Sustainability of Cultural Memory: Youth Perspectives on Yugoslav World War Two Memorials

Abstract

The noticeable urgent need for the preservation of collective and cultural memory in Europe, coupled with a fear of loss of important aspects of heritage, indicates the importance of educating the youth who will become future policymakers in the field. Analyses of the survey conducted through this research show the current perspective of youth on the typology of World War II memorials on the territories of the former republics, now independent states, of SFR Yugoslavia in Southeast Europe. Targeting architecture and civil engineering students as a specific youth group who are directly involved in learning about the built memorial structures, as well as the phenomenological background of space, creation of place and memories, resulted in a qualitative observation of the group’s understanding and judgement of the topic. This article investigates the level of knowledge and emotional response to memorial heritage within the target group. It addresses relevant issues of age, gender, level of study, and respondents’ backgrounds, demonstrating the existence of an initial interest in memorial heritage among the architecture-oriented youth. With an additional focus on a possible active role in heritage preservation and future placement, the research indicates a segment in the youth’s comprehension of valuable memorial heritage that needs to be improved.

1. Introduction

The concept of sustainability is considered a broad multi-focal agenda, reflected in the frequent use of terms such as ‘triple bottom line’ and ‘sustainable development’ [1]. Evolving from the environmentalist’s concern for a broader social and economic context, issues of sustainability manifest themselves in both tangible and intangible dimensions. More recently, the elaborated concept of ‘social sustainability’ as a “positive condition within communities, and a process within communities that can achieve that condition” [2] has shown a radical shift towards the appreciation of intangible concepts within the sustainability debate. Fundamental for further deliberation, Polèse and Stren’s definition of ‘social sustainability’ is understood as a development that fosters the cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups, encourages social integration and improves the quality of life for all members of the population [3], and offers ‘social equity’ and ‘sustainable community’ as central aspects of social sustainability. This view encompasses a wider and more detailed field of the intangible aspects of a society, such as community networking, community participation, community stability, pride and sense of place, security, etc. Intertwined with a sense of belonging and social and cultural identities, these intangible qualities that make a community sustainable render the concept of sustainability open to further relations with cultural memory [4] (p. 37).

In addition to Halbwachs’ and Warburg’s independently developed definitions of ‘collective memory’ or ‘social memory’, as Jan Assmann writes [5], he defined the concept of ‘cultural memory’, insisting on its precise differentiation from ‘everyday memory’ or ‘communicative memory’, as well as from science. Cultural memory is, thus, defined as a “collective concept for all knowledge that directs behaviour and experience in the interactive framework of a society and one that obtains through generations in repeated societal practice and initiation” [5]. Developed further as “a form of collective memory in that a number of people share cultural memory and in that it conveys to them a collective (i.e., cultural) identity” [6], the concept of ‘cultural memory’ has reached advanced definitions. Moreover, the delineation of cultural memory as “a system of values, artifacts, institutions, and practices that retain the past for the present and the future” [7] (p. 41), underlines its sustainable character, but also insists on its role as a “specific repository of culture” identified through “the community’s ability to recall past events related to objects, places and encounters by people in a social framework or between groups involved in such events” [4]. Ensuring the continuity and values of concepts that unite the past, present and future, either through common cultural memory or heritage of all types, can be considered one of the strongest pillars of a community. “Making sense of remembering its past” is among a community’s unwritten laws and, according to King, Stark and Cooke [8] (p. 44), heritage directly “encompasses experiences associated with buildings, objects, written documents, and intangible aspects involved in the process”, confirming that it is “about the present as well as the past, and can also inform our view of potential futures”. Furthermore, the authors presuppose the qualities of heritage, taking Ashworth and Graham’s [9] observation of heritage as “knowledge, a cultural product and a political resource” as well as Silberman’s [10] view of heritage as a “social activity embedded in changing contemporary context”. They highlight the importance of understanding “history as a social form of knowledge” as indicated by Samuel [11], viewing history as a continuous dynamic process rather than an unchangeable fact. Specific locations or sites that embody a particular sense of a “persisting historical continuity” are explored as carriers of spatial collective memory by Nora. He was interested in the integrated potential of certain places to evoke collective memories and collective identities, marking them as “lieux de memoire, sites of memory, because there are no longer milieux de memoire, real environments of memory” [12] (p. 7). According to Nora, these places of memory “originate with the sense that there is no spontaneous memory, that we must deliberately create archives, maintain anniversaries, organize celebrations, pronounce eulogies, and notarize bills because such activities no longer occur naturally” [12] (p. 12). This leads to the conclusion that memory not only “needs a place, a context”, as referred to by Kenny [13], but most probably needs a material physical place. In particular, the inclusion of collective memory in architectural and urban design is supported by Aldo Rossi, who argues that the preservation of “heritage sites is the equivalent of retaining people’s cultural memories and protecting their national identities” [4]. Interrelating the issues of collective memory and the politics of urban space places a particular emphasis on ‘urban memory’, as Crinson called it [14], thus, enabling its comprehension as “an expression of collective memory that has been shaped within a particular space as time goes by”, indicating relations between the past and the present of the places that we live in [15]. The comprehension of further care and management of this aspect of memory has evolved as a priority in maintaining the cultural heritage of the city.

