The Yugoslav Road to International Tourism
108 Igor Tchoukarine
ers from the Soviet bloc in 1956 is another key aspect of tourism’s development in Yugoslavia during this decade.
The staging of socialist Yugoslavia as a tourist destination went through a specific branding process. I will explore the issue in an attempt to demonstrate the type of difficulties this branding initiated and how it was closely linked with Yugoslavia’s socio-political reor- ganization. Hence the changes that occurred in the early 1950s and the decentralization of the Yugoslav travel agency Putnik are of particular interest in the context of tourist propaganda.
In order to analyze these questions, I will divide this contribution into two parts. The first begins with introductory observations on Yugoslavia’s links with Western tourism prior to the 1950s. I will then explore the development of foreign tourism in the light of Yugoslavia’s international position in the years (1948–1950) following its expulsion from the Kominform. Both aspects are closely intertwined, since politi- cal legitimacy was gradually established with the opening of the coun- try’s borders, a phase embodied in the 1949–1950 tourism slogan “come and see the truth.”
In the second part I will examine the overall situation of interna- tional tourism in Yugoslavia in the first half of the 1950s. The decen- tralization of Putnik and the general outcome of this process on for- eign tourism calls for a specific analysis based, in addition to other sources, on debates that took place in Vesnik turizma i ugostiteljstva, the first specialized magazine on tourism with a federal scope.2 The analysis indicates that the decentralization of the administration of tourism proved to be a long, complex, and multi-faceted process, which directly touched on the question of foreign tourism in Yugoslavia.
My attempt here is to examine the issue of foreign tourism through a political reading that takes both the external and internal contexts of Yugoslavia in the 1950s into account. The investigation of both sides of
2The magazine was published from the summer of 1949 until the end of 1952. In January 1952, it was renamed Turizam i ugostiteljstvo. Published in Belgrade, it was the official organ of the federal tourist agencies, at first the Committee for Tourism and Hotel Management (Komitet za turizam i ugostiteljstvo Vlade FNRJ) and, as of 1951, the Main Department for Tourism and Hotel Management (Glavna Uprava za turizam i ugostiteljst- vo FNRJ).
The Yugoslav Road to International Tourism 109
3Radišić (1981, p. 35) (1945–1950); Antunac (1970) (1945–1952);
Vukonić (2005, p. 136) (1945–1952).
4Other socio-economic spheres were not subject to immediate conse- quences. See Marković (1996, p. 18).
5Tchoukarine (2007).
6See, for instance, Nešić (1956, p. 13).
this complex issue of foreign tourism development illustrates Yugoslavia’s keenness, as well as the continuity in its tourism development, but also the basic problems that confronted the Yugoslav tourism industry.
Foreign Tourism in Post-1948 Yugoslavia
The expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Kominform in June 1948 had a tremendous impact on the evolution of Yugoslavia. It is usually inter- preted in both Yugoslav and Western historiographies as having trig- gered a set of changes in the Yugoslav system, with the gradual aban- donment of the Soviet centralist model. Indeed, in the face of criticism from the USSR, Yugoslav leaders reinterpreted the basis of Marxism.
This trend, fostered by a need for political distinction from Moscow, led to the introduction in 1950 of the self-management that became the headlight of Yugoslav socialism.
Not unlike in the case of Yugoslav historiography, current tourism specialists as well as those active in the socialist period referred to the initial phase as the “administrative development of tourism.” Accord- ing to various authors, this period lasted until 1950 or 1952.3 The analysis of the changes that occurred in tourism in this transitional period is of particular interest, since the split with Moscow had an immediate effect.4 Indeed, the Czechoslovak and Hungarian govern- ments banned further tourist travels to Yugoslavia in early August 1948.5 International tourism in Yugoslavia was there-fore depicted as pro-Eastern up to 1948 and subsequently as pro-Western.6
Some refinements need to be added to the constantly reiterated interpretation of Yugoslavia’s pro-Western orientation in tourism as a direct result of the conflict with Stalin. While this explanation is quite accurate, there is evidence to suggest that the picture was less univocal.
First of all, Westerners had also visited Yugoslavia before the split of 1948. Between 1946 and 1948, the country maintained links with Western countries, albeit keeping a low profile. Putnik managed the
110 Igor Tchoukarine
first tourist offices of socialist Yugoslavia abroad. Offices were opened in Tirana and Prague in 1946, followed by an office in Paris in 1947;
offices were also scheduled to be established in London and New York.7 Furthermore, Putnik signed tourist agreements in 1947 with nine foreign tourist agencies, five of which were located in Western countries (Belgium, Sweden, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands).8While the agreement with Čedok, the main Czechoslo- vak tourist agency, was by far the most successful in terms of number of tourists on organized trips, there is very little evidence of the gen- uine impact of these agreements. Significantly, however, attempts to improve tourist relations with the West had already been made before the split in 1948. The Croatian planning commission, for instance, esti- mated that tourists from Western countries represented 22.6 percent of all foreign tourists in Croatia between January and November 1948. Not surprisingly, tourists from socialist countries represented 69.6 percent of foreign fluxes; the remainder was made up of tourists from other European and non-European countries.9These figures, although encom- passing visitors of all kinds rather than tourists in the strict sense,10nev- ertheless call for a reassess ment of previous assumptions.
