The Generalstab complex, designed in 1954 by Nikola Dobrovi,

was bombed by NATO air forces in 1999 targeting military

buildings in Belgrade; today it stands as a victim of war. Discuss
whether preservation or restoration is the most appropriate
future for the complex.

The Generalstab complex, designed in 1954 by Nikola Dobrovi, was bombed by NATO air forces in
1999 targeting military buildings in Belgrade; today it stands as a victim of war. Discuss whether
preservation or restoration is the most appropriate future for the complex.
In the 20th century Belgrade was bombed five separate
years: 1914, 1915, 1941, 1944 and 1999 leaving the city in a
constant state of deconstruction and reconstruction
knocking its national identity in a place of limbo. The
Generalstab complex designed by Nikola Dobrovi in 1954
(Fig 1) is a key piece of architecture from the post-WWII
socialist Yugoslavian era. It was seen as a new start towards
the construction of an alternative identity [Where]
Architecture became an integral tool of this transformation.
(Bobic, N. 2012. p.10). Dobrovis aim was to design a
building which embodied a Grand Belgrade centralising
Yugoslavian military operations in a design which broke
away from the conservative style of Stalins Communist
regime (Bobic, N. 2012. p.8-11). The Generalstab complex
Figure 1
fell victim to NATO bombings on April 29th and May 7th in
1999, the latter proving fatal, The intervention was a
response to the growing conflict in Kosovo; its intention was to force [Slobodan] Miloevi to
withdraw troops (Srensen, m. 2015, p.173). In the 15 years since the bombing the building has
remained untouched and subsequently become an unintentional memorial to the events (Fig 2). The
new identity of the Generalstab raises interesting questions about what to do with the site. In this
essay I am going to start with an in depth analysis of the Generalstab complex in its former context
before the 1999 bombing then explain how and why the complex was attacked. This leads into a
discussion about what the future could hold for the site exploring ideas of preservation and
conservation set out in Robert Bevans The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War. This is then
all tied together in the conclusion where alternatives to current plans for the site will be proposed.

Figure 2

To fully understand the importance of the Generalstab complex its vital to first recognise that
Belgrade was part of a very different social, economic and political environment. In the early 20th
century there was a rise of nationalism with the aim of unifying and liberating the Yugoslav
nationalities such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia, then under the Austro-Hungarian
rule, and creating an independent Yugoslav state. (Bobic, N. 2012. p.10). On the 1st of December
1918 the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was established however this first version of
Yugoslavia only existed until 1941 when the second world war hit and German occupation led to the
state being divided up with Serbia becoming a German protectorate (Rogel, C, 1998, p.11). Serbia
was liberated through resistance by Josip Broz Titos communist led Partisan forces and in
November 1945 communists proclaimed the establishment of the Federal Peoples Republic, and
with that a second Yugoslavia came into being (Rogel, C, 1998, p.12). Yugoslavia was taken under
the wing of Stalins USSR and a soviet development model was introduced however it wasnt
properly imposed and Stalin quickly became concerned that Yugoslavia was out of his control. A
confrontation between Stalin and Tito resulted in Yugoslavias expulsion from the Cominform
(Rogel, C, 1998, p.14). Once outside the Soviet bloc Yugoslavia developed its own kind of socialism
which became known as Titoism. It had two main features self-management and nonalignment in
the international community (Rogel, C, 1998, p.14). It took 5 years for these changes away from
communism to fully take effect making 1953 a very important year in which one of the first
buildings indicative of the new socialist identity was Dobrovis Generalstab complex (Bobic, N.
2012. p.10).
The Generalstab complex was the
result of a competition instigated
in1953 by the Yugoslav Nation Army
(JNA) (Bobic, N. 2012. p.12) after
the previous military headquarters
which occupied the same site was
destroyed in WWII (Fig 3). It seems
that time and significant political
shifts were of integral importance in
the establishing and strengthening
Belgrade as a culturally,
architecturally and politically
conceived alternative centre of a
new Yugoslav (Bobic, N. 2012.
p.12) Nikola Dobrovis competition entry stood
out above the rest for multiple reasons. Firstly
his political stance held him in high regard in the
eyes with the judges because during the Second
World War Dobrovi fought on behalf of the
Partisan movement, fighting with the resistance
in Italy. Additionally Dobrovi had built a name
i
as an incorruptible modernist influenced by
the avant-garde (Srensen, m. 2015, p.161). This
translated into his design which was innovative
and expressed Belgrades new pro-liberal image
showing his ability to fuse philosophy,
liberalism and modernist practices (Bobic, N.
2012. p.12). Nikola Dobrovis proposal was
influenced through reading creative evolution
by French philosopher Henri Bergson.
He took a keen interest in dynamism
Figure 4

