German historical revisionism in the Balkans at the turn of the 21st century

field of researching the phenomenon of genocide). Let us take the ex-
ample of the still upheld dogma of “papal infallibility” and the mass
killings of “witches” in the Occidental, Roman Catholic-dominated
parts of Europe during the Middle Ages. To be clear, “papal infallibil-
ity” only became official dogma on July 18 1870 during the reign of
Pope Pius IX. Nevertheless, that act only affirmed and legitimated a
practice that was over one thousand years old. Pope Innocent I (401-
417) claimed that there exist “important cases” (cause majoris) that can
be resolved solely by the Pope of Rome, and his successor Pope Zos-
imus asserts that no one has the right to discuss any further a decision
made by the Pope of Rome. Leo I (440-461) underlines the papal right
to “all-encompassing, unlimited power, i.e. rule” (plenitudo potestatis).
Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) proclaims in his “Papal dictation” (Dic-
tatus Papae) that the “Roman Catholic Church never erred in any way,
nor will it ever err, and that every Pope possesses a principled holiness.”
Innocent III (1198-1216) states that the Pope is always located “in be-
tween God and man.” Boniface VIII (1294-1303) demands in his papal
bull Unam sanctam that popes should rule all the world, etc. Thus,
here we are faced with a continuous and consequential usurpation
of control over definitions in order to strengthen one’s own spiritual
and political power (words are acts). With the growth of this power
there is an experiential decline of the regulatory influence of ethics
and morals, and consequently even these fundamental categories of
social existence are redefined in the name of one’s own aspirations,
goals, and interests.
One of the consequences of this long process of linguistic creation
of reality as a “legitimizing” assumption and precondition for creating
worldly power was the mass expulsion, arrest, torture, and murder of
women during the Middle Ages, simply because they were defined as
“witches” by this center of power.
Already in 1231 Pope Gregory IX convenes a “Holy Inquisition” and
entrusts it to the Dominican Order, placing it under direct papal con-
trol. With one of his bulls in 1252 Innocent IV regulates and “legitim-
izes” (ad exstirpanda) the torture of prisoners in order to obtain forced
“confessions”, Sixtus IV (builder of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican)
ensures the deaths of 16 thousand victims in Spain alone with his In-
quisitional bull of 1478, and Pope Innocent VIII further contributes to
it nearly 6 years later with his “Witchcraft Bull”.
Dominicans Jacob Sprenger and Heinrich Kramer put together in
1487 a comprehensive handbook for finding, arresting, torturing and
killing “witches”, and with that systematize the already institutional-
ized practice of the mass killing of women. This handbook was called
“The Hammer of the Witches” (Malleus maleificarum) and its motto
was “Denying the existences of witches is the greatest heresy” (Maxima
est credere non Haereis Opera maleificarum). It is important to note
that merely the redefinition of a woman was enough for her to lose her
freedom (and property), to be tortured and burned alive, and that, at
the same time, every attempt to question the Vatican’s control over
definitions would be characterized as the “greatest heresy” (“denying
the existence of witches” is an even bigger sin). This speaks explicitly to
the pragmatic and empirical significance of the language factor for the
self-proclaimed “rulers” over the definitions of reality.
Between 1258 and 1526, 47 papal edicts are published and are fol-
lowed by 46 additional written discussions, arguments, disputes and
theses (1270-1540) on the subject of Catholic ideology “concerning
witches” and “black magic”. These confirm and reinforce an import-
ant consequence of Vatican’s usurpation of control over definitions in
the history and tradition of Western and Central Europe. This is a clear
and historically rooted example of the use of great force and influence
in the service of realizing a “project” of historic proportions:
1. The Vatican verbally redefines reality, proclaims itself to be the
highest and sole authority (“papal infallibility”) for all spiritual and
political questions (“the right to rule the world” and, thus, the right
to crown and depose world leaders), and solidifies this “new reality”
using the rhetorical methods of ancient sophists (see below).
2. The Vatican uses the power of its self-defined authority to re-
define a target group of women as “witches”.
3. The Vatican then redefines the basic human and Christian ethic
and transforms it into its clear opposite (anti-ethical use of dialectics).
A direct consequence of that is the “legitimate” and systematic arrest,
torture, and mass killing of members of this target group of victims.
4. The Vatican uses these mass crimes to additionally solidify its
authority (and property, through the seizure of the “witches’” belong-
ings) because this clearly and brutally demonstrates what the people
living in its zone of influence can and must expect if the “holder of
control over definitions” decides to implement some new “project”: the
redefinition of a new target group, its dehumanization, the seizure of
all of its property, the arrest of its members, torture and execution.