According to UNESCO, cultural heritage represents “the legacy of physical artefacts and intangible attributes of a group or society that are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations” [16]. The role of the current and next generation in the preservation and conservation of this often exceptional and irreplaceable heritage is particularly indicated. The Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe [17] recognized that “architectural heritage constitutes an irreplaceable expression of the richness and diversity of Europe’s cultural heritage, bears inestimable witness to our past and is a common heritage of all Europeans”, signifying the importance of the preservation and promotion of such heritage for the development of public awareness of the value of architectural heritage, “both as an element of cultural identity and as a source of inspiration and creativity for present and future generations”.

Developed alongside the concept of sustainability, the concept of heritage also evolved to contain a social, political, and cultural context [18], reflecting a dynamic process of the continuous creation, recreation, validation, and consumption of heritage [19]. Such an evolution of the concept turned the focus away from heritage in its materialized form towards immaterial processes, from objects to functions, and from preservation to sustainable use and development through community engagement [20,21,22]. Since heritage is created, shaped, and managed in response to the demands and values of certain periods and specific social groups [22,23], the diverse aspects of heritage evolve as circumstances defining the stakeholders change. Contested heritage is an aspect that highlights multiple issues and has captivated the interest of scholars in various fields. Generally, contested heritage reflects specific disagreements around heritage ownership and/or interpretation between or within social groups that result in tensions and conflicts [24], potentially emerging along a heritage timeline and usually inseparable from politics. Despite its prevalence, contested heritage remains a fragile form of heritage whose capacity to grow to a future-making practice and generate specific kinds of futures—its ‘futurability’ [25], as well as its sustainability—is ambiguous.

2. Contested Memorial Heritage of SFR Yugoslavia

As Virloget and Čebron Lipovec [26] outline, every national memory in European countries is seemingly in conflict with that of its neighbour, while selective national memories are generalized and instrumentalized into two roles after World War II (WWII): the victim and/or resister. In confrontation with the negative aspects of its own historical role, national memory purposefully tends to forget unpleasant events and avoid bearing guilt. Therefore, the memory unburdens itself of the most tormenting traces of its past and renounces them to construct a positive self-image in a continuous process of rewriting, where not everything needs to be preserved or deleted [27]. Therefore, oblivion is not the absence of memory, but censorship, in order to construct a satisfactory self-image [26,28]. The memorial heritage of World War II in the states of the former SFR Yugoslavia is considered a highly contested heritage as it is a materialized manifestation of the complex social, ideological, and political context of the socialist federal state. During its existence, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had generated a specific culture relying on the myth of national liberation, antifascist struggle, brotherhood, and the unity of Yugoslavs, from which the state was reborn. The emerging cultural production was a specific social phenomenon and the defining mark of an epoch of liberation and the blossoming of intellectual and cultural creativity in the country. This was particularly pronounced within specific social tasks—expressing the antifascist struggle and liberation in memorial architecture, which was envisioned within the general ideological discourse. Since the most influential memory agent used for official memory mediation was architecture as a form of “mineral memory” [29], memorials and memorial sites became the most prominent physical manifestation of the complex social, ideological, and political relations of the new Yugoslav society and its architectural programme.

Stevanovic [30] observes that, in such circumstances, the freedom of artistic creativity in the design of memorials and memorial sites emanated from the cultural need to liberate individual creative potential within the collectivity of socialist thought. Under these terms, in architecture and sculpture, as seen in the literature, the performing arts and other fine arts, the resulting artefacts reflected the artistic search for a unique and unconstrained expression of the complex ideological and cultural programme, but also for a “freedom of interpretation of memory which enabled the development of various subgenres within the unique memorial genre”.

However, the more recent history of the Yugoslav wars reconditioned the memories of socialist “brotherhood and unity”, initiating a process of healing through public forgetting, in the memoryland of Europe [31]. As Horvatinčić [32] notes, in the case of Yugoslav commemorative monuments, popularly called “Spomeniks”, the problem of reception and interpretation lies both in the centre and the periphery of power structures, while their invisibility to the public (and scholars) living in their immediate surroundings is mainly caused by lack of political will, intellectual reluctance, or deliberate political neglect. Horvatinčić outlines that the Wunderkammer effect of “Spomeniks” is the result of the Western reaction to their particularity, exhibited as a sort of disbelief or pure aesthetic fascination. However, the actual recognition of this type of heritage is different in each of the successor states.

Since recently, the cultural heritage and cultural memory of Yugoslavia has been the subject of exploration in academic circles [32,33,34,35,36,37], especially in terms of heritage reception, meaning, destruction, and preservation within new post-Yugoslav social and political contexts. The recent explosion of images of Yugoslav memorial sites on the web and social networks raises the question: how did socialist builders manage to gain their greatest popularity in the ultra-neoliberal environment of “clickbait” culture [38]? Being reduced only to visual information, decontextualized, underrated, and underrepresented, the multi-layered architecture of socialist modernism remains, at the very least, invisible, but also often fetishized, misinterpreted, and misused [39].

However, one of the most positive outcomes of the popularization of Yugoslav memorials in the digital context is the fact that the users of the network are mostly young people. The term, Post-Yugoslavs, refers to the generation born after the dissolution of the SFRY [40], indicating its geographical and historical background, also known as “Generation Z” [41], “digital natives’’ [42], and “post-television generation” [43], referring to the predominant media source present in their formative and active age.