Figure 3

which heavily swayed the way that he used

voids and hollowness in his architecture.
Dobrovi channelled dynamic relations
between structural elements (Srensen, m.
2015, p.165) by taking advantage of the site
which is split by Nemanjina Street (Fig 4).
There were four potential plans for the
Generalstab complex which presented in
Bergsons diagrams The first was
symmetrical; the second asymmetrical; and
the last two extravagant. The symmetrical
mode was chosen (and built) due to
financial constraints. (Bobic, N. 2012.
p.13). The plans applied Bergsons cone
Figure 5
theory where the cone is a signifier of
total memory recollection [and] slicing
different parts of the cone, reveals different
aspects of memory. This means the public
pass through the void between building A
and B (Fig 5) they experience dynamic
views depicting various identities of
Belgrade. As you can see from (fig 6) two
different types of stone were used in the
faade. The dominant material is thousands
of rough red stone cubes which are 25 x
25cm and are used in the load baring walls.
The smooth, white marble surfaces run
horizontally and has long narrow windows
set into it (Miladinovic, M. liechti, C. Keller,
C. 2006. p230). There was deliberate
symbolism in choice of colours the rough
Figure 6
rustic red stone symbolising socialism, the
liberation of war and the defiant and bold nation the smooth white marble faade which stood for
a new modern Yugoslavia striving to become sophisticated and civilised (Srensen, m. 2015, p.164).
The symmetry of the building and rigorous planning of the materiality were compromised because
Dobrovi left the project before its completion in 1963, nine years after it begun. The end result
remained faithful to Dobrovis original design with the exception of two details. The first was a
change to the height of the tower which was increased to eighteen storeys the second was the
omission of the marble strips on the window lintels of the federal defence ministry building
(Srensen, m. 2015, p.162-163). It is hence evident that the Generalstab complex is a very significant
piece of Yugoslavian modernist architecture.
Reformist leader Josip Broz Tito died in 1980 and his successors were less committed to preserving
Yugoslav harmony; some even devised the states division. Therefore by late 1991 Titos Yugoslavia
was coming to an end the central authorities had caved into Miloevi and the nationalistic forces
(Rogel, C, 1998, p.26) and by April 27th, 1992, the third version of Yugoslavia was conceived
containing only Serbia and Montenegro (Rogel, C, 1998, p.27). The Generalstab complex retained its
function as the military headquarters over this period, being used as a tool by the state for its official
military operations, becoming increasingly recognised as a seat of power (Srensen, m. 2015, p.171).
Subsequently it is likely that the 1991 urbicide of Vukovar, the bombings of Dubrovnik, and the
1992 siege of Sarajevo, were all ordered from Belgrades Generalstab complex. (Bobic, N. 2012.
p.22). As the people in power became progressive more unpopular anger was being directed [at]

certain buildings, namely, the television headquarters and government buildings, including those of
the Ministry of Defence. The Generalstab complex was earmarked by NATO as a target however it
took over a month from the first strikes on March 24 1999 for the two buildings to be bombed into
ruination. (Bobic, N. 2012. p.22). As you can see from (Fig 7) the devastation was extensive however
while images of destroyed architecture like that of the Generalstab complex invoke fear, there were
no personnel or equipment inside at the time of the bombing meaning the building was internally
already completely hollowed out. From the start of the NATO campaign it was expected that the
Generalstab would be a target and was subsequently emptied. This begs questions of why NATO
would still bomb the complex. A likely possibility is that it fits into NATOs risk categories of strategic
or tactical targets which are further categorised as serving military, military support,
communication and infrastructure, or command purposes (Srensen, m. 2015, p.173). An
interesting alternative theory is that the bombing was a symbolic movement against seats of power
but his theory is contested. Once the dust had settled the population of Belgrade were told to
continue their lives as normal. As the clean-up operation began soldiers and workmen swept the
rubble into bulldozers, meanwhile it was reported by a New York Times journalist that passers-by
[were] stopping in front of the ruin of the Generaltab to pick up a bit of shrapnel and put it in their
pocket (Srensen, m. 2015, p.173). This appeared to be an attempt to retain a piece of their past
which seemed to be ever receding, by collecting a souvenir from a piece of architecture that was
recognised as part of history. From this point in 1999 the site has stayed frozen in time and remains
in this state today, in 2015. Since the bombing the Generalstab complex has become an
unintentional memorial but what that memorial is dedicated to is still being question along with
what the future holds for the site.

