UDK/UDC 94(05) ACTA HISTRIAE 25, 2017, 3, pp. 457-824 ISSN 1318-0185 UDK/UDC 94(05) ISSN 1318-0185 Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko - Koper Societa storica del Litorale - Capodistria ACTA HISTRIAE 25, 2017, 3 KOPER 2017 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 3 ISSN 1318-0185 Odgovorni urednik/ Direttore responsabile/ Editor in Chief: Uredniški odbor/ Comitato di redazione/ Board of Editors: Urednik/Redattore/ Editor: Gostujoča urednika / Guest Editors: Prevodi/Traduzioni/ Translations: Lektorji/Supervisione/ Language Editor: Stavek/Composizione/ Typesetting: Izdajatelj/Editore/ Published by: Sedež/Sede/Address: UDK/UDC 94(05) Letnik 25, leto 2017, številka 3 Darko Darovec Gorazd Bajc, Furio Bianco (IT), Flavij Bonin, Dragica Čeč, Lovorka Čoralic (HR), Darko Darovec, Marco Fincardi (IT), Darko Friš, Aleksej Kalc, Borut Klabjan, John Martin (USA), Robert Matijašic (HR), Darja Mihelič, Edward Muir (USA), Egon Pelikan, Luciano Pezzolo (IT), Jože Pirjevec, Claudio Povolo (IT), Marijan Premovic (MNE), Vida Rožac Darovec, Andrej Studen, Marta Verginella, Salvator Žitko Gorazd Bajc, Urška Lampe Marta Verginella, Marko Kambič Urška Lampe (slo.), Gorazd Bajc (it.) Urška Lampe (angl., slo.), Gorazd Bajc (it.) Grafis trade d.o.o. Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko / Societa storica del Litorale© Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko, SI-6000 Koper-Capodistria, Garibaldijeva 18 / Via Garibaldi 18 e-mail: actahistriae@gmail.com; www.zdjp.si Grafis trade d.o.o. 300 izvodov/copie/copies Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije / Slovenian Research Agency, Mestna občina Koper, Luka Koper d.d. Tisk/Stampa/Print: Naklada/Tiratura/Copies: Finančna podpora/ Supporto finanziario/ Financially supported by: Slika na naslovnici/ Foto di copertina/ Picture on the cover: Strappado tortura. Mučenje viseče ženske / Tortura Strappado. Tortura di donna pendente / Strappado torture. Hanging woman torture (https://www. planetdeadly.com/human/medieval-torture-devices) Redakcija te številke je bila zaključena 1. novembra 2017. Revija Acta Histriae je vključena v naslednje podatkovne baze / Gli articoli pubblicati in questa rivista sono inclusi nei seguenti indici di citazione / Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in: Thomson Reuters: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Social Scisearch, Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), Journal Citation Reports / Social Sciences Edition (USA); IBZ, Internationale Bibliographie der Zeitschriftenliteratur (GER); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) (UK); Referativnyi Zhurnal Viniti (RUS); European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS); Elsevier B. V.: SCOPUS (NL) Vsi članki so v barvni verziji prosto dostopni na spletni strani: http://www.zdjp.si. All articles are freely available in color via website http://www.zdjp.si. ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 3 VSEBINA / INDICE GENERALE / CONTENTS Marta Verginella: O zgodovinjenju dihotomije mesta in podeželja..........................457 Sulla storicizzazione della dicotomia tra città e campagna On Historicising the Dichotomy, the City and the Countryside Irena Benyovsky Latin: Grad i zalede u narativnim vrelima: konstruiranje tradicije o ranosrednjovjekovnim doseljenjima u Dubrovnik iz slavenskog zaleda .... 473 La città e il suo hinterland nelle fonti narrative: la costruzione della tradizione del primo insediamento medievale a Dubrovnik dall'entroterra slavo The City and its Hinterland in the Narrative Sources: Construction of the Tradition of Early Medieval Settling in Dubrovnik from Slavic Hinterland Marko Štuhec: O vonjavah v nosu grofa Wolfa Sigmunda Lichtenberga. Soteška graščina v 18. stoletju kot podeželsko mestni kulturni hibrid........................511 Sugli odori percepiti dal conte Wolf Sigmund Lichtenberg. Il castello Soteska come ibrido culturale tra città e campagna nel Settecento On the Smells in the Nose of Count Lichtenberg. The Manor House of Soteska in the 18th Century as a Cultural Hybrd Francesco Toncich: Narrazioni e pratiche politiche antislave a Trieste tra città e campagna (1850-1871)................................................................................ 539 Anti-Slavic Narrations and Political Practices in Trieste between City and Countryside (1850-1871) Protislovanske naracije in politične prakse v Trstu med mestom in podeželjem (1850-1871) Darja Kerec: Setting the Borderline between the Urban and the Rural in the Slovene March between 1765 and 1924 ............................................................ 563 La questione dei confini tra l'urbano e il rurale nella Slovenska krajina tra gli anni 1765-1924 Vprašanje razmejitve med urbanim in ruralnim v Slovenski krajini v obdobju 1765-1924 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 3 Božo Repe: Modernizacije pri Slovencih....................................................................581 La questione della modernizzazione degli sloveni Modernizations among Slovenes Bojan Baskar: Mesto in podeželje v povojni italijanski agrarni zgodovini in etnoantropologiji......................................................................................................597 Citta e campagna nella storia agraria italiana del dopoguerra e nell'etnoantropologia City and Countries in the Postwar Italian Agrarian History and Ethnoantropology Davide Artico: Urban Visibility Changes as an Effect of the Redefinition of Minorities in Poland after 1989 ................................................................................ 613 Modifiche nella visibilità urbana come conseguenza della ridefinizione delle minoranze in Polonia dopo il 1989 Spremembe v vidljivosti urbanega zaradi prevrednotenja manjšin na Poljskem po letu 1989 Marko Kambič: Ljubljanske malefične svoboščine v evropskem kontekstu - ob 500 letnici njihove podelitve..........................................629 L 'ordinanza criminale per la citta di Lubiana nel contesto europeo - in occasione del 500° anniversario della loro emanazione Criminal Justice Freedoms for Ljubljana in the European Context - Upon the 500th Anniversary of their Granting Darko Darovec: Faciamus vindictam. Maščevalni umor in oprostilna sodba v Landarju leta 1401 med obredom maščevanja ter akuzatornim in inkvizitornim sodnim procesom...............................................................................653 Faciamus vindictam. Assoluzione da omicidio vendicativo ad Antro nel 1401 tra la consuetudine della vendetta e il rito processuale accusatorio e inquisitorio Faciamus vindictam. Vengeful Murder and Acquittal in Antro in 1401 Beetwen the Custom of Vengeance and the Adversarial and Inquisitorial Trial Rite Gorazd Stariha: Vojaški beguni v prvi polovici 19. stoletja in kaznovanje njihovih pomagačev. Primer kazenskih spisov Deželnega sodišča v Ljubljani v letih 1825-1849 ...................................................................................... 701 I disertori nella prima meta dell'Ottocento e la punizione per coloro che davano loro aiuto. Il caso degli atti penali del Tribunale regionale di Lubiana negli anni 1825-1849 The Deserters in the first half of the 19th Century and the Punishment for those who gave them help. The Case of Criminal Acts of the Regional Tribunal of Ljubljana in the Years 1825-1849 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 3 Lovro Šturm: Začetek revolucionarnega kazenskega prava na Slovenskem in njegovi odmevi po drugi svetovni vojni in po demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije...........................................................................................719 La prima fase del diritto penale rivoluzionario in Slovenia e i suoi echi dopo la Seconda guerra mondiale e in seguito alla democratizzazione e all'indipendenza della Repubblica di Slovenia The Rise of Revolutionary Criminal Law in Slovenia and its Echoes after the Second World War and after the Democratisation and the Independence of the Republic of Slovenia Milan Balaban: Czechoslovak Tourists in the Yugoslav Adriatic in the Interwar Period (1918-1939)............................................................................. 747 I turisti cecoslovacchi nell'Adriatico jugoslavo nel periodo tra le due guerre (1918-1939) Češkoslovaški turisti na jugoslavanskem Jadranu v obdobju med svetovnima vojnama (1918-1939) Urška Lampe: »Revolucija v polnem pomenu besede!« Izsledki jugoslovanske preiskave deportacij iz Julijske krajine po koncu druge svetovne vojne....................................................................................................767 »Una rivoluzione nel pieno senso della parola!« I risultati delle indagini jugoslave sulle deportazioni dalla Venezia Giulia nel secondo dopoguerra »A Revolution in the Full Sense of the Word!