Czechoslovak Tourism in Socialist Yugoslavia: 1945-1960s
A political reading of its development and significance
Igor Tchoukarine
Doctoral Candidate in History (EHESS ­ Paris)
igortchoukarine@yahoo.ca
Six long years of occupation and war (1939-1945) diverged Czechoslovak tourists1
from
the Eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea and from the rest of Yugoslavia. The reconstruction effort
and problems of many kinds marginalized the question of tourism in the first months after the
liberation.2
However, the continental Czechoslovak population soon voiced the desire to find
again the Adriatic sun. It is indeed true that many hotels and resorts, built for the most part
during the interwar period, were properties of Czechoslovak individuals and associations, and
that the question of their management was becoming urgent with the anticipated arrivals in
Yugoslavia of sick children and survivors of Nazi camps. It was a journey with a specific goal: to
rest and to recover after the war restrictions. However, this type of inflows soon gave way to a
recreational type of tourism, which was sometimes orchestrated by actors ideologically close to
the "new" Yugoslavia of Tito such as the Czechoslovak Revoluční odborové hnutí (ROH)3
which
organized vacations for workers. It is also true that at that time Yugoslavia benefited from an
undeniable capital of sympathy in Czechoslovakia. The two states in question had living trade4
and cultural5
relationships. Moreover, tourists from this country represented the largest group of
foreign tourists in Yugoslavia between 1946 and 1948.6
Czechoslovak tourism in Yugoslavia
faced however important issues in 1948 with the complete nationalization of Czechoslovak Real
Estate and the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Kominform. After some hesitations, Tito and
his advisers understood at the beginning of 1949 that the break-up was complete and irreversible.
The fear of a Soviet invasion and severe economic problems brought Yugoslavia closer to the
West. Yugoslavia's search for legitimacy resulted in the introduction of self-management, in
raising the standard of living of its citizens, in leading the setting up of non-alignment
movement, and by opening the borders of the country. These reorientations will have important
1
Most of them were Czechs. I use the term Czech when it specifically refers to a Czech phenomenon, otherwise I
employ the term Czechoslovak.
2
But Čedok and Putnik would have already organized trains to Opatija for Czech tourists in September 1945.
Archives of Serbia-Montenegro (ASCG), fond 50, fascicle 61, unit 127, folio 3-4. Kardelj confirmed in December
1945 that Yugoslavia would be opened to Czechoslovak tourists.
3
Revolutionary Syndicate Movement
4
Jan Pelikán, Hospodárská spolupráce Ceskoslovenska a Jugoslávie v letech 1945-1949 (The Economic Co-
operation of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia from 1945 to 1949), Praha, Univerzita Karlova, 1990.
5
See Slobodan Selinić, "Jugoslávská kultura v Československu 1945-1950" (The Yugoslav culture in
Czechoslovakia 1945-1950), Slovanksý Přehled, vol. 92, n.2, p.249-272.
6
See appendix A for an overview of Czechoslovak tourists in 20th
century Yugoslavia and in present-day Croatia.
2
consequences on international tourism in Yugoslavia: while Czechoslovak tourists, and all those
from people's democracies, were virtually absent from 1949 to 19557
, the tourists from Western
countries who, at the moment, served the purpose of Yugoslav propaganda, became numerous
and important.
Having been cut off for almost thirteen years from the Dalmatian coast (1939-1945 and
1948-1955), the population of Czechoslovakia, and Czechs in particular, converged again to
Yugoslavia from 1956 and onwards, despite the restrictive administrative conditions which they
had to face in order to go abroad for vacations. What we find there today is a particular tourist
culture: Czech tourism in Yugoslavia. This culture which emerged already in the 19th
century
could not been circumscribed in any case only to the Cold War. Czech tourism, however,
assumed, during this last period, specific aspects calling for a detailed analysis of this
phenomenon. Once this hurdle is crossed, some criteria which characterized this type of tourism
can be determined. Keeping this background, I propose to undertake a political reading of the
development of foreign tourism, Czechoslovak in particular, in Socialist Yugoslavia between
1945 and the late 1960s. To fully cover these two decades of history in so few a pages is hardly
possible. I will, therefore, focus on, as my current research allows it, some significant features of
it leaving aside the aspects of domestic tourism, its internal (federal, republican, local) structure
and national problems and rivalries which were stirred by tourism.
The first aim of this paper will be to assess how Yugoslav authorities and Czechoslovak,
to a lesser degree, perceived tourism, and what other political or symbolic significances were
assigned to it. I will evaluate the extent to which Yugoslav governance considered tourism to be
a solely economic activity. In doing so, I will first put stress on Czechoslovak tourism in
Yugoslavia between 1946 and 1948 to pursue my investigation by assessing the Yugoslav stance
towards foreign tourism and the re-establisment of tourism agreements between Czechoslovakia
and Yugoslavia in the 1950s.
A cross-examination of the international conjuncture of immediate post-war and cold war
periods with the development of international tourism in Socialist Yugoslavia reveals several
manifestations of a multi-level interaction between tourism and politics. If tourism had followed
general trends of Yugoslav policies, it would have developed, nonetheless, its own dynamics.
The phenomenon of dependence was clearly visible when tourism served the political and
ideological aims of Yugoslav authorities. This trend is evident in the years following the break-
up with Moscow. The Yugoslav stance on Western tourism also illustrates how tourism was
instrumental in responding to the Yugoslav policies. The 1950s witnessed, however, a gradual
7
The process of reconciliation between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union followed the Declaration of Belgrade of
June 1955. The second period of tensions with Moscow (1957-58) had less severe consequences on tourism.
