This work contributes to our understanding of Brod and its people's relationship with Archbishop Stadler. His example demonstrates how politics dictates and shapes citizens' attitudes towards their fellow citizen, including the one we unquestionably see as the most admirable. Stadler's patriotic loyalty was clearly emphasised by his friend from Rome, who described him as „Croata ex toto corde“. In this regard, we should look for his Yugoslav opponents' antagonistic attitude towards him. Stadler was a firm opponent of the Yugoslav option and creating a common state with Serbia. Archbishop Stadler's political option was based on the values of Western European culture and civilisation, and it was trialist in the political and legal sense of the state, with support for the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and Christian-social in social issues, with a strong concern for the poorest strata of society, regardless of religious affiliation. The political conflict at the national level was mirrored locally. Materinska riječ, the publication of the Croatian-Serbian Coalition led by Dr. Vatroslav Brlić, and Posavska Hrvatska, a right-wing journal of the Frankists, have opposing views on Stadler. Materinska riječ considers Stadler a „dangerous man“ since he contradicts their political vision of „a single people with two names“ and a common state with Serbia. Most of the newspapers published in Brod during the two wars represented Yugoslav ideology, thus Stadler was hardly discussed and almost completely forgotten. Its significance to the Croatian people was temporarily recognised during the Independent State of Croatia. After the establishment of the communist rule, he was never discussed in public in Brod, particularly in publications like Brodski list. Brod and its people finally got to know their notable fellow citizen when the communist tyranny collapsed. First and foremost, the Sisters of the Servants of the Infant Jesus (Služavke Malog Isusa), a religious community created by Archbishop Stadler, bear responsibility for this. Generally evaluating his significance in the history of the Croatian people, we can say: We do not see that those who introduced confusion into the national terminology, creating a political construct of „one two-named“ or „one three-named“, later „Yugoslav nation“, acted more in the Croatian interest, especially at a time when the nations in the territory of the future Yugoslavia had already been formed. The political implications of this turmoil were terrible throughout the twentieth century and can still be seen today.