« The Results of the Yugoslav Investigation Regarding the Postwar Deportations from Venezia Giulia Federico Tenca Montini, Saša Mišic: Comunisti di un altro tipo: le simpatie filo-jugoslave in Italia (1948-1962).......................................................... 785 Communists of a Different Kind: the pro-Yugoslav Trend in Italy (1948-1962) Komunisti druge sorte: projugoslovanske simpatije v Italiji (1948-1962) Navodila avtorjem ...... Istruzioni per gli autori Instructions to authors 813 816 820 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S received: 2015-10-29 DOI 10.19233/AH.2017.34 original scientific article CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR PERIOD (1918-1939) Milan BALABAN Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Nam. T. G. Masaryka 5555, 760 01 Zlin, Czech Republic e-mail: balaban@k.utb.cz ABSTRACT This article analyses the issue of Czechoslovak tourists on the Adriatic coast during the Interwar period (1918-1939). Our paper will give a short overview of the beginnings of organized tourism from Czech and Slovak lands to the Eastern coast of Adriatic Sea. In the main part of the text, the article focuses on tourists from Czechoslovakia in the Kingdom of Serb, Croats and Slovenes (from 1929 Kingdom of Yugoslavia). They belonged to the most numerous group of tourists during the entire Interwar period, and their importance in developing tourism in that area was significant. In our text, we will analyse major tourist trends and which were the main obstacles for developing of tourism on Adriatic. The focus will be on the issue of Czechoslovak investments in the eastern Adriatic coast and the issue of tourist industry workers as well. Keywords: Czechoslovaks, Tourism, Yugoslavia, Interwar period, Adriatic Sea I TURISTI CECOSLOVACCHI NELL'ADRIATICO JUGOSLAVO NEL PERIODO TRA LE DUE GUERRE (1918-1939) SINTESI L'articolo analizza il tema dei turisti cecoslovacchi sulla costa adriatica nel periodo tra le due guerre (1918-1939). Lo studio fornirà una breve panoramica sugli inizi del turismo organizzato dai cechi e degli slovacchi verso la costa orientale del Mar Adriatico. Nella parte principale del testo l'articolo si concentra sul flusso di turisti provenienti dalla Cecoslovacchia verso il Regno dei serbi, croati e sloveni (dal 1929 Regno della Jugoslavia). Questo flusso apparteneva al gruppo più numeroso di turisti durante tutto il periodo tra le due guerre e la loro importanza per lo sviluppo del turismo in quella zona è stata rilevante e significativa. Nel nostro testo analizzeremo le principali tendenze tu-ristiche e quali sono stati i principali ostacoli per lo sviluppo del turismo sull'Adriatico. Ci concentreremo anche sul tema degli investimenti cecoslovacchi effettuati sulla costa orientale dell'Adriatico e sul lavoro organizzato nel settore turistico. Parole chiave: cecoslovacchi, Turismo, Jugoslavia, periodo tra le due guerre, Mare Adriático 747 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 INTRODUCTION This article is trying to contribute to a better understanding of the issue of Czechoslovak tourists on Eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea-cost in the interwar period (1918-1939). The article focuses on two key areas. Firstly, it examines investments by Czechoslovaks in tourist infrastructure to the part of the Adriatic coast, which belonged to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (further in the text Kingdom of SHS - from 1929, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia).1 Secondly, the article considers aspects of the visits of Czechoslovak tourists to that region. It is also presenting statistics of visits to Yugoslav Adriatic, as well estimations of the tourist costs. This article is limited to the period between the two world wars, as this period in development of tourism is significantly different from both the previous and the following period, in its structure and purposes.2 In the last century, tourism became one of the most important economic activities on the Adriatic. One of the major roles in this process was played by tourists from Czechoslovakia, who were among the first to discover the beauty of its shores. The beginnings of Czech and later Czechoslovak tourism to the Adriatic Sea could be found in the late 19th and early 20th century,3 and the propagation of tourism was fuelled with the founding of the Club of Czech Tourists in 1883, which, in the following year, started to publish the magazine Journal of Tourists (Klabjan, 2014, 33). This club and journal greatly contributed to the popularization of the Adriatic among the Czech population. Also in this early period of organized tourism, several Czechs opened hotels, pensions and restaurants on the Adriatic coast. Among them were Henrik Soulavy who opened a pension in the town Kastel Luksic, near Split and Josef Mohacek who opened several hotel facilities on the island of Krk (Klabjan, 2014, 34). However, perhaps, Emil Geistlich, the director of the publishing company Politika, had the most significant role in attracting Czech tourists to the region.4 He was captivated by the beauty of the small town Baska on the island of Krk, and, after his return to Bohemia in 1909, he propagated tourism in the Adriatic (Formankova, 2007). He opened a restaurant and hotel in Baska in the subsequent years; his influence can be illustrated by the fact that in just one year, the number of Czechs visiting Baska jumped from forty in 1909, to more than one thousand in 1910 (see also Chrudina, 2003). Other Czechs were also running enterprises, mostly in the northern 1 The author is using simultaneously the term Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Yugoslavia, even for the period 1918-1929, since already during that time the name Yugoslavia was widespread and used. For detailed analyse of Czech tourist visits to the Northern Adriatic, which was during the interwar period under Italian rule, see Klabjan, Kavrecic, 2010. For Czechs tourist's visits to Slovenia see also Stemberk, 2012. 2 As the period between the First World War had characteristics of the modern tourism, whit elitist character, but also from the post-Second World war period, which was first marked by a sharp drop in the number of tourists in first decades after the war and the subsequent rapid development of mass tourism from 1960s. On the development of tourism on Adriatic see also Vukonic, 2005. 3 For sources and literature on history of the tourism in Czech lands and Czechoslovakia see Stemberk, 2008. 4 Emil Geistlich later lived most of his life in Baska, except for the period of the First World War, when the island Krk was occupied by Italian soldiers. Hi died suddenly in 1922 in Baska, but his wife continued to run the hotel and restaurant untill the nationalization in 1948. 748 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 Adriatic. Among others, there was Ludvik Masaryk, the brother of the to-be first President of independent Czechoslovakia Tomaš G. Masaryk, who run three hotels in Portorož (Klabjan, 2014, 35). Another significant contribution of Czechs to the development of the tourist infrastructure can be observed in the works of the Czech architects, who made projects for numerous hotels, villas and other objects (see also Kranjčevič, Kos, 2015). This growth of the number of Czech tourists was stopped by the First World War. CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE ADRIATIC IN THE 1920s After the war ended, tourists from Czechoslovakia gradually started returning to the region. However, while they were usually welcomed without any problems (Československo-jihoslovanska liga, 6. 7. 1922, 63),5 in the summer of 1923 the press close to the Croatian Peasant Party of Stjepan Radie6 started a campaign against the Czechoslovak tourists and their investments into real estate in Dalmatia (AMZV-PZ Belehrad, 1923, 249).7 The other major subject to appeal was that the hotel owners were employing mainly workers from Czechoslovakia and that the domestic workforce could not find jobs in the tourism industry. This campaign quite obviously served to create the foundations for the adoption of a new law in August of 1923, which forbade foreigners to buy property within 50 kilometres from the coast and without the permission of the Ministry of Defence (AMZV-IV sekce, 738, 7953). After the complaints, the Czechoslovak Legacy in Belgrade was reassured that this measure was directed against the Italians, who were buying most of the properties in Dalmatia, and that permission for the Czechoslovak citizens wishing to buy such property was just a mere formality. However, compared with the period before the First World War, one difference was obvious. The character of tourism was slowly changing and mass tourism started to evolve. During the Austro-Hungarian era, travel to the Slavic South was only possible for a smaller part of the population. However, after the establishment of the new states, circumstances allowed a constant growing number of people to travel. In Austro-Hungaiy only families of the higher-level clerks, some free professions (as university professors) and successful businessmen could afford a summer vacation in the Adriatic, with some exceptions as children sanatoriums or sanatoriums for state employees and soldiers. After 5 Except when in 1922 feuilleton of well-known Serbian writer Miloš Crnjanski,in daily Novosti brought on the light displeasure of domestic caterers and hoteliers with the average consumption of Czechoslovak tourists. They were accused of bringing food from Czechoslovakia, in order to save money and to not spending almost anything on Yugoslav coast. However, this campaign was relatively benign and soon lost momentum. 