Figure 7

To justify any proposal for the Generalstab complex I must first established what the unintentional
monument is commemorating. In 2009 the complex became one of many locations in Belgrade
where people could gathered to honour the decade since the NATO bombing the event aimed both
to preserve the memories and to reaffirm identities. The speeches of the politicians emphasised the
expansionist policies of the United States, the immorality and inhumanity of the bombing, and the
resistance of the Serbian people. (Srensen, m. 2015, p.178). In this case the Generaltab became a
platform for political statements and a symbol of suffering and resistance. (Srensen, m. 2015,
p.178). Alternatively the Generalstab can be seen as a monument which celebrates liberation. This
was the second time NATO bombings marked the end of an era. During WWII Belgrade was bombed
by the Germans prior to their occupation and by Allied Forces who fought for its liberation. Equally
the Generalstab could be seen as a memorial to the people who fell victim to the decisions made
there, one example being the Bombing of Dubrovnik. It could also could be identified as a
monument celebrating national identity since persistent conflicts led to continual reconstruction
giving a the sense of victimhood that became a significant element within Serbian identity
(Srensen, m. 2015, p.175). It is thus crucial to understand that the meaning of the memorial will
forever be contested and is dynamic much like design of the Generalstab.
As of April 2015 there are no confirmed
plans for the Generalstab complex.
There are however rumours from
unreliable sources that American
businessman Donald Trump discussed
the potential for building a luxurious
hotel on the spot. (Balkaninsight.com.
2015). Although this could just be
speculation in recent years there have
been several attempts to sell the site to
the International hotel groups and
Hilton for conversion into a hotel
(Srensen, m. 2015, p.178). The main
reason the government is keen to sell is
because the site is worth in the region
of $30,000,000, making it one of the
most desirable pieces of real estate in
Figure 8
the old city (Srensen, m. 2015,
p.178). Finding a buyer however has
been very difficult because In 2005 the Generalstab was listed as part of the citys cultural heritage
and placed under the category of Cultural Properties under the typological designation cultural
monument by the Cultural Heritage Preservation Institute of Belgrade. (Srensen, m. 2015, p.177).
This heritage order means that any future owner will have to restore the exterior of the Generalstab
complex to its pre NATO bombing condition (Fig 8). Its restoration evidently will incur massive costs,
some of which can be estimated but many of which will be unexpected due to the way the site was
left since the bombing. Additionally parts of the buildings such as the concrete structure of Building
A are beyond repair (Fig 9) and would need to be completely rebuilt. On the other hand restoration
should not be ruled out. Rebuilding can appear as defiance in the face of adversity, an identity which
Belgrade has become known for. It would rejuvenate and area which some people see as a
dilapidated, reforming a piece of architecture that is close to their national identity and led
advancements in modernism. It is also inevitable that when parts of society see the monument in its
current state past events become reinterpreted causing negative thoughts which could potentially
escalate. An example of this is the way Serbian media used images of the Generalstab in the 2009
commemoration to vilify the actions of NATO (Srensen, m. 2015, p.179). Reconstruction should be
undertaken with caution as purists may decry the decision as fakery and as Disneyfication (Bevan,

R. 2006. p.181) and there is a danger that the fantasy could eventually become fact as rebuilding
presents a full stop to remembering with actual memories fading after the erection of a fixed
object. It becomes just another artefact in the cityscape (Bevan, R. 2006. p.195)

