Even before 1949 Europe had known various camp systems: Nazi and Fascist camps, Italian internment of civilians, the Soviet Gulag, and post-war camps and internments. Goli otok entered this landscape later, but with a particular role: it was created after the war, in a period of stable state power, as an internal camp of a socialist state directed against its own citizens accused of political unsuitability.
What most 20th-century camps had in common
Regardless of ideology, camp systems often share similar features: isolation from the outside world, forced labour, scarcity of food and water, a strict internal hierarchy, and privileged roles for certain detainees in maintaining order and discipline.
What made Goli otok distinctive
Goli otok differed above all in that it was a post-war camp for the state’s own citizens, labelled as politically suspect. It did not arise under conditions of occupation or open war, but as an instrument of internal political control.
Goli otok was also distinctive in the way it was run. The system developed “self-administering” methods of surveillance, in which certain prisoners were given a privileged position and took part in putting pressure on others. Within this framework specific camp terms also took shape, such as the “gang”, “boycottBoycottThe bottom of the camp hierarchy and a punishment at the same time: the boycotted wore markings, no one was allowed to speak to them, and they could be beaten with impunity.” and “revising one’s stanceRevising one’s stancePublic “repentance” for views that the UDBA had declared anti-state, and consent to collaborate with the UDBA. It was a condition for advancement in the camp hierarchy.”, which were part of the camp’s particular language and practice.
Its most striking distinctive feature was the logic of violence of “victim against victim”.
Detainees were required not only to obey, but also to take an active part in humiliating and punishing others as proof of their own loyalty. Violence was thus not only a means of control but also a measure of political suitability.
How the system worked
The system rested on a hierarchy of survival. The “revised” could obtain a better position and a certain degree of power, while the “unrevised” fell into isolation, boycott and the harshest forms of labour and punishment. Taking part in pressuring others brought an easier position, while refusal led to new punishments. In this way violence gradually became an internal norm of the prisoner community. The mechanism is described in detail in the chapter Re-education on Goli Otok.
Goli otok compared with other camps
Like other 20th-century camps, Goli otok shared the basic features of repressive systems: isolation, forced labour, scarcity and hierarchy. But it differed in that it operated after the war, against the state’s own citizens, and in that it developed a particularly powerful model of internal coercion in which the detainees themselves were turned into instruments of surveillance and violence.
Glossary
- Boycott
- The bottom of the camp hierarchy and a punishment at the same time: the boycotted wore markings, no one was allowed to speak to them, and they could be beaten with impunity.
- Revising one’s stance
- Public “repentance” for views that the UDBA had declared anti-state, and consent to collaborate with the UDBA. It was a condition for advancement in the camp hierarchy.