Uncovered through the philosophy of language, this mechanism of
unethical (anti-ethical) usurpation of control over definitions is the
cause, driving force, and instrument of exercising political power. It is
the initial spark and dynamic energy of social processes that are much
older than the 20th century and its great genocides, which occurred
primarily in Europe.
The creators of this system of control over people can be identified
(in the region of our own cultural and civilization heritage) as far back
as ancient Greece. Its essence is made up of the denial of an existing
truth, and its basis includes a combination of the classical language
paradigm of Plato and Aristotle, the relativistic teachings of the Soph-
ists (their successor Friedrich Nietzsche will later claim: “There are
no facts, only interpretations”), and the ancient rhetorical practice of
sophistry, which means “to lead, to have control over souls with the
use of linguistic manipulation and argumentation.” Thus, all scien-
tific efforts for determining the truth (in this context with regard to
the phenomenon of genocide) begin and end with a deeply human-
ist struggle for determining the very existence of truth, and thus we
again return to the inevitable role of language as the key determinant
of the ethical justification of the existence of man (at the same time
this demonstrates the mediating role of the philosophy of language in
the process).
Regarding the potential of linguistic and philosophical contribu-
tions to understanding the phenomenology of genocide, here I want
to briefly outline the methodological approach of the Theory of Def-
initionism to this problem (historically documented facts to consider):

General Premise -
The usurpation of control over definitions and the authorization of
new, interest-based redefinitions of reality (by way of sophistry) within
a society as an instrument of attaining, maintaining, and spreading
one’s own political power is a method rooted in centuries of history
and political and cultural tradition in (Western and Central) Europe.

Special premise -
In the case of genocide, it has been scientifically proven that the verbal
dehumanization of a target group of potential victims through the au-
thoritarian usurpation of control over definitions is the first (initial),
second (its realization being continuous), and final (subsequent at-
tempt to make relative or deny the crime) act in every genocide.

The facts as we know them and the basis for further research -

Those who committed all of the great genocides in 20th century Europe
primarily belong to the geopolitical sphere and cultural tradition of
Western and Central Europe. The victims of all of the great genocides
in 20th century Europe do not primarily belong to the geopolitical
sphere and cultural tradition of Western and Central Europe.
How does the Theory of Definitionism look at Korb’s doctoral dis-
sertation and its contribution to the search for historical truth? We
should remind ourselves that the new linguistic paradigm postulates
learning and knowledge. Language determines, deconstructs, and ex-
plains man as much as vice versa.
Korb’s dissertation amounts to academically versed historical re-
visionism. His selective and surprisingly interest-driven approach to
the problem of the Croatian state 1941-1945 and its genocide policies
towards the Serbs, Roma, and Jews, as well as his extremely apologetic
stance with regard to the Croatian Catholic clergy, the Vatican, and
even the Croatian State itself (all of the mass killings were, according
to him, committed by a small minority of Ustashe, and even the
“Ustashe leadership felt obliged to tolerate the actions of their troops in
the field”) bring into question his reputation as a serious and objective
historian. The goal of historical science is not to hand out (always sub-
jective) absolutions.
What Korb essentially does in his work is skilfully use language to
usurp control over definitions and unilaterally and authoritatively re-
define reality. He then goes on to declare that this virtualized reality is
in fact “true reality” (substituting form for content) and uses sophistry
to spread and establish it in the public conscience. That, however, is not
historical science.
That is the methodology of the tried (and successful) manipulation
of people, which has been studied and analyzed by the aforementioned
multidisciplinary, though primarily linguistically and philosophically
rooted, Theory of Definitionism. Korb’s method is part of a relativistic
understanding of history for which language represents the deadliest
weapon and primary instrument of domination over others in the
service of attaining one’s own particular interests and goals. His solid
understanding of the historian’s “craft” is used solely for the construc-
tion of an outward form that is supposed to determine the content of
his work (attempt at substituting form for content). In other words, his
work can be seen as a relativistic philosophical thesis veiled in histori-
cal science.
It is therefore difficult to argue that Korb’s intention was to hon-
estly and objectively find historical truths, and it is equally difficult to
believe that he bound himself to the ethical and moral parameters and
humanist principles of the spirit of mankind, or that he tried to even
come close to approaching his project with scientific objectivity.
In conclusion, the euphoric statement by one of the evaluators of
his dissertation from Berlin’s Humboldt University, Prof. Baberowski:
“Korb’s dissertation is one extraordinary contribution to the research
of genocide and violence. No one will be able to write on this topic in
the same way again,” demonstrates first and foremost that the hope
of the participants in this political project was that Korb’s redefined,
virtualized reality will, through sophistry, spread and consolidate, and
that in time it will succeed – through the use mass internalization of
the author’s linguistic suggestion (N. Elias) on the part of the target
group, in this case the scientific and general public – in establishing
itself as a “true reality”. This, however, was also the hope of all the other
usurpers of control over definitions throughout history.

Translated by: Bojan Ratkovic, Niagara Falls