Several contributors to Vesnik turizma i ugostiteljstva stated that the resumption of foreign tourism in 1951 brought a ten-year break to
7AJ (Arhiv Jugoslavije), fond (f.) 163 (Ministarstvo trgovine i snabdevan- ja), folder (f.) 25 (hereafter 163/25), “Uloga i značaj pretstavništva PUT- NIK u inostranstvu,” vol. 2, no. 5, May 1947.
8AJ, 163/25, “Izveštaj o poslovanju između Ministarstva saobraćaja FNRJ i Putnik-a.”
9HDA (Hrvatski državni arhiv), f. 350/2 (Uprava za turizam Ministarstva trgovine i opskrbe). Western tourists came from twelve listed countries.
This data should be interpreted cautiously, since many of the Western tourists came from Italy, including transits from the Free Territory of Tri- este. However, tourists from Austria, England, West Germany, the United States of America, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, and Switzerland, as well as non-European countries, amounted to 14.2 percent of foreign tourists.
10An article in the journal Turističke novosti (No. 6, 1953) stated that most visitors in 1949 came to Belgrade for work purposes, whereas visitors in 1952 were mostly tourists. This assessment was based on the average length of stay, which was nine days in 1949 and 4.5 days in 1952.
a close. In the same vein, one contemporary author claimed that busi- ness ties with Western tourist agencies had only been reestablished in 1950.11Again, this does not adequately describe the overall landscape of foreign tourism in Yugoslavia. It omits that a large section of Czecho - slovak tourists who came to Yugoslavia between 1946 and 1948 trav- elled via private tourist agencies such as the Dubrovnik Spa & Hotel Society (Dubrovníka lázeňská a hotelová společnost), the Travema agency, or even Čedok, which was founded in 1920 and nationalized in March 1948. Many communists, both Czechoslovak and Yugoslav, perceived the bulk of these tourists as bourgeois, i.e., as representa- tives of a Western travel culture. This was a culture with strong links to pre-war tourism, when the Czechoslovak tourist sites and stations acquired prior to World War I or in the course of the interwar period hosted most Czechoslovak tourists between 1946 and 1948. Although this aspect cannot be dealt with in more detail here, it does point to the fact that the history of foreign tourism in Yugoslavia from 1945 to 1948 requires more subtle assessment. Tourism shows evidence of a deep- rooted continuity from pre-war developments, through the orientation between 1945 and 1948 to Tito’s Yugoslavia from 1950 onwards.
Notwithstanding established traditions, tourist fluxes were closely linked to Yugoslavia’s foreign policy. The disruption of tourism in 1948 created a “vacuum effect,”12 which in turn benefited domestic tourism. Yugoslav statistics indicate a substantial decline in foreign tourists in 1949 compared to 1947–1948 levels. Apart from the politi- cally motivated absence of East European tourists as of August 1948, the weakness of foreign tourism in Yugoslavia can also be explained by efforts made in domestic tourism. The promotion of the latter fulfilled a socio-political task in a critical period, providing a wider horizon for the Yugoslav domestic campaign advocating a better standard of living for all. In a general report at the 4th extraordinary session in the Fed- eral Assembly in December 1948, Tito stated that tourism must satisfy the needs of the workers. He underlined that improvements had to be made in tourism, which he saw as a branch of the economy closely The Yugoslav Road to International Tourism 111
11Vukonić (1993, p. 34).
12Vukonić (1993, p. 136). The expression is also used in Vesnik turizma i ugostiteljstva 3/4 (1951), p. 245.
112 Igor Tchoukarine
associated with issues of culture, hygiene and health.13It is interesting to note that Tito remained silent on the question of foreign tourism.