3
decline of the ideological spin given to tourism.8
Even if matters of economy and consumption
took the centre stage, tourism continued to embody political and ideological expressions. In this
regard, the second aim of this paper will be to address the question of consumption patterns in
socialist tourism, the problems that resulted from it, and how Yugoslav and Czechoslovak
authorities dealt with this particular matter. The presence of tourists of both blocks in accordance
to the development in Yugoslavia of a society of consumption9
, is of particular interest. This also
calls for some interests about representations of the consumption phenomena and the role that its
representations could have in tourism.
Developments of Czechoslovak tourism in Post-war Yugoslavia
Even if several initiatives for developing tourism came into being from 1945 and
onwards10
, tourism stayed marginalized in post-war Yugoslavia because of incentives given to
the industrialization.11
Tourism was first and foremost domestically-oriented; foreign tourists
were by far and few and mostly from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Tourism and Hotel
Management became integral parts of the first Yugoslav Five-Year Plan (1947-1951). Therefore,
further nationalization of April 1948 which targeted private resorts and hotels was stressed upon
helping the state to reach set objectives by increasing the rooms available for the plan.12
This
third wave of nationalization of April 1948 hence concerned all Czechoslovak hotels and
recreational centers.13
This led to many Czechoslovak requests, however unsuccessful, to exempt
their properties from being nationalized in the spring and summer of 1948.
8
Similar conclusions were made on culture in post-war Yugoslavia. See for instance, Carol S. Lilly, Propaganda
to Pornography: Party, Society, and Culture in Postwar Yugoslavia, in State-Society Relations in Yugoslavia
1945-1992, ed. by Melissa Bokovoy, Jill Irvine and Carol S. Lilly, Hampshire, Macmillan Press, 1997, p. 139-162.
9
Igor Duda asserts that a society of consumption slowly took root in Croatia during the 1950s and the 1960s with
its particular set of legislation, needs, usages, mentalities, and behaviors. See Igor Duda, U potrazi za
blagostanjem, O povijesti dokolice i potrošačkog društva u Hrvatskoj 1950-ih i 1960-ih (In Pursuit of Well-being:
On History of Leisure and Consumer Society in Croatia in the 1950s and 1960s), Zagreb, Srednja Europa, 2005,
p. 60 and the conclusion.
10
With the reestablishment of Putnik in 1945, the development of local tourist organizations and early incentives
for domestic tourism such as the 1946 decree of paid vacations for workers and office employers. See for details:
A. Kobašić, Turizam u Jugoslaviji, Zagreb, Informator, 1987, Stevan M. Stanković, Turizam u Jugoslaviji,
Beograd, Turistička Štampa, 1990 (3rd
ed.), Boris Vukonić, Povijest Hrvatskog Turizma, Zagreb, Prometej, 2005.
11
B. Vukonić, ibid., p.132.
12
One Yugoslav tourist official underlined in reports (August and October 1948) to the Federal Commission of
Control that nationalization of private sector gave 24 000 more beds. He however estimated that it was far to
answer the present needs. He noticed that private accommodation provided room for many tourists, but he
considered that it still was the only way to reach or surpass plan's objectives. ASCG, f.19, f.186, u. 1700. Boris
Kidrić, President of the Yugoslav Economic Council, specified that this nationalization affected around 550
hotels, 40 seaside enterprises and 15 recreational centres. Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech
Republic, (AMZV), KO (Consular section), Yugoslavia, 1945-64, box. 44, report of June 1948.
13
Among the most important there were: The resort of the Hotel and Seaside Dubrovnik Society in Kupari, the
Centre "Marijan Dvorac" for children on Lapad and the convalescent home of Marie Stejskalová at Crikvenica.
4
Economic cooperation with Czechoslovakia was of major importance for Yugoslavia's
reconstruction14
and the relatively sizable Czechoslovak tourist presence in 1946-48 can be seen
in this optic although other elements also played their part: the tradition of Czech tourism on the
Adriatic and the communist leanings of certain Czechoslovaks.
Meetings of the Yugoslav Politburo underlined the role which Czechoslovakia would play
for the economy of Yugoslavia. In this vein, Tito visited Prague and signed the Yugoslav-
Czechoslovak friendship agreement in May 9th
1946. This agreement was followed by
implementation of visa facilities.15
Tourism was therefore combined to a vast array of economic
and socio-cultural exchanges. For instance, in 1947, the Yugoslav proposed that young
Czechoslovaks may reside in a villa near Dubrovnik for summer vacation. The Czechoslovak
Ministry of Social Affairs saw in this a first measure to "thank" its government of having
welcome close to 3000 young Yugoslav apprentices between March and October 1946.16
The organization of Czechoslovak tourism in Yugoslavia was structured in the scope of
economic bilateral clearing agreements. Yugoslavia with its limited economic resources
accommodated tourists in order to facilitate imports of Czechoslovak goods. However, these
relations were complicated, among other things, by the ever-lasting negotiations for an
agreement of Czechs and Slovaks re-emigration to Czechoslovakia.17
The Yugoslav authorities
first refused to compensate re-emigrants financially. However both parties agreed in 1947 to
create at the Yugoslav National Bank a "re-emigration account" consisting of income from re-
emigrants' sold goods. This account would cover 50% of expenses of Czechoslovak tourists in
Yugoslavia.18
The "re-emigration account" was in use in 1947. It was also used in 1948 but only
after difficult negotiations because by then the Yugoslavs had turned more reluctant to this kind
of an agreement. In brief, Yugoslavs had the feeling that they were literally "paying off"
Czechoslovak tourists for coming to Yugoslavia. 19
14
Czechoslovakia became between 1946 and 1948 the second economic partner of Yugoslavia after the USSR.