6 Stjepan Radič was a Croatian politician and founder of the Croatian Peoples Peasant Party. After foundation of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918 he became an opponent of centralism and monarchy. In later phases of his life he accepted monarchy and became also Minister of Education in Government in 1925. After returning to opposition in terms of poisoned political situation in the country, Radič fell as victim of assassination in the National Assembly in Belgrade in 1928. 7 Zagreber Tagblatt and Obzor claimed that Czechoslovaks are using weak course of dinar and buying quite cheaply very attractive locations, and causing that the most beautiful parts of the coasts are lost for domestic populations. 749 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 the war, even people from other society stratums, as medium level clerks and state officials could travel and spend holidays by the sea (Soukal, Vancurova, 2014, 66).8 At the same time, rich layers of the population were attracted more by the Italian and mainly French Riviera, as those shores had more suitable and luxurious accommodation facilities and much sophisticated tourist industry (Stemberk, 2009, 251). Except for state employees, other groups which had enough resources and time for the visit to the Adriatic were high school and university professors, as well bank officials and other higher paid private sector employees.9 Another significant detail which positively influenced the increase of interest for travel abroad was the stabilization of the Czechoslovak crown which was the first stabilized currency among the successor states. One person could carry out 3,000 crowns from Czechoslovakia, without permission and this amount increased to 6,000 if wife and children were written in the passport (Stemberk, 2009, 243). From the beginning of 1920s, the Yugoslav currency significantly weakened10 and travel to Yugoslavia was becoming possible for larger and wider layers of the Czechoslovak society. Besides those material issues and enlargement of the parts of the society which had enough time and resources to go on vacation abroad, the other factor attracting Czechoslovak tourists in Yugoslavia was also an increased sense of Slavic unity propagated by both governments and the virginal beauty of its shores. Various organizations had significant roles in promoting Yugoslav-Czechoslovak friendship and unity. Among them, perhaps the most passionate promoter of the Adriatic and the tourism in Yugoslavia was the Czechoslovak-Yugoslav League (in Yugoslavia there existed a sister organization: Yugoslav-Czechoslovak League), which was founded in 1920. Its goal was to promote friendship, cultural relations and tourism with Yugoslavia. This League also published the magazine, Ceskoslovensko-Jihoslovanska liga (Czechoslovak-Yugoslav League),11 which was published annually with contributions in the languages of both countries. Another organization which promoted tourism in Yugoslavia was Jadranska straz (Adriatic Guard), which published its magazine Slovansky Jadran (Slavic Adriatic) from 1932 till 1935.12 Tourism on the Adriatic was promoted as the only suitable option for pan-Slavic orientated Czechoslovak people, and that therapeutic stay on the Adriatic coast was believed/presented as more effective than on the French or Italian Riviera (Slovansky 8 If during the 1920s the average vacation time was around 2-3 weeks, only higher society stratum could afford it, as they regular salary was large enough to allow savings for such a long vacation. Clerks of 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th and 4th salary level were earning between 2,225 to 3,900 Czechoslovak crowns and had 4 weeks of paid vacation yearly. Higher salary levels had even longer paid vacation time, 5 or 6 weeks. 9 The problem with tourists from private sector was that they usually had shorter period of time for vacations, in comparison to state clerks which had longer holidays. This factor contributed to the fact that among the Czechoslovak tourists in Yugoslavia, the largest group were state clerks from higher echelons of administration. 10 In June 1921, the dinar and crown had a course of 1 : 2, a year later 1 crown was worth 3 dinars. The value of dinar dropped from 17.80 Swiss centimes in June of 1921 to just 5.80 centimes in August of 1922. 11 In 1930s the magazine changed his name to Ceskoslovensko-Jihoslovanska revue (Czechoslovak-Yugoslav Revue) 12 Members of Adriatic Guard have had 10 % discount in a significant number of hotels and pensions in Yugoslavia (Slovansky Jadran, 30. 1. 1932, 1). 750 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 Jadran, 30. 1. 1932, 10). Nevertheless, those organizations were not the only one promoting holidays on the Adriatic coast. There were also professional associations engaged in this field such as the Czech Doctors Association, which wrote about sending their patients to the health resort stays to the Yugoslav Adriatic coast in their magazine about the duty of every Czech doctor (Vëstnik ceskych lékaru, 25. 7. 1930, 6). In a slightly pathetic tone, this magazine wrote about the Slavic Adriatic referring to the Slavic solidarity and unity (Vëstnik ceskych lékaru, 25. 7. 1930, 1). Besides promoting the Adriatic, they also reported on the Czech owned hotels, pensions and other accommodation, which, at the beginning of the 1930s, were quite numerous. As we already mentioned, some Czechs began to build or buy property as well as open hotels and other facilities on the coast prior to the First World War. After the war and changing of the political environment, people from the newly founded Czechoslovakia started to return to the Adriatic coast and significantly expanded the ownership of various facilities on the coast. Unchanged, raw and beautiful nature as well lack of the tourist infrastructure motivated tens of the Czechoslovak citizens to invest into accommodation facilities on Adriatic. From the north to the south, there were numerous hotels, pensions and sanatoriums owned by the Czechs. On the island of Krk, in the town of Malinska, Jozef Strnad opened the pension" Prague";13 "Hotel Baska" was reopened and expanded after the war; in the town of Kraljevica another hotel was named "Praha" and owned by Faninka Langmanova; in the town of Crikvenica there was also a sanatorium "Bozena Nëmcova" owned by the society Vesna from Brno; another sanatorium in Crikvenica, "Moj mir" was owned by the Society of the Adriatic sanatoriums from Prague; in Selce, a village next to Crikvenica, Alois Beranek from Prague opened the "Hotel Rokan". On the island of Rab, Albert Machar from Brno opened one of the biggest hotels on the Adriatic coast "Palace hotel Praha" as well as "Hotel Bristol"; in Kastel Luksic, next to Split, a large pension was owned by doctor Soulavy (Slovansky Jadran, 15. 5. 1933, 36); just 3 kilometres from Split a large "Hotel Split" was owned by Frantisek Siller (Slovansky Jadran, 25. 3. 1935, 2). In the south, just 6 kilometres from Dubrovnik, there was the second biggest Czechoslovak investment on the Adriatic coast: the Kupari complex. This hotel complex had 188 rooms in three buildings with 474 beds, two beaches and its own water and power supply. It was a semi-state owned company with the two-thirds of the shares owned by the shareholders14 and one-third by the Czechoslovak state. Beside that hotel complex, there was also another hotel named Imperial in Dubrovnik (AMZV-PZ Bëlehrad, 1925, 223). That hotel 13 Josef Strnad during ten years of enterprising in Malinska invested significantly in building pension, swimming cabins on beach, sports and children's playgrounds. Such investments have contributed to an increase in number of tourists who visited the town. In 1922, when he started investments and propagation of the town, 300 guests visited Malinska during the year, while10 years later there were over 3,000 guests per year (Slovansky Jadran, 30. 1. 1932, 9). 14 Between other shareholders were the well-known industrialists Tomas Bat'a and Cyrill Barton, as well as the professor Vladislav Brdlik or statistician Jan Auerhan. The most important role in starting the entire project was played by Jaroslav Fencl, who already in 1911 bought a land in the area near Dubrovnik for the purpose of building a seaside resort. Fencl lead this business until 1921 when he resigned due to disagreements with other shareholders (Stemberk, 2009, 254-255). 