc Miszlivetz thus underlined the importance of the effects of the Helsinki Accords signed in 1975 by the USSR and thirty-two other European states, as well as Canada and the United Sates, in an attempt to improve the relations between the communist bloc and the West.

What is the state of research on the topic today? What is the legacy of the events twenty years ago? Is communism really dead?

According to Professor Timothy Garton Ash, there remains considerable research to be done. To date research has focused on high politics and the picture therefore tends to be skewed towards high politics. However, ‘in key places and at key times’, those on the ground also exerted considerable influence on the outcome of events and there lacks a comprehensive study of the role of revolutionary crowds.

Last month, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) published a series of archived documents on German reunification as part of the Documents on British Policy Overseas (DBPO). The documents provide an insight into official British reactions to the collapse of Germany and the fall of the Berlin Wall. FCO in-house historians held a seminar, today, October 16th, to mark the event. However, the documents are restricted, once again, to the realm of high politics.

Finally, what is left of the European communism today, twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Although communism as a structure and economy is dead, Ferenc Miszlivetz argued that in contemporary Eastern Europe communism survived as ‘a way of thinking’. He issued the following final words of warning: ‘Be careful when you suggest that something is over; it is over and it is not’.

In many ways the ghost of Soviet Communism still haunts Eastern Europe today. In our latest September and October issues we featured a short series exploring the impact on history and memory of the collapse of Soviet Communism entitled 'After the Cold War'.
In Haunted by Stalin Catherine Merridale examines competing versions of Russia's troubled past in the light of present politics.
In After the Cold War: The Private Side of German Reunification considers the consequences of the collapse of Soviet Communism in Germany.
In After the Cold War: Finland & the Soviets Ed Dutton looks at how the experience of Finland during the period 1945 to 1989 has led to a historical identity crisis for the nation that remains unresolved.

Exclusive Preview of our Latest Article on the Bosnian War!

by Kathryn Hadley

On Friday, I wrote an article about the burial, on July 11th, of over 300 newly identified Bosniak Muslim victims of the Srebrenica massacre. Over 200,000 people attended the ceremony at the Srebrenica-Potocari Memorial and Cemetery, which marked 14 years since the massacre on July 11th 1995.

Nick Hawton was the BBC's correspondent in Sarajevo and Belgrade from 2002 to 2008. With the trial of the former Bosnian Serb President Radovan Karadzic due to begin, he reflects on his time reporting in a region where history is still used to justify war in an article published in our latest August edition.

Our August issue will be published online later this week, but for an exclusive preview of Hawton's article read Conflicting Truths: The Bosnian War

Picture: Radovan Karadzic (right) with his military commander Ratko Mladic in Pale, Serbia in August 1993

Srebrenica victims buried

by Kathryn Hadley

Last Saturday, July 11th, 534 newly identified Bosniak Muslim victims of the Srebrenica massacre were buried at the Srebrenica-Potocari Memorial and Cemetery just outside Srebrenica. Over 20,000 people gathered for the ceremony, which marked fourteen years since the Srebrenica massacre on July 11th 1995.

In 1993, during the Bosnian War, Srebrenica was designated a United Nations ‘safe haven’. On July 11th 1995, however, despite the presence of 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers, the town was attacked by Bosnian Serb forces under the command of General Ratko Mladic. It is estimated that 8,000 Bosniak Muslims, mainly boys and men, were killed by Bosnian Serbs and buried in mass graves. The Srebrenica massacre has been classified as an act of genocide by the International Court of Justice and the United Nations war crimes tribunal. The Srebrenica-Potocari Memorial was built in 2003 on the site of an old warehouse which was part of a base for the Dutch peacekeeping troops.

The victims that were reburied last weekend were identified by DNA analysis. They were aged between 15 and 84. Most of the bodies were discovered in secondary graves where they were moved by Serb troops during the war in an effort to cover up any evidence of war crimes.