15
B. Petranović, ibid, p.161.
16
National Archives in Prague (NA), Ministerstvo místního hospodářství, (Ministry of local economy) (MMH),
box. 808.
17
Close to 10 000 Czechs and Slovaks established in Yugoslavia re-emigrated to Czechoslovakia between 1945
and 1948.
18
J. Pelikán, ibid, p. 81.
19
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia-Montenegro (AMIP), Political Archives PA-ČSR, 1948,
fascicle 32, file 2, folio 32/34 to 41.
5
Political and ideological considerations were also on the agenda of tourism. Zděnek
Nejedlý20
, whose conception of culture combined new Slavism and the rejection of German and
Western cultures, asserted that travels of Czechoslovak children, youths and workers must target
first and foremost Yugoslavia rather than Western countries.21
The Yugoslav legation in Prague
did not overlook the political effects of those travels. Knowing that plans for Italy, England or
Switzerland were already prepared, or on their way to being so, the legation stated, in April
1946, that it "would be necessary for political reasons that a minimal number [of Czechoslovak
children] come to our Adriatic"22
. The political significance of this statement should however not
be overestimated because such collaboration was on the agenda of Czechoslovak and Yugoslav
governments in the spring of 1946. Moreover, the economic assets generated by foreign tourism
were taking a large part in the development of tourism's perspectives. In regards to a request
from a Czechoslovak scout association to carry out its 1948 summer camp in Yugoslavia, the
Yugoslav state official Vladimir Velebit answered the embassy in Prague that "last year's usage
showed that such requests from Czechoslovakia were so many that they could harm the interest
of our tourism".23
As a matter of fact, some coastal regions, such as the island of Rab, would
have been designed as so-called "currency regions" aimed at foreigners, both individuals and
families. The construction of centers for the masses and especially for children would have been
forbidden in such regions.24
Another concern among the Yugoslav leadership was the position of
Yugoslavia among Europe's tourist destinations. The ambassador Černej in Prague clearly
expressed his fear in May 1946 that Czechoslovak tourists may target the Italian Riviera, which
was already being promoted in Czechoslovakia, if the Adriatic would not be opened to
Czechoslovak tourists.25
This type of concern remained valid during the entire 20th
century since
Yugoslavia had to compete with Italian and European markets before it became, in the 1960s, a
tourism country of middle importance on the European scene.
20
Czechoslovak politician and chief ideologue of the KSČ. See P. Belina, P. Čornej and J. Pokorný, eds., Histoire
des pays tchques, Paris, Seuil, 1995, p.432.
21
NA, MMH, box. 808.
22
ASCG, f. 50, f. 61, u. 127, f. 83, report from April 11th
1946.
23
AMIP, PA-ČSR, 1948, fascicle 32, file 1, folio 32/27. Letter from February 16th, 1948. He also said that it is
why this form of rapprochement has not been included in the supplementary Protocol on cultural collaboration. He
however specified that already agreed exchanges between youths, syndicates or mass organization would be
carried out. Vladimir Velebit was at this time President of the Federal Committee for tourism and hotels and
assistant at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
24
NA, MMH, box 808.
25
Letter from May 15th
1946. Černej also wrote that Tito, on the occasion of his visit to Prague in May 1946,
answer to many people that travelling to Yugoslavia and especially to the Adriatic sea would be made possible for
Czechoslovak tourists. AMIP, PA-ČSR, 1946, fascicle 18, file 8, folio 18/223.
6
Of course, fluxes of tourists were also shaped by tourist agency agreements.26
In 1946, if
not in 1945 (see note 2), Čedok and Putnik concluded an agreement which stipulated that 10 000
Czechoslovaks would visit the Adriatic. This type of agreement covered every aspect of travel -
food, accommodation and transport. The tourist agreement of March 1948 between Čedok and
Putnik stipulated that two tourist trains would be sent every week to Rijeka and Split in order
that Czechoslovak tourists would then be directed to Rab and Dubrovnik respectively. This same
agreement specified that neither destination nor time period, two weeks, could be altered.27
This
example shows how the territory offered to tourism was narrowed by limited transport facilities,
a long-lasting problem in 20th
century Yugoslavia, but most acute in the first post-war years.
Dispersion of Czechoslovak tourists on the Slovenian, Croatian and Dalmatian coasts at the
beginning of August 1948 can be broken down into 16 sites from which six tourist spots
(Opatija, Crikvenica, Selce, Novi28
, Dubrovnik and Kupari) attracted close to 60% of these
tourists.29
This relatively narrow spatial distribution can be explicated by a limited offer of sea
resorts available, by a limited transport network, and also by tradition since resorts such as
Crikvenica, Dubrovnik and Kupari stood among the most favorite places of Czech tourists during
the interwar period. This spatial distribution also expresses the motives of most tourists: to enjoy
the Adriatic Sea. In 1955, 21 out of the 23 places in Yugoslavia where foreign overnights totalled
at least 25% of overnights were all located by the sea with a strong concentration in Istria and in
the Kvarner region.30
As a matter of fact, 80 % of Czechoslovaks' overnights in 1964 were
taking place in coastal places while this proportion even reached 93% in 1984.31
However, there
is a close relation, often mentioned but rarely demonstrated, between the development of tourism
and transport facilities. Singleton illustrated the relation between the overnight stays of foreign
tourists and the completion of the Magistrala, the Adriatic Highway in two tourist localities,
Biograd na Moru and Kaštel Stari. As a matter of fact, overnights increased roughly by 50%
once the highway reached these localities in 1962 and 1964 respectively.32
26
Besides Čedok, different Czechoslovak organizations organized tourist trips to Yugoslavia between 1945 and
1948. There were the tourist agency Travema, the Association of Friends of Tito's Yugoslavia, the Hotel and
Seaside Dubrovnik Society and the ROH.