751 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 was the largest of all of the property owned by the Czechoslovaks and had the largest capacity. In the village of Srebrno, next to Kupari, existed two Czech owned pensions "Lida" and "Supetar" (Vestnik ceskych lékaru, 25. 7. 1930, 4-5). In addition to those hotels and pensions owned by the Czechoslovak nationals or the Czechoslovak state, there were several sanitariums on the Adriatic coast for the citizens of the Czechoslovak Republic. Among them were two sanatoriums for children and two for the treatment of the civil servants. The first children's sanatorium was founded in the town of Crikvenica and named "Moj mif'. It was opened in 1922, but tradition of sending children to this town lasted from 1909, when it was initiated by Maria Steyskalova. As children were accommodated in the leased premises, after the war a collection of money for purpose of providing permanent accommodation was organized. In this action were raised over 1 million and 700 thousand crowns. Among the beneficiaries was even the president Masaryk who donated 120 thousand crowns (Slovansky Jadran, 15. 8. 1932, 56). The second children sanatorium was for the treatment and recuperation of the children of the railway workers and it was situated in Lapad near Dubrovnik. According to the report of the Czechoslovak Envoy Jan Seba15 who visited the sanatorium in 1925, this sanatorium was a very clean, roomy and airy institution which usually hosted between 140-150 children of the railway workers per month. He was emphasizing the importance of invigorating and healing effect of the stay in that institution. Those children were generally coming from poor families and without the existence of this sanatorium they would hardly ever have a chance to spend one month a year at the seaside. Those children arrived in Yugoslavia free of charge by train and they, as he also stressed, were under maximum care by the Yugoslav railway workers (AMZV-PZ Belehrad, 1925, 223). Unlike the children sanatoriums which had good hygienic and environmental conditions, sanatoriums for the civil servants in Split and on the island of Vis offered significantly lower standards and conditions. According to a report of the Envoy Seba who visited both of these sanatoriums during his visit to the southern part of the Kingdom of SHS in the summer of 1925, they were situated quite far from the sea in the case of a sanatorium in Split and with very poor access to the beach, which prevented the less skilled swimmers to enjoy the sea (AMZV-PZ Belehrad, 1925, 223). Both of them lacked basic hygienic conditions, running water and sewage. Furthermore, the rooms were very small and their capacity was constantly overloaded. According to the words of the official doctor at the sanatorium on the island of Vis, the institution served more for people to get sick than for recovering (AMZV-PZ Belehrad, 1925, 223). As those institutions had a lack of basic comfort, the Kupari hotel complex was in excellent condition and offered a very comfortable stay. Nevertheless, the prices in that complex were quite high so their capacities were usually not fully used. The Czechoslovak state capital was involved in this resort and it attracted the upper stratum of society and wealthy guests (AMZV-IV sekce, 738, 37325). During high season, the Kupari complex hired around eighty to one hundred employees and, while a number of workers were from 15 Jan Seba (1886-1954) was Czechoslovak diplomat, legionary, and member of Czechoslovak Parliament. He was Envoy in Kingdom of SHS from 1923 to 1929, and in Romania from 1932 to 1936. See more in Dejmek, 2016. 752 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 the domestic population, the resort also hired a significant number of Czechoslovak citizens, mainly cooks, headwaiters and musicians. This caused problems before the beginning of every season, since the Yugoslav authorities were not favourable to this practice of employing foreign workers in the tourist industry. The hotel justified the employment of the Czechoslovak nationals in terms of the habits of the Czechoslovak guests concerning their food and music, which for them was also a part of the attractiveness of Kupari.16 However, thanks to the strong interventions by the Czechoslovak Envoys in Belgrade, Kupari was allowed to hire foreign workers every season, which was unusual for most branches in Yugoslav economy during the 1930s. However, as part of the attractiveness of Kupari was the Czech food and music, in minor measure this was also the case in other Czech owned hotels and pensions on the Adriatic. Considering the conservative taste of Czechoslovak tourists, they were advertising "good Czech food, beer and music" as part of their accommodation offer (Soukal, Vancurova, 2014, 69). Even domestic hoteliers, who were orientated to Czech clientele, hired Czech cooks in order to attract guests from Czechoslovakia (Stemberk, 2009, 256). An important step towards easing the travel between Czechoslovakia and the Kingdom of SHS was the abolishment of the visa regime. Apart from the visa regime, travel to Yugoslavia was burdened with restrictions relating to foreign currency. Travellers to Yugoslavia were obliged to report the entire amount of foreign currency upon entering the Kingdom in order to avoid possible problems when leaving Yugoslavia due to the prohibition of the export of convertible currencies from the state (AMZV-IV sekce, 351, 149355). For those reasons, travellers were advised to report the entire amount when entering Yugoslavia (AMZV-IV sekce, 351, 71224). After the First World War, the Kingdom of SHS introduced a very strict visa regime, under which until 1925 tourists were allowed to be just in one particular place, and even for short excursions a special permission from local authorities was needed (Stemberk, 2012, 103). Gradually this regime was relaxing and visas were first abolished for the summer period after the New Trade Agreement was signed between Czechoslovakia and Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in May 1928 (AMZV-PZ Belehrad, 1928, 162). This was later extended to the rest of the year and was a significant step towards facilitating mutual traffic of passengers and goods (AMZV-PZ Belehrad, 1928, 265). The Czechoslovak side tried to resolve this issue several times before the Agreement but the Yugoslav side refused this because the abolition of visas could be reached with the adoption of a new trade agreement (AMZV-PZ Belehrad, 1928, 150). The abolition of visas was later prolonged until the end of the year and then permanently (Rychlik, 2007, 14). Overall, the number of Czechoslovak tourists visiting the Adriatic shore of Yugoslavia enjoyed constant growth during the 1920s. Czechoslovaks were usually the second most numerous tourists, after Austrians. Unfortunately, the statistics in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were not carefully and systematically recorded before 1924 and there are 16 Another example of the conservative taste of the Czech clientele is the fact that the resort Kupari hired the domestic orchestra just twice, in 1929 and 1934, and in both years the guests from Czechoslovakia were complaining about the music, claiming they were not used to it. 753 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 some significant discrepancies in the data for the number of tourists from Czechoslovakia on Adriatic. Tourist's statistics were recorded more systematically from 1929-1930, and before that time they included numerous loopholes.17 Year 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 Country Czechoslovakia 15,087 15,178 15,098 17,956 18,416 22,10418 43,708 Austria 6,693 8,370 19,422 25,691 25,429 33,004 72,174 Germany 947 1,578 14,780 23,033 28,543 38,712 47,731 Italy 1,201 1,283 1,347 1,694 1,587 1,822 14,267 Hungary 3,201 3,882 5,869 8,328 6,492 6,480 26,321 Romania 617 632 758 1,440 2,345 4,451 10,187 England 453 531 803 1,555 2,421 2,941 5,631 Others 7,530 7,982 7,947 11,471 10,860 13,187 36,128 Overall 35,729 39,436 66,024 91,168 96,093 122,701 256,147 Table 1: Number of foreign tourists in Yugoslavia by country 1924-1930 (Jugoslovenski Lloyd, 1933, 188) CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE ADRIATIC IN 1930s However, although the number of the Czechoslovak tourists was on a constant rise in Yugoslavia, except during the worst years of Great Depression, their principal destination was the coast, while the other parts of Yugoslavia were just superficially passed through. This led to the fact that although the number of tourists was increasing, the level of understanding between the people of these two countries did not grow, as the Czechs were primarily attracted to Czech owned hotels which were offering Czech cuisine, service and 17 For the analysis of the number of tourists before 1929, we used statistics published in jubilees number of Yugoslav Lloyd for 1933. These stats were calculated by the number of registration formularies filled by guests, and counted by the economic expert Jozo Lakatus for the jubilees number of Yugoslav Lloyd, but they nevertheless have very distinctive differences toward data published in Statistical Yearbook of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia for 1929. Because of such discrepancies, those stats needed to be approached with caution and taken with reserves. Statistical Yearbooks of Kingdom of Yugoslavia started from 1929 to record number of the tourist in Yugoslavia, and from that year statistics are much more reliable than for the earlier period. 