The sustainability of collective memory relies on finding and providing the most appropriate and effective “memory agents”. In the current post-Yugoslav states, the official memory discourse is mostly focused on other historical narratives, outside the corpus of the common Yugoslav past. Nevertheless, the creative forces of individuals and groups are contributing to the articulation of the memory process in a complex political context, thereby significantly affecting the formation, evolution, and understanding of the heritage and cultural memory of a specific era that is mediated through it. Early sociological research on collective memory found that the creation of a commonly shared history and identity of the past is fuelled by both small and large groups [44], but also by authorized and inclusive heritage discourse [45]. If online digital platforms offer an open-access, democratic approach to heritage, which is contrary to the exclusive selection of heritage conducted by “authoritative experts” through the lens of the official politics, we are close to “reateing the situation whereby people are defining their heritage according to their own value” [46]. This type of memory is “co-productive” [47], “collaborative” [48], and is considered a form of “collective remembering” [49] as an ongoing process of active collaboration on memory reconstruction. In this process, the “consumers” of the platform—young people—particularly need to be addressed.

In respect to post-Yugoslav generations, we can only speculate about the actual scope and quality of knowledge they possess on the issue. Additionally, their understanding of the historical and social contexts, meanings, and the mediating functions of Yugoslav memorial architecture (in its material, contextual, symbolic, and digital form) is mostly blurred. We might assume that the information young generations receive through digital media presents, predominantly, the platform on which their perspectives, opinions and attitudes are built, and most likely the base upon which their collective memory is being constructed. In this context, the digital “landscape of memory work” provides an abundance of information and numerous “memory agents” (historical documents, photographic materials, newspaper articles, narratives, videos, etc.). These can be considered rather “fragmented” and “narrowcast” versions of collective history [50], based on confusing images of “metamemorials” and informal, vernacular, and single-perspective historical knowledge (“legacy of terror” or “legacy of prosperity”) for the young population to rely on.

This research seeks to establish the grounds for further endeavours in reconditioning relations towards socialist memorial heritage by relying on the processes on digital platforms and focusing on their users—young people, revealing “what lies beneath the ‘digital skin’ of memories on social networks” [51]. The survey focuses on the architectural typology of WWII memorials, chosen as the most intensive memory container and memory agent, as well as the embodiment of complex memorial, socio-political, educational, and mediating functions. Additionally, this issue is prevalent in the digital space and recognized by the focus generation of this research.

3. Materials and Methods

The professional opinions and common standpoint of highly educated architecture-oriented youth are considered crucial for the tangible and intangible aspects of the sustainability of contested heritage. This research was designed with the goal of examining a realistic perspective for the affirmation of this valuable, but also neglected, segment of architectural heritage with a regional scope. After the formation of the study group, a detailed questionnaire was developed and a survey was conducted among architecture and civil engineering students at the University of Novi Sad under the guidance of professors and teaching assistants in June 2019. Along with filling out the survey, a presentation of specific questions was conducted (photographic and video materials) and in situ observations of students’ reactions were evidenced. The research was conducted within the regular study programmes of architecture and civil engineering, based on full voluntary and anonymous participation after obtaining informed consent, which contributed to the greater participation of student groups. The survey was conducted in an online format, where students were provided direct access through their smartphones. Students were provided with assistance and an explanation of certain questions and response forms, along with the overall goals of the study. This enabled the direct observation of student reactions on certain aspects of interest. The questionnaire consisted of semi-structured and open-form questions, which allowed students to express their personal standpoints and suggestions within the area of the research topic. The length of the responses had particular importance, given that the research was envisioned as a qualitative study with the support of quantitative analytical tools (Statistical Analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

The target research group included students on undergraduate programmes in architecture and civil engineering. The selected study programmes contained syllabi that addressed heritage issues in the domain of conservation, preservation, and management, from both architectural and structural aspects. In addition to this, the selected groups of students were perceived as future professionals who are expected to be directly involved in heritage management and protection.

The purposive sample consisted of a total of 230 respondents—students of architecture and civil engineering aged between 18 and 34 years, with an average age of 20.95 and standard deviation (STD) of 2.50. The sample included 50.5% of all students enrolled in undergraduate studies of architecture in 2019, and 62% of all students enrolled in the undergraduate study programme of civil engineering, subgroup structural engineering and management. The two selected groups represent future professionals that are expected to be engaged in heritage protection and preservation issues, which form the unified ‘architecture-oriented’ group. The difference in measured attitudes between the two selected groups was infinitesimal, thus, unifying the groups in further analyses.

The research model (Figure 1) is based on the tripartite model of attitudes [52], consisting of cognitive, affective, and behavioural components. These components represent the structure of the survey, reflecting the respondents’ knowledge level, emotional engagement, and behavioural intentions. This structure was also applied in the presentation of the research results and discussion.

University professors were consulted in the questionnaire development process. The entire survey included thirty-four questions on heritage, four questions on preservation and protection issues, and five questions on socio-demographic profile. Most questions were closed-ended, with one or more response options. Some were based on a 5-point Likert scale indicating personal attitudes, assessments, and the level of agreement with predefined statements. Questions related to the examination of knowledge levels among students were open-ended and in free form. Of particular interest to this article were questions that related directly to the valuation and preservation of Yugoslav memorial heritage. Results were presented through means and frequencies in cross tabulations and charts, thus, enabling a discussion of significant differences by categories. Content analysis was used for open-ended questions. Despite using non-probability sampling, inferential statistics were applied to test the quality of results and check their usability for drawing general conclusions. The chi-square test of independence was used to determine the relationship between variables in multiple-response and multiple-choice questions. Differences in means derived from the 5-point Likert scale questions were identified by the Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric tests. Scale reliability in the heritage valuation section was checked by applying Cronbach’s alpha measure of internal consistency. The tables and graphs below contain only the results revealing statistically significant differences (at least 0.05 level or higher).