27
Putnik-Čedok Agreement of 24.3.1948, AMIP, PA-ČSR, 1948, fascicle 27, file 19, folio 646-651.
28
It is not specified where. There is a Novigrad in Dalmatia and one in Istria.
29
Situation of tourists from Czechoslovakia on the territory of FNRJ on August 3rd
1948, AMIP, PA-ČSR, 1948,
fascicle 27, file 19, folio 653.
30
AMZV, TO-O, Yugoslavia, box 20, file 9.
31
Statistički Godišnjak SRFJ 1965, p. 265 and Statistički Godišnjak SRFJ 1984, p. 348.
32
Fred Singleton. "Yugoslavia's Foreign Economic Relations", in Yugoslavia/Jugoslawien. ed. by Klaus-Detlev
Grothusen, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1975, p. 285. John B. Allcock also discussed of this relation.
See: "Tourism and Social Change in Dalmatia", Journal of Development Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, 1983, p. 48.
7
As said earlier, ideological motives were also at the source of tourism development. Indeed,
the ROH organized vacations for its workers in Yugoslavia. Its activities on Rab island started in
1947 and the Czechoslovak Communist press underlined the political success of this first
attempt.33
In September 1947, the ROH received support from top Yugoslav authorities to build
a vacation center on Rab in spite of the so-called "currency regions" plan. After the purchase of
hotels located on Rab from Czech individuals, the ROH planned to build a model recreational
center. According to ROH plans such a center would have been ready to welcome in the summer
of 1948 close to 5000 or 6000 Czechoslovak workers, and projections called for 10000 to 12000
workers per season upon the completion of the plan.34
The Yugoslav Ministry of Interior had
reservations. To let foreigners build their own resort would create a case-law for other countries
and harm the interest of Yugoslav tourism. In spite of this, the project went further. The surprise
of ROH delegates was probably great at their arrival on Rab in March 11th
1948 to start
organizing their resort. Indeed, the Kotar National Council which had not received at that time
any approval from higher instances denied the ROH the right for any kind of work. This
misunderstanding was maybe trivial. Indeed, in late March 1948 less than two weeks later, the
Yugoslav Presidency reiterated building rights for ROH on Rab. This example illustrates
however the lack of cohesion between the different levels of governance in Yugoslavia.35
All this
would hamper, to different degrees, the development of tourism in Socialist Yugoslavia.
The Rab project turned short due to the rupture of 1948. However other attempts were
completed in the 1960s as illustrates the construction of a recreational center in Bečići in
Montenegro for the Czechoslovak trade unions in 1965.36
During the waves of the June 1948 resolution: No more Czechoslovak tourists in
Yugoslavia ! A turning point
Unlike the economic relations between Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia which continued
until June 1949, tourist relations came to an end on August 2nd
when Čedok broke up the tourist
agreement of March 1948 with Putnik. The Czechoslovak Minister of Interior in consultation
with the KSČ (Czechoslovak Communist Party) stopped issuing travel documents for
Yugoslavia and cancelled all tourist trains for Yugoslavia on July 31st
1948. Moreover,
Czechoslovaks abroad were required to come back home within a period of 14 days. But tourist
33
NA, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Czech Republic, Newspapers' cuts, MZV-VA II, box 469.
34
NA, MMH, box 808, communiqué from 26.11.1947. Also ASCG, f. 50, f. 61, folio 273, February 1948.
35
Concerning the project to purchase hotel buildings on Rab (discussions for the Rab were already engaged at the
beggining of 1947), the Czech ambassador Korbel warned that the Yugoslav state apparatus was not able to work
effectively and rapidly. Decisions could be taken at the highest level but theirs executions were not effective. NA,
MMH, box 808.
36
Turističke novine, n. 355, March 4th 1965, p. 2.
8
fluxes from Czechoslovakia had continued until July 1948. Indeed, Tito confirmed on 1st
of July
1948 that "again this year, hotel Kupari can welcome tourists from Czechoslovakia" but only
under a Yugoslav management of the station.37
A detailed analysis of the August 1948 quarrel
will not be undertaken here. I would however emphasize the fact that this event clearly illustrates
how tourism was intimately associated with ideological disputes of that time. In a report on this
affair, the director of Putnik seemed very surprised by the turn of events. He was not convinced
that this decision only originated from Czechoslovakia because the Hungarian travel agency
Ibusz canceled, at the same time, all tourist travels to Yugoslavia. The director concluded then
that this was a "common action from people's democracies' leadership directed against the new
Yugoslavia"38
.