18 Number of tourists in statistics of Yugoslav Lloyd and Statistical Yearbook of Kingdom of Yugoslavia differentiated in more than 9,000 persons. Similar situation is with stats for number of visitors from other countries. For the comparison look to Table No. 3, further in text. For next 1930 year, those data are same for both sources. 754 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 even beer (Soukal, Jancurova, 2014, 74). Even the domestic hoteliers were playing on that card in order to attract Czech clientele. The lack of tourist guides written in Czech and Slovak languages also contributed to mutual ignorance. At the beginning of the 1930s, the only new tourist guidebook throughout Yugoslavia was the German Tanbuv, since an updated tourist guide in Czech language did not exist (Národní listy, 13. 8. 1933, 3).19This situation changed positively in the second part of the 1930s and several tourist guides were published in the Czech language. In 1936, the tourist agency Cedok20 published the tourist guide "Jugoslavija" and, in the same year, the Travel agency Orbis also published the tourist guide "Pruvodce Jadranem a Dalmacií" (Guide to the Adriatic and Dalmatia). The official Tourist Bureau of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in Prague published its own guide "Do Jugoslavije" (To Yugoslavia) (Ceskoslovensko-Jihoslovanská revue, 1937, 77). In 1928, the Official Tourist Bureau of the Kingdom of SHS opened in Prague.21 This institution acted in cooperation with the Adriatic Guard from Prague. Both of them had the goal of promoting tourism and attracting more citizens of Czechoslovakia to the South Slav state. However, from the onset, the actions the Official Bureau in Prague had significant problems with the domestic tourist agencies which were not satisfied with the fact that someone was taking their share of the pie of the tourist traffic to Yugoslavia. The problem with the Bureau was that, except for the promotional actions for Yugoslav tourism, this institution also performed the role of a regular travel agency, selling tickets and arrangements in the Adriatic coast. Other agencies did not welcome this entry into the field of action of the established tourist agencies and they tried in every way to obstruct their activities. For example, Cedok would not issue sets of tickets to the Bureau for passengers, but would only give individual tickets, which was forcing tourists to visit both them and the Bureau several times.22 Two other tourist agencies opened by Yugoslav citizens also operated in Prague. However, whereas Czechoslovakia had three tourist agencies from Yugoslavia, the Yugoslav side resisted in allowing such reciprocity during the entire Interwar period. The travel agency Cedok regularly tried for several years to obtain a license to open a permanent office on the Adriatic coast or at least a temporary location/ facility in the summer season. However, neither intervention through the Czechoslovak Embassy in Belgrade nor through the Tourist Committee of the Economic Little Entente was successful. When the management of Cedok saw that this action could not be accomplished, they tried to arrange that the tourist agencies in the Czechoslovak Republic stop 19 In earlier period existed several tourist guides, in form of travelogue. Among them the most widespread were Yugoslav Riviera, On Slavic Adriatic, Adriatic, etc. (Drevosticky, 1926, 1). 20 Cedok (Ceskoslovenska cestovni a dopravni kancelar- Czechoslovak travel and transport agency) is the oldest travel agency in Czech lands and it was founded in 1920. 21 AJ-f. 65, 1021, Memorandum Jadranske straze Ministarstvu trgovine i industrije KSHS, 8. 2. 1928. Other Official Tourist Bureaus of Yugoslavia were opened in Paris, Berlin, Vienna and Budapest. 22 AJ-f. 65, 1021, Dopis Oficijalnog turistickog biroa, 11. 6. 1928. Except such steps the Official Tourist Bureau was accusing the domestic tourist agencies for sending the agents provocateurs to the Bureau and later to the resorts in Yugoslavia. According to them, these agents worked in order to spoil the relations between the Bureau and the hotels in which they sent their guests. The official Tourist Bureau was usually sending around 2500 tourists annually to the Adriatic in early 1930s. In the late 1930s, after the reorganization, this number almost doubled. 755 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 working or that the official state tourist agency Putnik become an official representative of Cedok and vice versa. All those initiatives fell on deaf ears of the Belgrade authorities (AMZV-IV sekce, 738, 39952). The Yugoslavian side defended the refusal with the claim that if Cedok got the permission then the Italians would also ask for the same rights, which was against state interests. But since earlier permissions for opening branches were already granted to Austrian and German tourist agencies, this was probably just motivated by the desire to keep the profits of Putnik23 intact because this tourist agency was bringing the majority of tourists from the Czechoslovak Republic. All those tourist agencies and organizations were interested in developing the Adriatic tourism and their efforts seemed to aid the constant enhancing of the position of Yugoslav tourism among the Czechoslovaks. However, in the late 1920s and beginning of 1930s, the number of tourists began to stagnate or decline at a time when a further increase was expected. There were several reasons for this phenomenon. The Official Tourist Bureau of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in Prague analysed the reasons for such negative trend in rapport for the Yugoslav Ministry of Trade and Industry. Among them the most important were:24 • A general decline in visits to the beaches and resorts in light of the impending economic crisis. • Strong tourist propaganda from French and Italian tourist branches which attracted upper stratum of the guests from the Czechoslovak Republic. • Domestic efforts to have tourists in the country geared towards destinations in the Czechoslovak Republic. • An insufficient role in the modern use of propaganda, notably through promotional films from Yugoslavia. The French and Italian Riviera were advertised through successful propaganda films which also affected tourists towards these destinations. • Unkind behaviour of tourist workers in Yugoslavia, especially toward Czechs, because of their weaker purchasing power in relation to the German clientele. • Ignorance and poor motivation of the tourist and hotel workers to take advantage of the positive attitude towards the Adriatic Sea, by journalists, writers and others who could help in further propagation. • An overall weak quality of most of the accommodation facilities and the poor state of sanitary facilities, which could deter guests from further visits. • A massive orientation of the Yugoslav tourist propaganda towards the German market. This was reflected in the large number of printed advertising brochures, posters and other materials in German. By contrast, the Czech market was mainly neglected. • Poor support for the travel of Czech journalists to the Balkans, who could additionally be able to entice the public to visit the Adriatic Sea. Czechoslovak journalists were getting 120 free train tickets from the Czechoslovak Republic to Yugoslavia but that number was divided in 12 months so for every month there were just 10 23 Putnik (Traveller) was the official state owned Tourist agency of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. 24 AJ-f. 65, 1021, Memorandum Oficijalnog turistickog biroa, 29. 8. 1930. 