Figure 9
We find it unacceptable that buildings that have become part of urban history are being erased
from memory precisely because they are historically burdened. History and identity are therefore
being eradicated. (Bevan, R. 2006. p.194). This quote by Bevan powerfully sums up why the
Generalstab complex was listed in 2005. The bombing gave the building a new form and meaning
which contributed to its preservation however there was another contributing factor established in
Marie Srensens book War and Cultural Heritage. NATO officially marked the buildings out as a
target of tactical and strategic importance, and the complex now projects that as part of its specific
value. Nominating the Generaltab as cultural heritage while in a state of ruin can therefore be
interpreted as a means of reclaiming the site as a place of symbolic and cultural importance to
Belgraders. (Srensen, m. 2015, p.179). From this it would seem that the Cultural Heritage
Preservation Institute of Belgrade is cleverly attempting to create unity by developing an identity
that is justified historically through building preservation. Robert Bevan also suggests that voids in
the city created by warfare can be read and understood more effectively then a space which has
been rebuilt stating Absence is most readily measured against something present (Bevan, R. 2006.
p.198). This coincides with the design agenda of Nikola Dobrovi, whose void was damaged in the
bombing, massacring the planned axial symmetry. Now as you pass through the void you become
faced with abject horror of the destruction and the confusion over the future identity of Belgrade. If
the Generalstab had been reconstructed you would not get the same sense that Serbia has been in a
state of political exile which is an unmissable message from buildings the current form. However a

strong argument against preservation is the aforementioned issues with the Generalstabs image in
the media and its potential to cause further political unrest.
Going through this historical research has made it clear to me that preservation of the Generalstab
complex should be favoured over its reconstruction however ultimately it boils down to what the
memorial is dedicated too. If the monument is seen as a vilification of NATO forces or perhaps a
memorial to victims of military decisions made there then restoration would be potentially be
preferable outcome with the aim of preventing further political unrest. Conservation gives the
opportunity to forgive and forget which can be tempting when the real estate has such high value.
Restoration in the short term could therefore give the government an economic bonus which could
be redistributed and could be the catalyst for the rejuvenation of the surrounding area. However
this would not aid the development of their national identity as there will be no historic value in
what we rebuild... to rebuild would be to cleanse that history (Bevan, R. 2006. p.190). Preservation
of the monument with the intention that it celebrates progression towards establishing a strong
national identity is in my eyes the Generalstabs desired destination. Being able to see the raw
untamed destruction caused by war is fascinating and has a worldwide impact. Methodical and
ordered preservation could also provide long term economic benefits through tourism. However it is
key to wonder when enough commemoration is enough. So far The Generalstabs story has been
treated as an individual case in Belgrade, yet it is part of a community of ruinous buildings, all with a
narrative which should be considered carefully. Its now the responsibility of the Serbian
government to make the final decisions over the complexs future although with so many strong
opinions about the site its doubtful a definitive answer will emerge for some time.

Bibliography
Books
Bevan, R (2006). The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.
Rogel, C. The Breakup of Yugoslavia and the War in Bosnia. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press,
1998. Print.
Srensen, m. (2015). 'A Heritage of Resistance' - The changing meanings of Belgrades Generalstab.
In: Srensen, m. Rose, D War and Cultural Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p156 182.
Journals
Bobic, N. (2012). Belgrade in Formation(s). Fabrications: The Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians, Australia and New Zealand. 21 (1), p6-21.
Perovic, M and Zegarac, Z. (2000). The Destruction of an Architectural Culture: the 1999 Bombing of
Belgrade. Elsevier. 17 (6), p395.
Documentary & Film
? WHY? Stories of Bombed Yugoslavia. Russia: Russia Today, 2014. Documentary.
Websites
Miladinovic, M. liechti, C. Keller, C (2006) Curating Memory (Draft Research Project) [online]
available at http://www.studio-basel.com/assets/files/files/023_BG_11_memory_dr.pdf , Accessed
Web. 25 Apr. 2015, p221-248

Balkaninsight.com. 'Trump Eyes Turning Serbian Army Ruin Into Hotel: Balkan Insight'. Available at
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serbian-army-headquarters-may-become-luxorious-hotel ,
Accessed Web. 25 Apr. 2015.
Image References
Fig 1. Srensen, m. (2015). War and Cultural Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P163.
Fig 2. https://ivinsvet.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/generalstab-zgrada.jpg
Fig 3.
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k93/zexland/Slike%20starog%20Beograda/Resizeof004Ministar
stvovojskeimorna.jpg
Fig 4. Srensen, m. (2015). War and Cultural Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P158.
Fig 5. Bobic, N. (2012). Belgrade in Formation(s). Fabrications: The Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand. 21 (1), p14.
Fig 6. http://www.studio-basel.com/assets/files/files/023_BG_11_memory_dr.pdf p.230
Fig 7. Bobic, N. (2012). Belgrade in Formation(s). Fabrications: The Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand. 21 (1), p21.
Fig 8. http://www.studio-basel.com/assets/files/files/023_BG_11_memory_dr.pdf p.231
Fig 9. Sadler, A (2014)

Antony Sadler - 13027329