Tourism became an element of Tito's search to secure Yugoslavia's new position. Tourism
became a tool, both for home and foreign propaganda, for this self-legitimization work. This is
why tourism continued to fulfill a socio-political task in this critical period by providing a wider
horizon for the Yugoslav campaign which advocated better standards of living for all. An article
from Borba in July 31st
1949 was simply titled: "Worker's pleasant vacation ­ result of the
successful building of socialism". This article said from the onset: "The actual successes in the
building of socialism let workers of our country take an annual vacation in larger numbers and
more comfortably than last year"39
. Moreover, the communist phraseology emphasized that
tourism in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was restricted to foreign and domestic bourgeoisie
whereas tourism in Socialist Yugoslavia was accessible for all workers.
The "vacuum effect"40
created by the ban on Yugoslavia from Soviet satellites at first
benefited domestic tourism. Workers' and youth rest centers (odmarališta) mushroomed in the
1950s.41
It is worth noting here that Yugoslavia had not by 1949 a clear tourist policy toward
foreign tourism ­ and one can ask whether or not Yugoslavia ever developed a concise tourist
policy. But continuous problems of organization, tense border questions, unsettled relations with
Austria up to 1950, very scarce propaganda abroad, not to mention the lack of goods and the
37
ASCG, f. 50, f. 61, u. 127, folio 712. The will to put resorts in charge of a Yugoslav management goes in line
with the nationalization policy of March 1948.
38
ASCG, f. 50, f. 61, u. 127, f. 444. He let know that Moscow would be at the source of this decision.
39
ASCG, f. 19, f. 186, u. 1705, article in Borba, 31.7.1949.
40
B. Vukonic, ibid, p.136.
41
See I. Duda, ibid, p. 120-130 for an overview.
9
drought of summer 1951, are factors that explain the slow progress of foreign tourism between
1949 and 1951.42
The first half of the 1950s witnessed a fierce propaganda war between Soviet satellites and
Yugoslavia. The latter invited foreigners to Yugoslavia in order to show them that Moscow's
propaganda was pure fiction. Defensive, the Yugoslav authorities explained a posteriori that the
tourist conflict of August 1948 was a clear attempt by the Czechoslovak government to prevent
its own citizens from seeing with their own eyes what really happened in Yugoslavia.43
Less than
a year later, Tito explained what this policy of "come to see the truth" was about. He said: "If
someone traveling in our country looks at everything which has been accomplished and all that is
going on now, then he cannot say, regardless whether he had a hostile position towards our
Yugoslavia, that our workers had not given everything of themselves"44
. And this explained why,
according to Tito, the Yugoslav workers impressed the entire world. This kind of rhetoric points
to a particular moment of the Yugoslav representational policy. An article in a magazine for
tourist specialists underlined in 1951 that foreign tourists' interest in Yugoslavia reinforced its
"political position" on the international scene but especially towards the USSR and its
satellites.45
In 1954, Yugoslav officials argued that more visits of foreign trade unions' members
and contacts between them and Yugoslav workers would have political benefits.46
Moreover,
some concrete measures were implemented to promote tourism from Western countries: special
rates for transportation and the purchase of goods, agreements with some foreign travel agencies
and increased activities in the information and propaganda centers located in USA, France,
England and Austria.47
Western tourism in Yugoslavia clearly progressed from 1952 onwards.
The international position that Yugoslavia gained in the 1960s, as shown by its leadership in the
non-alignment movement, had important consequences on people's mobility. In this vein, the
historian Marković asserts: "a country which claims to be one of the political avant-garde of the
world cannot keep its own citizens in a ghetto"48
. However, this opening was also shaped by
42
Stanko Marovt, "The possibilities of foreign tourism development in our country" (Mogućnosti razvoja
inostranog turizma u našoj zemlji), Veznik turizma i ugostiteljstva, vol. 3, n.4, July-August 1951, p.209.
43
On the occasion of the Yugoslav answer (27.10.1949) to the Czechoslovak note of 4.10.1949 which cancelled
the Friendship and Cultural Agreements. AMZV, TO-O, Yugoslavia, 1945-59, box 8, file 8.
44
Archives of the Museum of Yugoslavia, Office of Marshal of Yugoslavia, KMJ, II 1/23, Speech given in Split,
5.3.1950, p. 5.
45
S. Marovt, "The possibilities of foreign tourism development in our country" (Mogućnosti razvoja inostranog
turizma u našoj zemlji), Veznik turizma i ugostiteljstva, vol. 3, n.4, July-August 1951, p.209.
46
Archives of the Museum of Yugoslavia , Office of the President of the Republic, KPR, III-A-4-e (III K-57)
/25.10-1.11.1954.
47
Kosta Rakić, "Our relations with foreign countries in regards of tourist flux " (Naši odnosi sa inostranstvom u
pogledu turističkog prometa), Veznik turizma i ugostiteljstva, vol. 3, n.3, May-June 1951, p. 132.
48
Predrag Marković,      1948-1965 (Belgrade between East and West 1948-
1965), Beograd, Novinsko-izdavač ustanova, 1996, p. 253-254.
10
economic necessity. There is a correlation between the movements of gastarbeiter49
, the more
sustained development of tourism, the severe economic crisis that struck Yugoslavia in 1961 and
the market-oriented reforms of the 1960s. In this context, the positive and open stance of
Yugoslavia towards Western tourism had a pragmatic economic purpose. Similar considerations
also motivated the renewal of tourist relations with Eastern European countries. However, this
was a delicate question and was hinged on the state of international relations.