756 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 tickets and those unused monthly tickets could not be used in another month. However, a large majority of the travels were conducted during the summer so most of the tickets just remained unused. The Italians, for example, were not skimped on such matters and to the journalists who were visiting Italy provided free transport and accommodation benefits during their visit. • The lack of interest of tourist workers in traveling in spring and winter seasons. The discounts for return tickets were offered only during the summer months.25 • The almost complete absence of any kind of propaganda campaigns and efforts among the Slovaks.26 Such problems did not help to enhance the positions among the guests from the Czechoslovak Republic. Tourist workers were complaining that the richer Czech guests were visiting the French and Italian Riviera's and only tourists with weaker purchasing power were coming to the Yugoslavian Adriatic coast. However, they also did not put up enough effort to increase the standards of tourist accommodation as well as exhibit a more positive and kinder attitude toward all the tourists and not only to richer guests. Another problem was the duration of the travel and maladjustment of the train schedules facilitation of the tourist business. For example, by train from Prague to Split, via the Linz-Maribor-Zagreb, it was necessary to travel for 33 hours. At the same time, travel time from Prague to Susak, next to Rijeka, via the Prague-Linz-Zagreb, lasted 32 hours. It took almost the same time for those two trains to come to their destination while the distance between Split and Susak is more than 250 kilometres, which just show how bad were the connections from Prague to the nearest point of Yugoslav Adriatic, i.e. Susak. To further highlight the problems with the length of the journey it is sufficient to point out that the journey towards the Italian coast was a lot shorter: Prague-Maribor-Trieste 22 hours; Prague-Maribor-Ljubljana-Rijeka 23 hours; Prague-Opatija 22.5 hours; Prague-Venice 24 hours, etc.27 The price of transportation by train was also cheaper to Italy than to Yugoslavia by 40-60 crowns (Slovansky Jadran, 15. 2. 1933, 6). This was another factor why the Czechoslovak tourists were choosing Italy instead of Yugoslavia for their holiday. Away from train travel, which was the most widespread, there also existed a flight from Prague to Zagreb. As the same route by train lasted more than 25 hours, the 4.5 hour flight time to Zagreb was significantly shorter. As the price of the plane ticket was more expensive,28 travel by air was not widespread and the number of passengers on this 25 AJ-f. 65, 1021, Memorandum Oficijalnog turistickog biroa, 29. 8. 1930. The guest who were staying on the coast for 10 days and longer were granted with 50 % discount on the price of the travel ticket. 26 AJ-f. 65, 1021, Izvještaj Oficijelnog turističkog biroa, 19. 7. 1929. 27 AJ-f. 65, 1021, Dopis oficijalnog turističkog biroa Kraljevine Jugoslavije, 18. 7. 1931. 28 The flight from Prague to Zagreb cost 690 crowns (discounted 490) and from Bratislava to Zagreb 500 crowns (discounted 360), which was significantly more expensive then the returned ticket without discount by train which cost around 650 crowns from Prague to Sušak. But for tourist who spent more than 10 days in Yugoslavia existed a 50 % discount on return ticket for trains. As the editor in chief of the Slavic Adriatic observed, when he flew from Prague to Zagreb he was the only passenger, and on the way back there was just one more passenger except him. 757 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 flight was usually not great (Slovansky Jadran, 20. 4. 1932, 34). From 1933 onwards, flying routes were extended to Susak, and it took 5.5 hours from Prague, through Brno, Bratislava and Zagreb to the final destination on the coast. A ticket in one direction cost 700 crowns29and there was a 30 % discount for purchasing a return ticket (Slovansky Jadran, 15. 9. 1933, 49). In the years that followed, this resulted in an increased number of passengers, and in 1935, 1,482 people travelled to the coast by this flight (Slovansky Jadran, 15. 10. 1935, 50).30 The increased economic crisis and its impact on the economy led to a campaign among the Czechoslovak public against traveling abroad because the most-needed foreign currency was taken out of the country thanks to tourism. The public, as well as the tourist workers in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, were surprised by this campaign. As the guests from the Czechoslovak Republic were the second most numerous groups to visit the Adriatic coast, a drop of their number could have significantly harmed the tourist industry in the Yugoslav Adriatic.31 The Yugoslav officials also pointed out that more than 10,000 visitors from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had visited Czechoslovakia during 1933 and spent tens of millions of dinars in spas, urban tourism, and especially in Prague where they visited events such as the Sokol jamboree and the Prague Fair.32 Another problem was the weakening of the crown against the dinar in late 1933 and in 1934. The 16 % decline in the value of the crown in the beginning of 1934 led the Adriatic coast to begin partly losing its status as a cheap destination.33 In addition to that, the amount of money that the tourists could take out of the country was limited to 1,000 crowns per person, which was one more blow to the Adriatic tourism.34 Another measure for limiting the number of tourists leaving the Czechoslovak Republic was the abolition of the special summer trains to the tourist destinations. This measure had an exception only if other countries offered reciprocity, i.e. itself organized special trains to Czechoslovakia. For that reason, the Czechoslovak Railways contacted the Yugoslav Railways in case they were interested in organizing and reciprocally sending trains to the Czechoslovak Republic, mainly to Karlove Vary, Jachymov, Pistan and other spa destinations. In this case, Czechoslovak Railways offered help in finding cheaper accommodation and discounts on the spa treatments.35 The measure on reciprocity was later removed and during the following summers special trains for Yugoslavia were organized without any problems. For example, in 1936 sixteen special trains were sent to Susak and Split from Prague. The first of those sixteen trains went to the Adriatic 29 For state employees and soldiers it was 470 crowns. 30 Sometimes also on this line, returning flights were used for transporting fresh fish to Prague market. Nevertheless, as interest for importing fresh fish from Adriatic was not constant and increasing, this was not on regular basis. 31 AJ- f. 65, 1021, Dopis oficijalnog turističkog biroa Kraljevine Jugoslavije, 5. 2. 1934. Usually on the first place were guests from Austria. See more on Table No. 3 further in text. 32 AJ- f. 65, 1021, Dopis oficijalnog turističkog biroa Kraljevine Jugoslavije, 5. 2. 1934. 33 In the beginning of 1934 year 100 dinars went from 55.51 crowns to 66.07. 34 AJ- f. 65, 1021, Dopis Društva za saobračaj putnika i turista u Kraljevini Jugoslaviji a.d. Putnik, 25. 4. 1934. 35 AJ- f. 65, 1021, Dopis Čehoslovačkih željeznica, 17. 1. 1934. 758 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 coast on 30th May 1936 and the last one on 12th September 1936. Cedok and the Official Tourist Bureau of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in Prague organized these trains jointly and, since they had cheaper prices than the regular trains, they were constantly filled and allowed to go to the sea for people who otherwise could not afford this travel.36 Within the next year, special trains started with trips to the Adriatic coast on 1st April 1937 and finished on 31st September 1937. In 1937, the special Adriatic trains transported 16,250 passengers, including 403 children and 103 railway workers who were traveling for free. This number was a 40 % increase over the previous year and there were 47 trains (Ceskoslovensko-Jihoslovanska revue, 1937, 165). In addition, after several attempts, a special train to Belgrade was organized in December of 1936. That train linked 300 passengers among whom businesspersons and ordinary tourists (Ceskoslovensko-Jihoslovanska revue, 1936, 169). Another measure, which was supposed to ease the travel and circumvent the regulations of the export of money from Czechoslovakia, was the issuance of traveller's checks up to a limit of 3,500 dinars per person for a weekly stay in Yugoslavia.37 These checks were being paid in Czechoslovakia and after the arrival, the carrier was able to withdraw money at any Putnik office. Most Czech tourists were not familiar with the Adriatic coast due to the lack of longer vacation time38 and need to spend the majority of the time in one place or closer location during the holidays, for difference for example than German tourists who were known to travel to more than one destination during their vacation (Stemberk, Jakubec, 2009, 258). For that reason, from 1929 the company Adriatic Sailing in cooperation with the Yugoslav-Czechoslovak league, Official Tourist Bureau of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in Prague and the tourist agency Putnik, offered a 6-day sailing holiday from Susak to Kotor and back during which the tourists could visit Crikvenica, Senj, Rab, Sibenik, Split and Dubrovnik. The offer included a return ticket for a night train from Prague to Susak, accommodation, food and a cabin on the luxury speedboat Salona.39 After the initial setbacks caused by the economic crisis of the 1930s, as well with influence of the above-mentioned issues of problems with long exhausting travel, inadequate tourists facilities and weaker tourist propaganda on Czechoslovak market, the overall number of tourists from Czechoslovakia started again to grow from 1933 onwards. The largest role in such development had a weakening effect of the economic crisis, which allowed more people to travel abroad. Limits on the amount of foreign exchange which could be taken out of the country were circumvented in various ways, such as monthly sending money via postal savings at the expense of the hotel where the vacation was planned, etc. (Stemberk, 2009, 246). In the table below you can see the data, according 36 AJ- f. 65, 1021, Izvjestaj Oficijalnog turistickog biroa KJ u Pragu, 15. 