There was a clear dominance of female respondents (67%) compared to male respondents (33%). The sample indicated the prevalence of future architects in the early phases of the educational process (students on the first and second year of undergraduate studies make up 63.1%, compared to senior students 36.3%). The regional distribution of students was considered important in measuring general standpoints regarding the valuation of this particular type of cultural heritage. Geographical distribution of former Yugoslav states and regions is presented on Figure 2.

Dependent on the place of study (University of Novi Sad), there was a logical predominance of students from the Vojvodina region (62.6%), followed by students originating from Šumadija and Western Serbia (17.8%), Southern and Eastern Serbia (6.1%), the Belgrade region (3%) and former Yugoslav republics (10.5%) (

Table 1. Sample structure and respondents’ demographic profile.

Total		Number of Valid Respondents	Valid Percent
		230	100%
Country/region of origin	Bosnia and Herzegovina	18	7.8%
	Montenegro	5	2.2%
	Croatia	1	0.4%
	Serbia	206	89.6%
	Vojvodina region	144	62.6%
	Belgrade region	7	3.0%
	Šumadija and Western Serbia	41	17.8%
	Southern and Eastern Serbia	14	6.1%
Gender	Male	75	32,6%
	Female	155	67.4%
Age group	Up to 25 years	219	95.2%
	26–40	11	4.8%
	Over 40 years	0	0%

).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Measuring Emotional Reflections of Yugoslav History and Heritage

According to Park [53], heritage is an essential element of national representation and an integral part of a specific culture, with the potential to perpetually remind people of the symbolic foundations upon which a sense of belonging is based. According to Uzzell and Ballantyne [54], emotions colour memories and experiences, attitudes and interpretations of the world, suggesting that issues that involve personal values, beliefs, interests and memories will excite a degree of emotional arousal, which needs to be recognized and addressed in further reinterpretation. The mention of Yugoslavia clearly still recalls strong emotions (positive and negative ones) in everyone who lived in it, and even in the young population who know about it from stories and media sources. As such, it mirrors the pertinence of intangible assets, subjective accounts, and individual narratives involved in the socio-cultural contextualization of national identities and heritage [53].

The valuation of socialist memorial heritage is highly contested and specific. The historical and political context often triggers prevailing negative attitudes of the Croatian public who insist on treating such heritage primarily as art, without a deeper historical and memorial context, and use it as a tourist resource in line with contemporary trends [55]. The results of this research (Figure 3) show relatively neutral emotional reactions based on a personal recalling of the specific period of national history and cultural memory related to SFR Yugoslavia, with an average of 3.32 (SD = 0.850) (measured on a five-point unipolar Likert scale). General stands directed towards the memorial heritage of the same period are more positive among respondents, with an average of 4.13 (SD = 1.215). The statistical analysis indicated that there are no gender-related differences regarding the emotional experience of the historic period and memorial heritage of Yugoslavia. Common positive stands are present in all aspects of memorial heritage, noting slight differences in the consideration of the memorialization of SFRY history depending on the level of study (age) (p < 0.05).

The most positive attitudes towards Yugoslav heritage are present among students in the early education stages (M = 4.22, STD = 1.08), whereas senior students (M = 3.9, STD = 1.42) have divided opinions. A comparison of the mean results provides some insights into the regional distribution of standpoints, indicating that the most positive emotional connection to the studied historic period is present among students originating from Bosnia and Herzegovina (Republic of Srpska–M = 4.6, STD = 0.55; BIH–M = 3.62, STD = 1.12) and Montenegro (M = 3.6, STD = 0.89), while more negative stands are present among students originating from the Belgrade region (M = 2.8, STD = 0.63). Students from other regions in Serbia retained neutral stands regarding the collective memory of the joint Yugoslav state (Vojvodina–M = 3.28, STD = 0.82; Šumadija and Western Serbia–M = 3.27, STD = 0.87; Southern and Eastern Serbia–M = 3.36, STD = 0.63). On the other hand, emotional connection with the memorial heritage of the national liberation struggle erected in former Yugoslavia is far more present and prevailingly positive among all student groups (with the exception of a single student from Croatia). Therefore, there are statistical differences based on the regional distribution of students. Thus, emotional connection to the historical period in question is far less positively perceived among students (M = 3.32, STD = 0.85) compared to the general valuation of the memorial heritage of this period (M = 4.13, STD = 1.215). The ANOVA table (

Table 2. Regional distribution of the emotional experience of Yugoslav cultural memory among architecture students and civil engineering students–ANOVA Table ^a.

		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Emotions towards the SFRY × Students’ region of origin	Between groups (combined)	13.302	8	1.663	2.413	0.016
	Within groups	152.992	222	0.689
	Total	166.294	230
Emotions towards memorials of WWII × Students’ region of origin	Between groups (combined)	28.911	8	3.614	2.584	0.010
	Within groups	310.448	222	1.398
	Total	339.359	230

^a The grouping variable REGION is a string, so the test for linearity cannot be computed.