The renewal of Czechoslovak tourism in Yugoslavia
A clear consensus reigned from 1955, if not in 1954, among Yugoslav circles to renew
tourism from Czechoslovakia. This is shown by the numerous attempts from different Yugoslav
administrative branches which established contacts with their Czechoslovak counterparts in this
respect. Invitations to Party officials and journalists to spend time in Yugoslavia were the initial
steps leading to a closer rapprochement. As a matter of fact, Czechoslovak journalists were
invited in the spring of 1955 to visit Yugoslavia. Their Yugoslav hosts drove them mainly
through "tourist roads" and made comments blaming Czechoslovaks for not visiting the Adriatic.
Not surprisingly, the Czechoslovak officials appraised this invitation as a clear attempt to
promote tourism.50
Yugoslav travel agencies also directly contacted Czechoslovak Ministries and
Čedok to reopen the question of tourism.51
But a lot of suspicion and reservations governed
Czechoslovakia's relations with Yugoslavia. In May 1955, the Czechoslovak Ministry of Foreign
Affairs suggested to the KSČ not to resume tourism before further negotiations.52
In spite of the
Belgrade declaration, contacts were slow to make progress during the summer of 1955 and many
Yugoslav requests such as those for the renewal of tourism were not fully taken into account by
Czechoslovaks.53
The political climate changed at the beginning of 1956. The Czechoslovak
leadership went further and a trade agreement that included a temporary tourist agreement was
concluded in February 1956. Further collaboration continued in the following weeks54
but,
according to Čedok, directives for collective travels to Yugoslavia would have been issued only
49
"In the period between 1964 and 1975 as many as 2.3 million Yugoslav citizens, including dependent family
members, might have been living and working for some time as migrants in Western Europe", Milan Mesić,
"External Migration in the context of the Post-War Development of Yugoslavia", Allcock, Horton and
Milivojević, eds., Yugoslavia in Transition, New York and Oxford, Berg, 1992, p.194-195.
50
NA, Politburo of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party (PB ÚV KSČ), volume 52, unit
69, point 14 (20.7.1955). The report is very critical regarding Tito's regime.
51
Putnik agency in Zagreb contacted Čedok and the Ministry of transport several times over the summer and fall
of 1955. AMZV, TO-T, Yugoslavia, 1945-55, box 7, file 2.
52
AMZV, TO-T, Yugoslavia, 1945-55, box 7, file 3. Decision 17.093 (12.5.1955).
53
See for instance J. Pelikán, ibid, p.270.
54
See J. Pelikán, Jugoslávie a východní blok 1953-1958 (Yugoslavia and the Eastern block 1953-1958), Praha,
Nakladatelství Karolinum, 2001, p. 352-360 for a detailed analysis.
11
in late spring 1956.55
This reprisal was unhinged by the new dispute of 1958 between Belgrade
and Moscow, but not seriously, as it had been the case in 1948. Fluxes of tourists lessened
between 1959 and 1962 but they did not stop. Therefore, the year of 1956 constitutes the first
year of a new period of Czechoslovak tourism in Yugoslavia.
This new period of tourism relations between Yugoslavia and people's democracies
embodied some patterns which prevailed during the whole Cold War era and help us to
understand the mechanisms at work. The percentage, both in numbers and in overnight stays, of
Eastern European tourists in Yugoslavia remained modest for the whole Cold War period
although its rate of growth was obviously high in the 1960s. In 1968, they represented 16% of all
foreign overnight stays with Czechoslovak tourists making 61% of this. As said earlier, this
tourism was developed in the frame of bilateral exchange of goods. Therefore, the number of
tourists allowed to go abroad was planned on an annual basis by Czechoslovak officials.
Requests from Czechoslovaks to travel to Yugoslavia exceeded by far the concrete possibilities
offered. Being closely dependent on Czechoslovak policies, this tourism could hardly be planned
by Yugoslav tourist organizations nor influenced by their propaganda. Indeed, the Yugoslav
tourist organizations did not set up any particular propaganda campaign for Czechoslovakia; all
efforts were overtly directed towards the Western countries. As a matter of fact, Yugoslavia did
not have a concrete tourist policy towards Eastern European countries and tourist issues with
these countries were solved on an ad hoc base.56
Exchanges among Communist Party members for summer vacations were another
characteristic of tourism between socialist countries. They gained importance in the first half of
the 1960s, but rapidly went out of vogue when Yugoslavs abolished it in 1967. It can be seen as
an attempt to avoid mixing tourism with politics. Indeed, the Yugoslavs proposed that relations
between parties belong to study groups or delegation meetings, not to tourism. Therefore,
vacations of Communist leaders in Yugoslavia had to be carried out through "regular forms" of
tourism.57
This set of characteristics would be incomplete without addressing the extent to which
tourism answered and also created consumption needs in Eastern Europe. The concept of
55
AMZV, TO-O, Yugoslavia, 1945-59, box 20, file 9.
56
Archives of the Museum of Yugoslavia, Office of the President of the Republic, KPR III-A-e. Reports on
Eastern European tourism (1969 and 1970) and letter from the Yugoslav Tourist Association (Turistički Savez
Jugoslavije) from 10.10.1966.
57
The year of 1965 saw the highest affluence so far with 63 members of Communist Parties (157 in total with
family members) spending their vacations in Yugoslavia. The relative part of Czechoslovak party's members was
low as only 8 members planned to go to Yugoslavia for their vacations. These trips were often the occasion to
meet Yugoslav officials and to talk about different issues. ASCG, f.507, Central Committee of the Communist
League of Yugoslavia, CK SKJ, Commission for the international relations, Czechoslovakia, see IX, 22/I-1-115,
116-155, 156-245, (1945-1968).