This can be explained to a certain extent by the fact that the fate of for- eign tourism in Yugoslavia was unknown. Nonetheless, reporting to the federal tourist conference in early 1949, Ljubo Krstulović, Putnik’s director in 1947–1948, stressed that Tito’s speech in December 1948
“clearly determined essential tasks” for Yugoslav tourism.14
It is also worth noting that Vesnik turizma i ugostiteljstvaproduced only one article on foreign tourism in its first three issues in the sec- ond half of 1949. On the other hand, many of the articles in this maga- zine and in Yugoslav newspapers such as Borba dealt with domestic tourism. The communist phraseology emphasized, for instance, that tourism in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was restricted to the foreign and domestic bourgeoisie, whereas tourism in socialist Yugoslavia was accessible to all the workers, a reality that resulted from the “success- ful building of socialism.”15
All of this suggests that in 1949 Yugoslavia was not clear about the direction foreign tourism and foreign policy should take.16A report of November 1948 from the Federal State Control Commission made mention of foreign tourism and asked whether and to what extent foreign tourism was to be developed.17 The question was settled after a few months, when the Federal Economic Council ordered that the “same conditions” prevailing in 1948 be set up in June 1949 for the arrival of
13Borba, 28 December 1948. Report by Tito at the 4th extraordinary ses- sion of the Federal Assembly.
14AJ, f. 19 (Komisija Državne Kontrole FNRJ) /186/1702. The excerpt from Tito’s speech on tourism was published in Vesnik turizma i ugos- titeljstva1/1 (1949), p. 12.
15An article from Borba on 31 July 1949, entitled “Worker’s pleasant vacation—a result of the successful building of socialism.” AJ, f.
19/186/1702.
16The five-year plan (1947–1951) mapped out projections for the develop- ment of foreign tourism. Veda Zagorac, vice-president of the Federal Committee for Tourism, explained in November 1948 that the plan for foreign tourism had not been fulfilled, due to the “irregular position of certain states” toward Yugoslavia, i.e., the Czechoslovak and Hungarian interdictions of August 1948. AJ, f. 19/186/1700, “Izveštaj o realizaciji plana turizma za III kvartal 1948. god.”
17AJ, f. 19/186/1702 “Zapisnici po pitanju turizma,” 15 November 1948.
foreign tourists. This directive indicates that measures for potential incoming foreigners were at least planned, if not fully implemented.18 It would be misleading to assume that the year 1949 was exclusive- ly oriented towards domestic tourism. The Yugoslav five-year plan, although disrupted as a result of the economic break with the USSR and its satellites, was still ongoing in 1949 and tourism planning geared to the development of foreign tourism. Projections for Croatia alone forecasted the arrival of 36,380 foreign tourists for 1949, which meant 6.4 percent of overnight stays.19
Moreover, the above-mentioned tourist conference of 1949 also paid attention to foreign tourism. Tourist propaganda abroad, it was stated, could “play a major role in informing the international public about our country, in making the beauty of our homeland known, and the development and progress of its socialist construction.”20 This assertion greatly resembles the comment made by prominent party member Aleš Bebler, Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs at the time, during the second plenum of the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist Party (CK KPJ) in January 1949. Bebler deplored the high number of incidents involving foreigners and the lack of tact exhibited towards them by Yugoslavs. He also mentioned that Yugoslavs con - tinued to see foreigners as would-be spies. Judging this situation as regrettable, he explained that foreigners could be excellent propagan- dists in the interest of Yugoslavia abroad.21 Interestingly, at a Federal The Yugoslav Road to International Tourism 113
18Lekić and Zečević (1995, p. 329). Meeting held on 29 June 1949. No expla- nation was given, however, as to what was meant by the “same conditions.”
19HDA, f. 350/2, “Plan turizma za 1949. godinu.” This projection remained unfulfilled, since only 31,712 foreign tourists came to Yugoslavia in 1949. Statistički godišnjak FNRJ 1954 (1954, p. 246).
20AJ, f. 19/186/1702. Zagorac (1949).
21Petranović et al. (1985, pp. 239–40). Bebler detailed an incident that involved the journey of an American librarian who travelled from Bel- grade to Šabac (approximately 75 km west of Belgrade) by truck. The librarian had to be back in Belgrade on Sunday due to obligations in the city before continuing her trip to Bulgaria. Instead of Sunday, she arrived in Belgrade on Monday evening. This was not due to mechanical prob- lems but to several stopovers along the way, since Yugoslavs travelling in the truck took advantage of the trip to visit relatives and acquaintances despite the American librarian’s tight schedule. Bebler considered their behavior towards the foreign visitor inconsiderate.
Economic Council conference in September 1949, Vladimir Velebit,22 President of the Federal Committee for Tourism, asserted that it was not necessary to plan for foreigners at summer resorts in the following year, with the exception of those that were indispensable for “political reasons.”23
Yugoslavia’s new international situation and tougher stance in the conflict with Moscow simultaneously assigned foreign visitors a spe- cific role. The years 1949–1950 are negligible in terms of numbers of visitors and overnight stays, as well as currency gains. In this particu- lar chapter of the history of Yugoslavia, however, visits by foreigners served a political purpose in the ongoing conflict with Moscow.