) contains tests for the combined relationship between variables “emotions towards the SFRY” and “emotions towards memorials of WWII” and “students’ region of origin”. The ANOVA tests indicate that there is a statistical difference between students’ emotional connection to this historical period and memorials, with a significance value smaller than 0.05, indicating that there is a relationship between the region of origin and emotional reaction towards both discussed issues (historical—based on collective memory and physical—reflected in memorial heritage). Physical aspects of collective memory are perceived more positively than those reflected in collective historical memory only (intangible). Post hoc tests based on Tukey’s HSD indicated certain differences between the attitudes of students from the Šumadija and Western Serbia region compared to other student groups.

The historical period of the former socialist Yugoslavia is marked by multiple associations, grouped by type into political (the figure and legacy of Josip Broz Tito, communism, socialism, wars—WWII and the 1990s dissolution wars, revolution, liberation), economic (economic power, industrialization, wellbeing and prosperity), and social (social justice, modernization, youth work actions) (Figure 4).

Direct associations to this particular historical period are focused mostly on the domination of the iconic figure of Josip Broz Tito for a total of 71% of respondents, followed by aspects of communism (41.6%), as well as the dissolution of Yugoslavia reflected in the “bloodshed of the 1990s” (37.5%), youth work actions (32.8%), economic and political power (27.2%), socialism and social justice (24.6%), industrialization (17.2%), World War II (15.9%), while terms such as “revolution”, “well-being”, “liberation”, “modernization” are recognized by only 5–10% of respondents. Such results provided insight into the symbolic meanings of this historical period that are obviously transmitted to the context of the cultural memory and memorial heritage of the SFRY. Based on the obtained student responses, we can observe the extreme strength of the political connotations of cultural memory and the high tendency for the iconization of Josip Broz Tito as a symbol of the whole historical period—the creator of a new political regime which shaped the social and cultural life in Yugoslavia.

4.2. Estimating Knowledge Levels

The culture of memory flourished in post-war Yugoslavia with the erection of over 2000 monuments dedicated to the national liberation struggle, 24 museums of revolution, and 17 memorial museums in Serbia alone. According to some estimations, over 15,000 monuments dedicated to the national liberation struggle were erected in the SFRY (of which about 6000 were in Croatia, and 1000 in Slovenia); many of these were destructed or demolished in the 1990s [56]. From a total of 150 museums in Yugoslavia, about 91 museums had sections dedicated to the national liberation struggle. Prior to WWII, there were 76 museums (35 regional) in Yugoslavia, while a reorganization of museums after the war initiated the establishment of new museums, resulting in 330 active museums and independent museum collections by the end of the 1980s [57]. A number of festival and memorial events were organized with the goal of nurturing collective memory and social unity. An exploration of knowledge levels among architecture and civil engineering students included the recognition of the existence of memorials in their place of origin, visitation of memorial sites, interest in the visitation of memorial sites, acknowledgment of the need for promotion and education, as well as acknowledgment of levels of heritage protection.

Knowledge of Yugoslav memorial heritage among students of architecture and civil engineering is at a satisfactory level (55%), but with evident knowledge gaps, indicating an urgent need for additional education and promotion among students (

Table 3. Measuring knowledge levels among architecture and civil engineering students in Serbia.

Knowledge Levels N = 230	Visual Recognition of Memorials	Visits to Memorials	Positive Interest in Memorials	Recognition of Educational and Promotional Needs	Awareness of Heritage Protection Needs
no	10.30%	11.60%	0.40%	4.80%	4.8% (well-protected)
do not know	15%	30.50%	6.90%	14.60%	20.2% (modest protection)
probably yes	19.30%	24.3%	31.30%	-	56.1% (insufficient protection)
yes	54.50%	57.4%	60.50%	79.80%	16.9% (neglected)

). Descriptive statistics indicate that 54.5% of respondents confirmed the existence of WWII memorials in their place of living with great confidence, 10.3% negated the existence of such memorials (noting that their place of living was crosschecked and most contained some memorials, some places even contained the most renowned ones), while 34.3% were undecided. Of the students who had visited Yugoslav memorial heritage sites (57.4%), 30.9% did so within the educational system (high school excursions), while 26.5% visited them independently. Additionally, 24.3% of students believe they may have visited those sites but could not recall with certainty. The recognition of some heritage sites listed in free form by students is evidence of basic knowledge of Yugoslav memorial heritage. Considering the architectural professional orientation of the examined students, expectations of knowledge levels among other student groups are less optimistic.

Among the 135 students that provided responses to the optional questions in free form, listing monuments known to them (Figure 5), the widely recognizable memorials within national borders (Serbia) are as follows: memorial park Šumarice in Kragujevac (43), Monument of the Kosmaj Partisan Brigade in Belgrade (33); memorial park Kadinjača in Užice (32), memorial complex Bubanj in Niš (22), Raid Victims Monument in Novi Sad (16), memorial park Sremski Front in Sremska Mitrovica (7), Monument of Liberty in Irig (6), Monument to the Serbian and Albanian Partisans in Kosovska Mitrovica (6), memorial park Slobodište in Kruševac (4), Monument of Courage in Čačak (4), etc. Students mostly outlined monuments from their own local communities (partisan monument on Zlatibor, memorial park in Čačak, monument to partisans in Subotica, Bečej, Žabalj, Vrnjačka banja, Leskovac, but also the Cemetery of Belgrade liberators, the Jewish cemetery in Belgrade, House of Flowers—Tito’s resting place, the Battle of Batina Monument, memorial park Jajinci in Belgrade, memorial in Loznica, memorial complex Stratište in Pančevo, etc.). Additionally, a significant number of wrong answers (53) were evidenced, which included indicating Yugoslav memorials located in foreign countries—Jasenovac (18), Sutjeska-Tjentište (8), Kozara (6), but also monuments from other historical periods (14). This possibly suggests a lack of knowledge of the geographical location of these monuments, but also their wider consideration as part of the displaced national heritage.