12
shopping tourism58
helps with the conceptualization of an aspect of the socialist consumer
culture. But to talk about socialist consumer cultures would be more appropriate since there were
discrepancies among socialist countries on the one side, and between Yugoslavia and Moscow's
satellites on the other side. Commercial tourism (as opposed to social tourism) could have been
awkwardly integrated to a socialist planned type of economy. Tourist practices of consumption
and advertising (needed in commercial tourism) could hardly have been merged with the
socialist ethic. This clash did not hamper the development of a socialist consumer culture /
tourist culture, but tensions were constantly felt both by Czechoslovak tourists, and
Czechoslovak officials who set up tourist relations with Yugoslavia and capitalist countries.
These tensions were less significant in Yugoslavia, which leant towards Western socio-economic
models. The efforts of self-legitimization of the Yugoslav governance explained, for instance, its
permissive attitudes towards smuggling activities on the occasion of travels.59
Moreover, Tito's
mode of governance, which did not directly intervene in the economic and cultural fields and
which let republican and local authorities deal with tourism, is definitely a factor that contributed
to the development of tourism.
Tourism did not serve as a space of political resistance, far from it. However, the patterns
of consumption embodied in the meaning of tourism did undermine the principles on which
socialist societies found legitimacy, by highlighting the differences of living standards between
individuals or national groups. Indeed, Yugoslavia, as a meeting place for Western and Eastern
tourists, was a particular destination for tourism. The latter was not circumscribed to a movement
of people and goods. Representations (of consumption behaviors, foreign tourists, etc) also
circulated and were also, as the next examples show, the concerns of political authorities.
A survey on tourism in Yugoslavia, Poland and Hungary presented by Barák60
at a Politburo
meeting underlined some negative consequences of tourism in Yugoslavia. It was said that
behaviors of some Czechoslovaks made a bad impression of their country when they went
abroad. The survey reported tourists fleeing to the West while touring in Yugoslavia61
and
selling goods once in Yugoslavia in order to pay for their trip.62
Those smuggling activities
58
"Shopping tourism [...] means travel abroad with the explicit aim to buy goods that are unavailable or difficult
to find in one's home country. [...] Shopping tourism is one of the manifestations of an informal private economy
within the socialist system". Anna Wessely, "Travelling people, travelling objects", Cultural Studies, 16 (1), 2002,
p.6.
59
A. Wessely, ibid., p.7.
60
Czechoslovak Minister of Interior from September 1953 to June 1961.
61
This paper does not address this question.
62
NA, PB ÚV KSČ, volume 126, unit 162, point 7.
13
would become a common element in reports on tourism in Yugoslavia. This mercantile behavior
created prejudice against Czechoslovakia as the embassy in Belgrade reported.63
Similar concerns were echoed by Antonín Novotný when he met Tito in September 1964.
To tackle the smuggling problem, Novotný asserted that bigger allowances would be secured for
Czechoslovak tourists in order to assure them a decent journey. Therefore, they would have no
needs for smuggling. The latter activity was perceived negatively not only for the image it made
of Czechoslovaks but also because of contacts it generated with Americans, English and Western
Germans. Novotný judged these contacts simply as "bad" and he added that strict orders would
be issued to tourist organizations in regard to the smuggling question. Not surprinsingly, he
advocated for the collective form of tourism in Yugoslavia rather than "individual" tourism.
Yugoslavia definitely enjoyed a positive image among both Western and Eastern citizens
for different reasons. Yugoslavia projected itself as a meeting place appearing to some as a
version of non-soviet socialism and to others as space of liberty, an accessible doorstep for
Western goods in the socialist world. In regards to the presence of Yugoslav gastarbeiters in
Western Europe and of Western tourists in Yugoslavia, it is not a surprise to hear from Marković
that "Yugoslavs were the first in Eastern Europe to be seduced by the charm of Western
consumption"64
.
In a crowded meeting place, it is better to look one's best. The Czechoslovak consul in
Zagreb wrote, for example, that the presence of well-maintained Czechoslovak cars on Yugoslav
roads served the purpose testifying to the high level of living and technical developments in
Czechoslovakia.65
It is worth noting here that, by 1970, Czechoslovakia reached an average of
five individuals per car, an average which closely resembled those of Western countries.66
Not
surprisingly, a report from Czechoslovak radio on tourism in Yugoslavia emphasized that one in
every twelve cars on the Magistrala was from Czechoslovakia.67
The consumer goods which tourists could afford were a strong indicator of the standard of
living. In this vein, tourism can be understood as a particular form of communication. Very
informative here is a report from a Yugoslav official on discussions about tourism with members
of Khrushchev's delegation in September 1963. In unofficial talks, the Soviet staff criticized
their tourism: why, they asked, cannot a Soviet freely travel, when a Yugoslav can? Regarding
the possibilities for Soviet tourists to come to Yugoslavia, the Soviets officially underlined a lack
63
Report from the Czechoslovak embassy in Belgrade, AMZV, TO-O, Yugoslavia, 1945-59, box 22, file 4.
64
P. Marković, ibid, p. 255.
65
AMZV, TO-T, Yugoslavia, 1965-69, box 2, file 1. Report of 31.1.1966, p.5.
66
I. Duda, ibid, p. 103. The average was 56 inhabitants per car in 1960 Czechoslovakia.
67
Archives and Program holdings of Czech Radio, report by Karel Jezdinský, 29.6.1969.