It is estimated that during four years of the war in Bosnia over 100,000 people lost their lives and that 20,000 Muslims were missing after the war. Since its foundation in 1996 at the initiative of President Clinton, the International Commission on Missing Persons has worked to ensure the cooperation of governments in locating and identifying those who disappeared during the armed conflict. The International Commission of Missing Persons currently has six facilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and still actively works to identify the remains of the victims of the country's war.

Despite the Dayton Peace Agreement, the war continues to be fought for a considerable part of the local population in their attempts to rebuild their lives and in their quest for missing relatives. The work of the International Commission of Missing Persons is not yet over and many questions and issues of justice remain to be solved. The terms of the UN mandate, which supposedly protected the deliveries of aid, but not of people, continue to be questioned. Although Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb political leader, is currently on trial, General Ratko Mladic remains in hiding. It is believed that is in Serbia; why then has he not yet been found and brought to trial?

Like Eating A Stone: Surviving the Past in Bosnia by Wojciech Tochman was recently translated and published in paperback (Portobello). This deeply moving and engaging book illustrates perfectly many of these wounds that remain gaping in Bosnia today. Through a series of personal stories, Tochman takes the reader on an emotional journey through the post-war landscape in the company of survivors who are still waiting, searching and grieving for lost loved ones.

Suzanne Bardgett was involved in the Srebrenica Memorial Room project. She describes the massacre and the issues at stake in setting up a memorial to its victims in our article Remembering Srebrenica

For further information on the international community’s attitude to genocide during the past half century, read our article Never Again?

Romania’s 90th birthday

by Kathryn Hadley

Yesterday, Romania celebrated the ninetieth anniversary of its foundation, on December 1st 1918, when the northwest region of Transylvania joined the rest of Romania following the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the First World War. Some 2,000 members of the military participated in a parade in Bucharest and President Traian Basescu laid a wreath at the capital’s triumphal arch.

December 1st, known as Union Day, is the Romanian national holiday in commemoration of the assembly held in Alba lulia (Transylvania) on December 1st 1918, during which the ethnic Romanian delegates from Transylvania and Hungary passed a resolution calling for the assembly of all Romanians in a single state. Union Day also celebrates the unification of the provinces of Bukovina and Bessarabia with the kingdom of Romania. The date was declared a national holiday following the Romanian revolution in 1989.

The history of Romania, from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century, is one of successive domination under both the Ottoman and the Austro-Hungarian empires. In 1848, the revolution against foreign domination was defeated by combined Russian and Ottoman intervention. Russian forces withdrew from the region following the Crimean War from 1854 to 1856 and were replaced by Austrian troops. In 1856, in accordance with the Treaty of Paris, Moldavia and Wallachia were established as principalities under Ottoman rule. In 1859, the two principalities were united under a common leader, the prince John Cuza. Three years later, they joined to form the principality of Romania, the capital of which was established at Bucharest. Romania became independent as a result of the Treaty of Berlin, which ended the Russo-Turkish War in 1877-78, but ceded southern Bessarabia to Russia. Romania was proclaimed a kingdom in 1881.

Modern day Romania came into being in the aftermath of the First World War. Following its initial declaration of neutrality, Romania eventually joined the war in August 1916 on the side of the Allies. Its military campaign was, however, unsuccessful: two thirds of the country was conquered and majority of the army was captured within four months. Following the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, however, Transylvania, Bukovina and Bessarabia were allowed to unite with the kingdom of Romania: the Treaty of Saint Germain in 1919 ratified the union of Bukovina; in accordance with the Treaty of Paris, Bessarabia joined the kingdom of Romania in 1920.

For more information of the construction of the Romanian nation read our article

The Return of Dracula

Body of Poland’s Second World War Prime Minister exhumed

by Kathryn Hadley

The body of Wladyslaw Sikorski, the Prime Minister of the Polish government in exile in London during the Second World War, was exhumed yesterday, Tuesday 25th November, in the hope to solve the mystery of his death in a plane crash in 1943. His marble tomb in Krakow cathedral was opened up and his body was transferred to Krakow’s Institute of Forensic Research and Jagiellonian University to undergo DNA and pathological tests. The prosecutors, who are specifically investigating a communist crime sponsored by the former Soviet Union, have the backing of the Poland’s President and Prime Minister.