The most recognizable memorial complexes on the regional level (Figure 6), based on answers provided by 121 students, are Sutjeska-Tjentište (34.5%), Jasenovac (26.7%), Kozara (16.5%), Korčanica-Grmeč (4.4%), Ilinden (1.9%), Podgarić (1.9%), and a monument in Zenica (1.9%), followed by Petrova Gora and the Eternal Flame in Sarajevo (1.5%). Other monuments were singled out by students depending on their place of origin (Memorial to the Fallen of the Lješanska Nahija Region, Makljen, Sanski most, Kolašin, Knin, Nikšić, Dudik-Vukovar, Plitvice, Ilirska Bistrica, Sisak, Mostar, Kumrovec, Zenica, Mausoleum of Njegoš on Lovćen, etc.).

For the better introduction of students to the architectural values of the memorial heritage of this period, selected representative memorial complexes were visualized using photographic material: Kadinjača (Užice), Jabuka Stratište (Pančevo), Bubanj (Niš), Sutjeska-Tjentište (BIH), Kozara (BIH), Podgarić-Moslavina (Croatia), Ilinden-Kruševo (North Macedonia). The greatest visual effect among students was produced by photographs of the Sutjeska Memorial Complex (33.2%), followed by the Kadinjača Memorial (29.5%), Podgarić (15.6%), and Kozara (12.7%), while Bubanj (4.3%), Ilinden (2%), Jabuka Stratište in Pančevo (1.7%) aroused a more modest visual reaction, noting that choosing two or more impressive memorials was allowed (Figure 7).

Additionally, a personal expression of the visual effect of a particular memorial was provided in the open-form questions (in-depth analysis):

#5: “Bubanj and Kadinjača. Personal impression based on direct visitation of sites. The hypertrophic structures have great visual power.”

#44: “I chose Bubanj based on sentimental feelings, as it is the site I have visited most often. I chose Podgarić due to its architectural design based on impressiveness (similar to the Stone Flower in Jasenovac). I consider Tjentište the most important memorial of the time because it is (1) the most architecturally elaborated complex (2) speaking of one of the most important and most popular battles in WWII, (3) with a carefully considered connection between the aesthetics of the monument and historical context of the period and events.”

#47: “Kozara. The only memorial I have ever visited. What impressed me about this structure, which is extremely massive, but not so rough in shape, was how the circular base alleviates the massiveness of the structure. The gaps leading to the centre of the structure were quite interesting to me. They are very narrow, some of which are impossible to pass through. They create a very mystical atmosphere—both the cracks and the central part of the structure.”

An analysis of the open-end answers provided by students, some of which are emotionally coloured and lengthy, evidence that the effectiveness of a direct experience at a memorial site cannot be replaced by the wow-effects of visualization achieved through a digital representation of the memorial. This is also substantiated by the majority of students (91.8%) showing great interest in visiting the presented memorial sites.

Digital platforms are recognized as valuable spaces for the wider promotion of memorial heritage, as well as raising awareness of the public to contribute to its preservation, both through global visibility and documentation in the form of digital archives of memory. Recent research [58,59,60] outlines that the cultural heritage sector is experiencing an extreme rise in popularity on social media platforms, which have become intermediate aggregators of public information, in some cases playing a critical role in audience engagement and the sustainable promotion of cultural heritage. Intense initiatives, internet follow-ups with aestheticized images of deserted memorials, and social network campaigns have contributed to the belief that a restoration of the values of the Yugoslav cultural project is possible and is particularly appealing to the younger generation, who are major users of global networks. This is seen as a chance to utilise this ‘wow-phase’, in which the art form of monuments plays a significant role, to trigger interest among youth and convey historical and social knowledge about Yugoslav modernism to them. Such a turn of events opens the chance to upgrade contemporary youth’s comprehension of this heritage towards its contextualized, grounded, and critical evaluation [61]. According to our research findings, digital platforms are widely accepted among students as the appropriate medium for knowledge dissemination of memorial heritage of this type and historic period, with 57.1% providing positive reactions to such a statement, 32% of students acknowledging the positive effects of digital representation of memorials in cyberspace in raising awareness about their existence and values, and 8.7% remaining undecided. Only 1.7% of students do not recognize the potential of digital platforms as an appropriate medium for the reaffirmation of the memorial heritage of Yugoslavia and WWII. However, we can only speculate about the actual scope and quality of knowledge they possess, especially about their understanding of the historical and social context, meanings and functions that Yugoslav architecture mediates. The general interest for visiting such memorial places among architecture and civil engineering students is relatively high, with over 60% being highly interested in visiting, and approximately 30% showing some interest. Additionally, the majority of students (79.8%) support greater levels of inclusion of information on memorial heritage into educational and public promotion programmes, indicating a need for higher quality information provided through more reliable sources.