9. 1936. The return ticket for the regular train from Prague to Susak cost 650 crowns while in special trains this ticket cost 450 crowns. 37 At least one half of it had to be spent on the accommodation and travel (Ceskoslovensko-Jihoslovanska revue 1936, 93). 38 The average length of vacation for Czechoslovak guests in the beginning of 1930s was around 10-15 days (Ceskoslovensko-Jihoslovanska revue, 1931, 357). 39 Price of the arrangement cost 1700 dinars for the first class and 1400 dinars for the second class per person (AJ- f. 65, 1021, Reklamni poster za plovidbu po Jadranu). 759 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 to the Yugoslav statistics, on the number of Czechoslovak tourists in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1929 until 1939, sorted by regions:40 Year 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 Region Dravska banovina 3,267 6,503 6,662 5,427 13,015 8732 10,698 9,865 6,478 5,422 1,935 Drinska banovina 2,658 1,877 2,581 1,420 2,573 2,530 2,516 1,843 1,300 834 394 Dunavska banovina 3,388 2,984 3,578 1,549 954 1,090 1,034 1,251 727 770 286 Moravska banovina 293 319 164 199 151 194 200 171 111 277 78 Primorska banovina 2,962 6,597 5,368 4,908 13,359 10,278 9,087 13,737 12,073 7,989 876 Savska Banovina 5,669 13,548 14,021 - 17,751 18,429 23,528 20,062 17,165 14,501 2742 Vardarska banovina 170 370 426 326 298 406 498 398 464 304 114 Vrbaska banovina 1,116 451 605 170 491 649 793 666 247 147 52 Zetska banovina 9,325 8,643 6,864 8,410 5,960 12,624 14,237 13,731 9,768 7,407 1,945 City of Belgrade 2,446 2,275 3,772 3,305 3,960 4,379 4,446 3,693 3,534 2,160 1,540 Total number of tourists from Czechoslovakia 31,294 43,567 43,991 25,44441 63,947 59,311 67,037 68,337 51,867 39,901 9,962 Total number of foreign tourists 204,751 308,245 218,825 121,98342 216,654 252,959 242,214 258,994 273,897 287,391 275,831 Table 2: Czechoslovak tourists in Yugoslavia 1929-1939 40 Source: Statisticki godisnjak Kraljevine Jugoslavije, 1929-1939. After 1929 the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was divided into 9 regions called banovine and the Administration of Belgrade. 41 Without the data for the Savska banovina, where the average number of the tourists from the Czechoslovak Republic in the earlier years was around 13-14, 000. So probably we need to add several thousand tourists to this number. 42 The overall number was without the data for Savska banovina. 760 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 In the table below is the number of tourists by country from 1929 until 1939:43 Year 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 Country Czechoslovakia 31,294 43,675 43,991 29,76244 63,947 59,311 67,037 68,337 51,867 39,901 9,96245 Austria 47,065 72,174 62,134 40,920 59,594 65,388 56,827 64,427 52,482 11,298 - Italy 9,695 14,67 11,233 9,253 9,980 12,030 11,784 9,469 12,572 13,477 11,624 Germany 45,048 47,731 33,197 19,518 21,134 25,365 29,160 37,099 68,545 135,972 197,801 Hungary 15,803 26,321 17,602 13,280 16,117 13,129 11,712 13,559 14,735 20,393 14,820 Bulgaria 814 11,945 9,292 8,132 1,293 2,771 4,164 3,702 4,751 4,629 3,465 England 5,943 5,631 5,726 3,408 6,899 7,088 7,244 10,913 16,840 13,106 5,516 France 4,976 4,590 4,347 4447 5,602 7,454 8,850 9,905 10,248 8,831 3,793 Netherlands - - - - 1,075 1,414 2,202 2,119 2,924 2,991 2,722 Table 3: Number of tourists in Yugoslavia by country As we can see from these statistics, during the interwar period Czechoslovaks were always among the most numerous tourists in Yugoslavia. What we can also see from the statistics is that, after the initial drop in the tourists visiting the Yugoslav coast at the beginning of 1930s, their number started to increase in the following years and by 1937 the most numerous group of tourists came from the Czechoslovak Republic. Another pattern was also clearly visible. The vast majority of the Czechoslovak tourists went only to the banovinas which had the coast, i.e. were on the Adriatic coast (Savska, Primorska, Zetska). The only exception was Dravska banovina, which covered the territory of present-day Slovenia, which was without sea access, but in the Slovenian lands, mountain tourism was developed and there were several attractive tourist places such as Lake Bled. 43 Data were given just for the most important tourist countries for Yugoslavia. Source: Statistički godišnjak Kraljevine Jugoslavije, 1929-1939. 44 Data from the Statistički godišnjak Kraljevine Jugoslavije for 1936 and in this Statistical Yearbook the data are different than in the earlier statistics. In the Statistical Yearbook for 1932, the number of the Czechoslovak tourist in Yugoslavia in that year was 25,444 (without the data for Savska banovina). 45 Data are for the Protectorate Czech and Moravia. 761 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 The official Tourist Bureau of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia estimated that 90 % of the tourists from the Czechoslovak Republic only visited the Adriatic coast, with a number of them using the road through Bosnia on their way back, which they found attractive because of its oriental heritage.46 Fig. 1: Map of the subdivision of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia after 1929 and until 193947 There is no specific data about the amount of money spent by the Czechoslovak tourists, but we can try to analyse the number of the nights spent in the hotels at least to provide a rough base estimate. The table below presents the data on the number of nights per year:48 We can use the data on the average cost of the full board and give an estimate for the rough minimum amount that Czechoslovak tourists spent in Yugoslavia annually. In the year 1934, before the value of the crown declined, the average full board at a hotel cost around 28.50 crowns per day (Ceskoslovensko-Jihoslovanska revue, 1937, 62-63). If we multiply that with the number of nights spent by the Czechoslovak tourists in 1934, which was 460,269 that year, we can come to a probable minimum amount which went out of Czechoslovakia and was not counted into the trade balance between the two states.49 This 46 AJ- f. 65, 1021, Izveštaj Oficijalnog turističkog biroa Kraljevine Jugoslavije, 18. 8. 1931. 47 https://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia#/media/File:Banovine_Jugoslavia.png. 48 Source: Statistički godišnjak Kraljevine Jugoslavije, 1929-1939. Yugoslav statistical yearbook did not provide the data on the number of nights spent by countries from which the tourists came before 1933. 49 During the entire Interwar period, except during the 1933 and 1935, Yugoslavia had a negative trade balance with Czechoslovakia. The highest deficit was in 1921 (-1725 million of crowns) and in 1930 (-1082 million of crowns). Czechoslovakia was for most of the period between 1918 and 1939 the second most important economic partner for Yugoslavia, and income from tourism was reducing the usual trade deficit 762 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 Year Number of nights in hotels spent by the Czechoslovak tourists 1933 506,991 1934 460,269 1935 549,597 1936 568,751 1937 477,914 1938 354,494 1939 77,793 Table 4: Number of the nights in hotels by Czechoslovak tourists amount was over 13 million crowns. In addition, this was just a starting point since we do not have the data about the consumption outside of the accommodation facilities, i.e. excursions, bars, tickets and other expenses. The Czechoslovak Central Business and Trade Chamber estimated that tourists from Czechoslovakia brought around 60 million of crowns in 1929 to Dalmatia (NA-UOZK, 374, 7702).50 After the Czechoslovak currency was devalued even more money was drained from the country through tourism. In 1937, an average full board cost 45.50 crowns per person and the guests from the Czechoslovak Republic spent almost 478,000 nights there. If we merge the two pieces of data, we come to a probable minimum expenditure climbing to almost 22 million crowns.51 Transportation costs have not been included in this calculation. Already at the beginning of the tourist season in 1937, the Yugoslav public was alarmed by the news that a smaller number of the guests from the Czechoslovak Republic would be coming that year. While the newspapers and authorities in Czechoslovakia denied it, the numbers of visitors that year showed that tourist workers were correct (Ceskoslovensko-Jihoslovanska revue, 1937, 62). Compared to the previous year, there were almost 17,000 fewer guests from the Czechoslovak Republic.52 This trend continued in the following for Yugoslav state. 