During the Second World War, Sikorski took command of the Polish army in France and thereafter became the head of the Polish government in exile. At the time of his death, on July 4th 1943, he was returning to London from the Middle East where he had been inspecting Polish troops which were about to join the allies. He was notably accompanied by two British MPs, his chief of staff and his daughter. His plane crashed into the sea just a few seconds after take-off from Gibraltar, allegedly due to a technical failure. Apart from the Czech pilot, all the passengers on board were killed. British investigations in the aftermath of his death concluded that it was an accident.

New investigations in 1992 revealed, however, that, at the height and speed at which it was travelling, the plane could technically not have crashed. Some claimed that the pilot had deliberately brought the plane down. The mystery of Sikorski’s death remains and has since been subject to various theories: a murder planned by the Soviet Union or by the British government.

Ewa Koj, the prosecutor overseeing the investigation claimed that:

“Given Sikorski’s important role in Poland’s history – and having the tools and know-how that we have now – we cannot let this remain a historical mystery”.

One theory is that the murder was ordered by Churchill in an effort to maintain good relations with Stalin, at a time of increasing tension between Poland and the Soviet Union. But crumbling diplomatic relations between Poland and the Soviet Union also point towards the possibility of a Soviet sponsored murder. Just before his death, Sikorski had called for an investigation into the massacre of more than 20,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest and the finger was increasingly being pointed towards the NKVD. A further cause for tension was the Soviet Union’s moves towards the creation of a communist sponsored Polish government for the postwar period.

Dariusz Baliszewski is a Polish historian and has spent fifteen years researching the crash. For him, there is little doubt that Sikorski was assassinated.

“The British were at least passive witnesses because nothing could take place at Gibraltar without them knowing”.

Sikorski’s body will be reinterred next Wednesday following a Catholic mass. The results of tests will take time and may not prove to solve the mystery of his death. The investigation may, however, shed new light by putting pressure on the British government to open up secret documents of the time.

(the above image shows Sikorski in Gibraltar just before his death)

For more information on Anglo-Polish relations on the eve of the Second World War read our article A Fatal Guarantee: Poland, 1939

International Court of Justice to hear Croatia’s genocide claim against Serbia

by Kathryn Hadley

On November 18th, the United Nations’ International Court of Justice in La Hague ruled that it would hear Croatia’s complaint filed against Serbia for genocide during the early 1990s. The Court rejected Serbia’s argument that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear Croatia’s complaint and the presiding judge, Higgins, concluded that:

“The court… by ten votes to seven finds that… the court has the jurisdiction to entertain the application by the Republic of Croatia”.

Croatia first filed its complaint on July 2nd, 1999, against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia accusing Serbia of having violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. According to Croatian sources 20,000 died and Croatia has demanded the punishment of those responsible, reparations and the recovery of the cultural treasures that were allegedly pillaged during the war.
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed from 1992 to 2003 and consisted of the republics of Serbia and Montenegro, following the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In 2003, it was reconstituted as the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. On June 3rd, 2006, the republic of Montenegro declared its independence. Serbia formally declared its independence two days later. The Republic of Serbia consequently accepted continuity between the State of Serbia and Montenegro and the Republic of Serbia; Montenegro, however, is a new State and does not continue the international legal personality of the State union of Serbia and Montenegro.
Serbia had argued that the International Court of Justice lacked the jurisdiction to hear Croatia’s complaint because Serbia was not a member of the United Nations when the complaint was filed and was therefore not party to the Statute of the Court. The legal status of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was indeed unclear following the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992. It was admitted to the United Nations on November 1st 2000 when it consequently became party to the Statute of the Court. The date when the complaint will be heard has yet to be fixed and the procedures will take many years.

The leading Croatian lawyer explained that Croatia did not wish to dwell on its past, but that the hearing was necessary for its future development:

“We are not launching these proceedings to live in the past but to build healthy foundations for the sustainable future of the region”