4.3. Valuation

According to Horvantinčić [62], the majority of monuments and memorial sites have become overshadowed by the popular, often decontextualized images that have come to constitute a kind of ad hoc canon of Yugoslav monuments. The insistence on their exquisite aesthetic features as the only or primary criterion of determining their contemporary heritage status undermines the monuments’ immense cultural, commemorative, and political significance [62], which evidently comes from a lack of knowledge and from an outsider viewpoint.

The cultural significance of heritage was measured based on indicators developed by H. du Cross [63,64] and measured on a Likert scale. There is clearly a high valuation of almost all aspects of heritage quality elements included in the research, apart from the commercialization potential. The scale was validated by Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.807, n = 11), indicating a relatively high internal consistency. Based on ANOVA testing, there were no statistical differences in the valuation of Yugoslav memorial heritage related to age, gender, level of study, or place of living (p > 0.05).

Previous research unifies the overall opinion of experts in the field of architecture, history, culture, art, and sociology with the general viewpoints of students regarding the valuation of the memorial heritage of Yugoslavia. The results of this research indicate the exceptional value and importance of this heritage typology, reflected in the architectural elaboration of historical and social meanings of memorials of the national liberation struggle throughout the Yugoslav territories [30,32,33,34,35,36,37,62,65].

Regarding the myriad functions of the memorials, the greatest focus is placed on their historical-memorial function (95.2%), followed by educational function (76.2%), while artistic-aesthetic (44.6%), social-public (21.2%), and tourism (33.3%) functions are placed in the background. From the students’ perspective, the political-promotional (3.9%), commercial (0.7%), and amusement (2.2%) functions are almost insignificant. An evaluation of the memorial heritage of the SFRY in general (Figure 8) indicated that the greatest values were its historical, educational, architectural, and ambiance value, while social reaffirmation (3.37) had significantly lower potential, and commercialisation (2.27) had the least potential. These results also indicate the common standpoint that the commercialization of memorials is socially unacceptable, except for activities with clear educational goals, such as tourism. Similar stands, supported by empirical research, indicated greater interest among foreign tourists than domestic tourists in visiting such memorial places, despite deeper emotional and nationalistic experiences among domestic tourists and locals.

A study by Fiket [55] indicates that Yugoslav socialist memorial heritage in Croatia is not included in local and national strategies, nor is it utilized in the tourism industry. The same study indicates that the local population of Vojnić (Petrova gora) and Podgarić (Moslavina) supports the rehabilitation and inclusion of memorials in its tourism offers, while retaining a restrained position in regard to its context. Jakir [65] indicates that the Sutjeska Memorial in Tjentište (Bosnia and Herzegovina) represents a war memorial of significance for the whole of Yugoslavia. It has become the central and most prestigious memorial monument in Yugoslavia, a position through which it might enhance its tourist potential. Another study indicates that the memorial sites of Croatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina undoubtedly have the potential for the development of selective forms of tourism such as memorial tourism, dark tourism, or thanatourism [66].

The contemporary use of memorials, according to 43.7% of students, is acceptable under special conditions and defined limitations; 29.9% consider very strict control necessary, while approximately 18.6% of respondents view the commercialization of memorials as fully acceptable, and 7.8% consider the commercial use of memorials as unacceptable. The main commercialization aspect is envisioned in tourism and the interconnected educational function of memorial sites.

4.4. Thoughts on Preservation

As Horvantičić [62] finds, the treatment of World War II monuments after the breakup of socialist Yugoslavia greatly differed among the former Yugoslav states, following various agendas and new ideological positions, but with one thing in common: distancing from the legacy of the socialist system and the affirmation of new national narratives and symbols. The level of destruction depended on various socio-political factors, and greatly varied between states from the almost complete and systematic erasure of monuments and memorials in some parts of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina or Kosovo, to their abandonment and invisibility in some parts of Serbia, or the full preservation or partial modification for the purpose of aligning with new national paradigms, as has been the case in Slovenia or Montenegro [62]. Based on field research conducted in five different locations in North Macedonia (Skopje, Kavadarci, Veles, Kumanovo, Prilep, and Kruševo), it is clear that the memorial heritage in these locations is largely unprotected and forgotten, with few exceptions [67]. In the case of the Skopje 2014 project, this issue is even more evident since the city underwent “a total reconstruction of the symbolic landscape of the capital beyond recognition”, which removed monuments of the socialist era or dwarfed them by new nationalist monuments.