50 However, this estimation is probable exaggerated because the number of tourist from Czechoslovakia was just above 31,000 that year. 51 The total amount which the tourist industry brought to the Yugoslav state budget was 342.1 million of dinars for 1936. A year before it was 317 million dinars and in 1934 it was 309 million dinars. In 1933, tourism brought 273.6 million to the state budget (Ceskoslovensko-Jihoslovanska revue, 1937, 45). 52 Besides the unstable political situation another factor that contributed to reducing the number of tourists was the new devaluation of the crown and the significant price increase of the accommodation and services in the Adriatic coast. For example, in 1934 an average full board cost 60 dinars (47 crowns-100 dinars were the course in 1934) so in crowns one day cost 28,50 crowns. Three years later, a full board cost 70 dinars (65 crowns-100 dinars). With this price increase and devaluations of the crown a full board per day cost on average 45.50 crowns. 763 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 year, when the number fell further by 12,000. Therefore, in the year 1938, only 39,901 tourists came and this was almost 30,000 less than the two years before. The general crisis in Europe, with Hitler's aggressive actions led to a situation where the scent of war was almost felt in the air. Of course, this state influenced a large number of people to postpone their trips and holidays with the hope that better times will soon come. Unfortunately, as things turned out, those better times were a question of a future not so near. CONCLUSION During the entire Interwar period, Czechoslovaks were among the most numerous tourists in Yugoslavia. The tradition of visiting the Eastern Adriatic coast started prior to the start of the First World War and, after the war ended, Czechoslovaks began to return to the Adriatic. The number of Czechoslovak tourists was on the constant rise, except at the peak of Great Economic Crisis, and in 1936 more than 68 thousand Czechoslovaks visited the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. At the same time, a significant number of the hotels and pensions on the Adriatic coast were owned by Czechoslovak citizens and investments from Czechoslovakia were among the most important in this area. Still, travel to the Adriatic mainly attracted the middle classes of Czechoslovak society because of its relative cheapness in comparison to France and Italy, which was where the wealthy and members of the upper classes from Czechoslovakia spent their holidays. Cheapness was often neutralised by inadequate accommodation facilities about which foreign guests complained. However, the attractiveness of the Adriatic was not simply an inexpensive destination, but it abounded in natural beauty and rugged, virgin landscape. The uniqueness of this experience, even in an age when mass tourism was not yet developed, attracted large groups of people, which were ready to conduct travel which usually lasted more than 30 hours in one direction just to spend 10 to 15 days on the coast. As tourism was slowly becoming one of the main economic activities for people on the Eastern Adriatic shore, the Czechoslovak role and influence on this cannot be overlooked. On large parts of the coast, they were the first visitors and their role in establishing and developing tourism was significant. This tradition and love for the Adriatic, which started during the Austro-Hungarian times, was further developed in the Interwar period and persists today, when every year more than one million Czechs continue their annual migration to the Adriatic in search for sun and sea. 764 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 ČEŠKOSLOVAŠKI TURISTI NA JUGOSLAVANSKEM JADRANU V OBDOBJU MED SVETOVNIMA VOJNAMA (1918-1939) Milan BALABAN Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Nam. T. G. Masaryka 5555, 760 01 Zlin, Češka e-mail: balaban@k.utb.cz POVZETEK Skozi celotno obdobje med obema svetovnima vojnama so bili turisti iz Češkoslovaške med najštevilčnejšimi na vzhodni jadranski obali. Njih število je konstantno naraščalo, kljub koraku nazaj, ki ga je povzročila velika gospodarska kriza, ki pa je samo začasno ustavila porast turistov. Na vrhuncu, leta 1936, je številka Češkoslovaških turistov presegla 68 tisoč, kar je bilo največje število med vsemi narodi, ki so obiskovali Jugoslavijo. Poleg turistov je bilo v tem prostoru prisotnih veliko Čehoslovakov, ki so bili lastniki hotelov in penzijonov na jadranski obali ter toplic v katerih so se zdravili in regenerirali državni uslužbenci ter otroci. Kot dodatek turističnim agencijam so organizacije "adriatic guard" in Češkoslovaška liga igrale pomembno vlogo pri povečanju števila turistov ter pri samem razvoju turizma. Njihove akcije so pomagale premostiti največje probleme jugoslovanskega turizma, kot so bili neustrezni pogoji bivanja, pomanjkanje dobrega oglaševanja med češkoslovaškimi prebivalci idr. Ta napredek in porast sta prekinila konec prve Češkoslovaške republike ter izbruh druge svetovne vojne. Ključne besede: Čehoslovaki, turizem, Jugoslavija, obdobje med obema vojnama, Jadransko morje SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY AJ-f. 65 - Arhiv Jugoslavije, Beograd, fond 65, fascikla 1021. AMZV-IV sekce - Archiv ministerstva zahraničnich veci, Praha (AMZV), fond IV sekce, kartony 351, 738. AMZV-PZ Belehrad - AMZV, fond PZ Belehrad, 1923, 1925, 1928. Ceskoslovensko-jihoslovanska liga - Praha. Ceskoslovensko-Jihoslovanska revue - Praha, Beograd. Drevosticky, C. (1926): Z cesty na Jadran. Praha. Jugoslovenski Lloyd - Zagreb. NA-UOŽK - Narodni archiv, Praha, fond UOŽK, karton 374. Narodni listy - Praha. Slovansky Jadran - Praha. 765 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2G17 • S Milan BALABAN: CZECHOSLOVAK TOURISTS IN THE YUGOSLAV ADRIATIC IN THE INTERWAR ..., 747-765 Statistički godišnjak Kraljevine Jugoslavije - Beograd. Državna štamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije, 1929-1939. Vestnik českych lekarn - Praha. Chrudina, L. (2003): Historie chorvatsko-českych morskych lazni Baška na ostrove Krku. Praha, Sdelovaci technika. Dejmek, J. (2016): Jan Šeba - Pameti legionare a diplomata. Praha, Historicky ustav. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia#/media/File:Banovine_Ju-goslavia.png (14. 6. 2015). Klabjan, B. (2014): Češi a Slovaci na Jadranu: vztahy s Terstem a severnim Jadranem v letech 1848-1948. Praha, Filozoficka fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Klabjan, B., Kavrečič, P. (2010): Na najlepše morje na svetu, na Jadran. Procesi turističnega rozvoja Severnega Jadrana pred Prvo svetovno vojno in po njej: primer Češke in Češkoslovaške. Acta Histriae, 18, 1-2, 175-205. Kranjčevič, J., Kos, M. (2015): Češki arhitekti i početci turizma na hrvatskom Jadranu. Zagreb, Rijeka, Institut za turizam. Formankova, P. (2007): Jak Emil Geistlich naučil Čechy jezdit na Jadran. Dejiny a současnost. http://dejinyasoucasnost.cz/arcMv/2007/7/jak-emil-geistlich-naucil-cechy-jezdit-na-jadran-/ (16. 9. 2015). Rychlik, J. (2007): Cestovani do ciziny v habsburske monarchii a v Československu: pasova, vizova a vystehovalecka politika 1848-1989. Praha, Üstav pro soudobe dejiny AV ČR. Šoukal, J., Vančurova, S. (2014): Cestovani Čechu na jihoslovanske pobreži ve dvacatych letech 20. stoleti. Historicka sociologie, 2, 63-78. Štemberk, J. (2008): Prameny a literatura k dejinam cestovani a cestovniho ruchu v českych zemich a Československu v prvni polovine 20. stoleti. Praha, Vysoka škola obchodni v Praze. Štemberk, J. (2009): Fenomen cestovniho ruchu: možnosti a limity cestovniho ruchu v mezivalečnem Československu. Praha, Pelhrimov, Nova tiskarna ve spolupraci s Vysokou školou obchodni v Praze. Štemberk, J. (2012): Za vysokymi horami a slunnymi plažemi. Slovinsko jako destinace českych turistu v prvni polovine 20. stoleti. In: Štemberk, J. et al. (eds.): Kapitoly z dejin cestovniho ruchu. Praha, Pelhrimov, Nova tiskarna ve spolupraci s Vysokou školou obchodni v Praze, 83-115. Štemberk, J., Jakubec, I. (2009): Češi a Čechoslovaci a slovansky jih. Trendy v ces-tovnim ruchu a lazenstvi v prvni polovine 20. stoleti. In: Blümlova, D. et al. (eds.): Čas zdraveho ducha v zdravem tele. Kapitoly z kulturnich dejin prelomu 19. a 20. stoleti. Česke Budejovice, Jihočeske muzeum v Českych Budejovicich, Společnost pro kulturni dejiny, 251-271. Vukonic, B. (2005): Povijest hrvatskog turizma. Zagreb, Prometej. 766