14
of means of payments, but, in unofficial talks, they let Yugoslavs know that Soviet leadership
cannot let its citizens freely travel because the differences in living standards would be to the
Soviet Union's disadvantage.68
This last example shows how tourists became willy-nilly
propaganda vectors in the context of the Cold War which was definitely not only an arms race.69
Conclusion
Studies on the history of tourism have at their disposal of a vast array of sources. Posters,
postcards and pictures provide hints as to how tourism was presented and what values were
given to it by advertising. Travel accounts and printed guidebooks provide information on the
circulation of representations and the evolution of tourists' practices. The interaction between
tourism and transportation can be studied through a detailed analysis of road infrastructures, as
the example of Singleton shows. My endeavor here was to show how sources from diplomatic
and top-political organs can enrich the writing of the histories of tourism. Indeed, some
diplomatic reports or top official meetings such as the one between Tito and Novotný in
September 1964 point out some political side-effects of tourism, call attention to how a nation is
perceived by others, and indicate to what extent the issues of consumption and tourism were a
matter of importance among officials. The examples shown illustrated that an ideological spin
was often ascribed to tourism up until the early 1950s. Even if it somehow declined, it never
totally lost ground. There was, indeed, a close connection between Yugoslavia's foreign policy
and tourism. However, one can understand the development of international tourism in
Yugoslavia as an expression of economic pragmatism. It is true that the economic advantages
deriving from the development of international tourism were constantly emphasized by Yugoslav
tourist workers. Their perspectives logically inscribed tourism first and foremost as an economic
phenomenon, since their reports stressed the income of foreign currency generated by tourism
and aimed to promote the tourism industry in general. But one must not forget that tourism kept
interacting with a larger spectrum of forces such as the political ones, as it was shown by the
political and diplomatic sources. Moreover, the latter fill in for some lacks or unavailabilities of
other archive materials.70
The choice of working on the case of Czech tourism in Yugoslavia is not fortuitous. Many
factors endorse the idea that we are dealing here with a specific tourist culture whose roots are
found in the 19th
century. The importance of the Adriatic for Czechs can be assessed by their
68
ASCG, f.580, Federal Committee for Tourism (Savezni Komitet za turizam), fascicle 1.
69
Shelley Baranowski and Ellen Furlough, eds., Being Elsewhere, Tourism, Consumer Culture, and Identity in
Modern Europe and North America, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press, 2001.
70
Being not classified, the archives of the Turistički Savez Jugoslavije (Tourist Association of Yugoslavia) are not
unavailable in the Archives of Serbia and Montenegro. Being not located in the main storerooms of the Archives
of Serbia and Montenegro, the holdings of the Savezni komitet za turizam (Federal Committee for tourism) have
only been recently handed out to the author of this paper.
15
numerous initiatives which ranged from the building of hotels, and the publishing of numerous
guidebooks, to the composition of poems and music dedicated to the Adriatic. The importance of
the presence of Czechoslovak tourists in 1946-1948 can thus be seen as a continuation of
interwar tourism.71
However, the bases of post-1956 Czechoslovak tourism in Yugoslavia were
utterly different. Czechoslovak tourism in Yugoslavia would be included, for the next three
decades or so, in the model of socialist tourism. The tradition continued but under different
conditions.
71
But from the point of view of domestic tourism, the question of continuity is appraised differently since the
Second World War "broke the continuity of tourist development" with the interwar development. Vukonić, ibid, p.
134.
16
Appendix A
Overview of Czechoslovak tourists in Yugoslavia and their respective percentage among foreign
tourists in the 20th
century for present-day Croatia
Years Czechoslovak tourists [in
number]
Percentage of Czechoslovaks
among foreign tourists [%]
1930a
43 708 17.1
1933 63947 29.5
1936 68337 26.4
1938 39901 13.9
1946 2533
1947 19335 31.3
1948b
22258 36.2
1955c
1895
1956 11009 2.7
1957 11552 2.3
1958 13871 2.3
1959 3932 0.4
1960 4162 0.4
1961 3629 0.3
1962 5728 0.4
1963 12794 0.7
1964 65758 2.9
1965 180491 6.7
1966 247972 7.2
1967 253363 6.8
1968 310045 7.9
1969 454419 9.5
1970 165620 3.4
1980 246000 3.8
1985 431000 5.1
1989 245000 2.8
2000d
710958 12.2
2005 615535 7.2
a
Data are provided by John B.Allcock, "The Historical Development of Tourism in Yugoslavia to 1945", in John
B. Allcock, The Studies in the History of Tourism in Yugoslavia, Bradford, 1989, p.16.
b
Until August 5th
1948. See Vesnik Turizma i ugostiteljstva, 1949, number 2.
c
The Statistički Godišnjak SFRJ 1965 mentions this number for 1955 (p. 262). This number counts however as
number of visitors from Czechoslovakia. For Yugoslav statistics, a foreign visitor consisted of each visitor who
came from abroad for a temporary stay regardless of the aim of it. Yugoslav statistics kept a loose definition of the
category `tourist' since numbers of visitors and tourists are, in other statistic data, alike. Data for the 1955-1989
period are provided by Zvonimir Jakopović, ed., Turizam u Jugoslaviji : statisticki podaci : 1960-1977, Beograd,
Turisticki savez Jugoslavije, Privredna komora Jugoslavije, 1978, p.51, Statistički Godišnjak SRFJ 1965 and
Statistički Godišnjak Jugoslavije 1990.
d
Statistics for 2000 and 2005 are taken from the Croatian Ministry of Sea, Tourism, Transport and Development.
See data available in the tourism section. http://www.mmtpr.hr/