The ICOMOS report (2014–2015) outlines the problem of insufficient knowledge and understanding of the scientific, historic, and artistic values of this cultural heritage, resulting in the rather poor condition of a number of listed buildings and complexes of contemporary architecture (including memorial sites). According to Roter-Blagojević, Nikolić, and Vukotić-Lazar [68], only a small number of buildings related to the modernism movement, erected in the interwar period and after World War II, are listed as cultural monuments in Serbia. The authors outline the lack of monitoring and control of conservation and restoration projects, but also a failure to provide proper management and prevention of invalid initiatives of the revitalization and reuse of such monuments, giving an example of the modernist complex Staro Sajmište (1937), later used as a well-known concentration camp. The complex has been proclaimed a memorial of the Holocaust and an important modernist architectural monument and was listed as a cultural property of great national significance in 1987. The complex is still greatly damaged and inadequately used (containing restaurants, clubs, gyms, workshops, and dwellings), as none of the multiple plans and designs for the reconstruction of the memorial have been executed thus far. Another example of public neglect and the state government’s approach to heritage protection can be seen in unexpected acts directed towards the privatization of a listed heritage site of exceptional national value—the Memorial centre “Boško Buha” near Prijepolje. The memorial complex was publicly advertised as “for sale” in bankruptcy proceedings in February 2019. However, the sale was postponed due to a public petition. There are multiple causes of such illegal activities directed towards erasing this heritage in all former Yugoslav states. According to the survey results, the overall preservation levels of the memorial heritage sites are regarded as insufficient (56.1%), especially in relation to expected institutional protection, while 16.9% of respondents consider Yugoslav memorial heritage as highly contested and neglected (Table 2). Approximately 20.2% of students acknowledge some modest protection status, while only approximately 4.7% regard Yugoslav memorial sites as well-protected. However, youth activism levels in heritage protection are rather low among students of architecture and civil engineering, with almost half of the respondents retaining a neutral standpoint (48.9%), approximately 24.2% of respondents stating they would probably support preservation initiatives, while only 17.3% of architecture and civil engineering students would most certainly take direct part in heritage protection. Approximately 9% of respondents showed extremely low interest in heritage protection.

5. Conclusions

The importance of enhancing and sustaining the overall level of knowledge about the recognition, correct evaluation, and appreciation of World War II memorials erected on the ever-unsettled territories of the former Yugoslav republics, has been shown to be crucial for their future. Processes of remembering and unremembering, along with conscious political and social neglect, have marginalized this heritage and deprived it of any sustainable valuation. As Gugliemucci and Scaraffuni point out, “neither memory nor forgetting is exclusively anchored in a material space”, but they correlate to representations of collective memory [69]. The challenge of educating the youth lies in the clarification of collective memory as a “play between memory and history” [12], with the potentials of this relation for different readings and interpretations, enabling the future life of sites of memory. An understanding of the mutual cultural memory as a particular form of collective memory, in terms of the establishment of an improved management model for the placement of this mutual heritage in future times, requires a well-educated and active youth.

Directed towards architecture-oriented youth, particularly architecture and civil engineering students, the first part of this research determined the quality of the emotional response and the level of knowledge of future architecture and civil engineering professionals about World War II memorials on the territory of SFR Yugoslavia. It summarized the requested emotional response through diagrams and an ANOVA table, showing the rather neutral attitude of the target group regarding a personal recall of this particular period of national history and the cultural memory related to SFR Yugoslavia, but a more positive attitude towards the memorial heritage of the period in question. The results showed no gender-related differences in the emotional comprehension of the topic, but there was a noticeable difference among students’ opinion depending on the year of study. More positive attitudes were noted among younger students (the first two years of undergraduate programmes), while older students had a divided stance (the last two years of undergraduate programmes). There was a statistically proven difference among students in the comprehension level of the selected memorial sites shown in the survey, based on the region of their backgrounds. The emotional response showed that the target group perceived the tangible values of the memorials more than the intangible, and was influenced by the strength of the political connotations of cultural memory in the region. The results regarding the examination of the knowledge level of the target group that showed personal experience and consequential interest in the topic are given in Table 3. The main result shows that the effectiveness of a direct experience at a memorial site cannot be replaced by indirect experience achieved by the means of digital representation.

The valuation of the results further confirmed that there were no statistical differences in the evaluation of Yugoslav memorial heritage related to age, gender, level of study, or the region from which the respondents originated. The overall responses revealed that the greatest value of the memorials is seen as historical, educational, architectural, and ambiental. Respondents showed significantly lower recognition of the commercialization value or potential for the social reaffirmation of the memorials in question. The target group mainly understood the level of preservation of current memorials as insufficient but showed a diminished interest in taking an active part in advocating for heritage protection.

The implications of the research suggest a necessary reinforcement in the domain of relations between heritage education and heritage protection practices. By undermining the current interdisciplinary character of heritage management and architecture conservation [70,71], the university education lacks in a practical perspective on the matter. The existing need for acquiring competences and skills to participate in the preservation of cultural heritage various institutions, public agencies, NGOs, but particularly Universities should make commitment to training and raising public awareness, especially among youth [72].

Given that this research showed the existence of initial interest among a particular youth group, this interest requires active attention from parties involved in education and culture in terms of its sustainable articulation and additional development. By directly measuring the target group’s attitudes and knowledge levels on the subject through the application of diverse methodologies, the main contribution of this research lies in the numerical facts that could work for the heritage-related improvements in architecture and civil engineering education sectors.

The limitations of the research lie in the fact that the results are based on the examination of a target group consisting exclusively of undergraduate students of architecture and civil engineering programmes. Examining other groups from diverse disciplines that correlate with heritage management and protection might result in different attitudes. Territorially focused on students who study in one of the former Yugoslav republics (Serbia), the research in this phase remains limited, lacking the perspectives of students from the remaining former republics. The hypothetical diversity of the results that could arise from expanded examination, nominates the topic for potential future research. Additionally, future research could be directed towards the implementation and application of EU legislation and heritage policies on WWII memorials on the entire territory of the former Yugoslavia.