65
communism and for a »new European regime« (at that time, of course, in Hitler's racist
version).
The discussions of the past, especially on anniversaries connected with World War II and
after that the fall of the Iron Curtain and of communism, are mixed with a sincere effort to
objectively treat the past, the wish to placate (reconcile), and the utterly concrete interests of
individual countries, nations and social groups (which also at times include a sometimes more
and a sometimes less clearly expressed desire for revisionism (revaluation, reinterpretation)).
Hence the symbolic acts, the uttered apologies, the »compromise« view of the past are often a
superficial ritual. The European Union is not a 450 million therapeutic group that (self-
)questions its past. It is primarily a set of economic, political, geostrategic interests of
individual countries, nations and interest groups. Some of these also use (abuse) history to
achieve their goals. Whoever is not capable of understanding this and naively believes merely
the written ideals or the passing words of the politicians; whoever sees in the created
circumstances a possibility for healing his or her own traumas or the enforcement
(revaluation) of his or her role and one's own ideological view of the past, will (seen from a
historical perspective) surely get the short end of the stick, both in the state and national
sense. In Slovenia that was indicated particularly in the attitude towards Italy upon the
screening of the film The Heart in the Pit and introducing a national holiday in memory of the
Italian exodus from Istria, which in Italy and especially in Trieste was celebrated by the
masses and used to create an anti-Slovene atmosphere. Quite a few of our public figures, also
a historian or two, at that time argued that the Italians should first cleanse themselves of their
post-war sins and then they too will, for instance, recognize that we are no longer
»Slavocommunists« but good, kind and democratic neighbors, and then they too will admit to
some of their sins.
3. The Changed Ideological and Political Image of Slovenia
While the mostly liberal governments in the time since Slovenia's attaining of independence
had dealt with history more marginally and left it to the discipline, the current right-wing
coalition has placed the attitude towards the past as one of its priorities, both in controlling
science and in school programs, as well as at celebrations and public manifestations. From
this engaged attitude is also derived the division of historians into those who are more
agreeable to the authority (and thus suitable for various public functions and jobs) and to
66
those who are not. In the case of celebrations three new holidays have been accepted. The
anniversary of the annexation of a part of Primorska (the enforcement of a decision by the
Paris Peace Conference in 1947). The anniversary of Štajerska becoming a part of
Yugoslavia, due to the action of Rudolf Maister after World War I, was to be joined with the
annexation of Prekmurje, however – due to public pressure and a unified appearance by the
members from Prekmurje – that became a separate holiday. The former Independence Day in
memory of the plebiscite of 1990 simultaneously also became the Unity Day (at first it was
proposed that the Unity Day was to be connected with the annexation of Primorska). In
Slovenia celebrations had always stirred up conflict; politicians showed (and still show) their
disagreement with this or that holiday by not attending official celebrations, or by parties
organizing their own celebrations; there have also been several attempts to change the
celebrations. The currently ruling party of SDS in 1996 already suggested a holiday in
memory of the annexation of Primorska. With this proposal they had wished to dismiss the
Resistance Day as a holiday. That did not work, and the current expansion of the holidays can
therefore be seen as a sort of compromise solution. More than the new holidays, which had
generally been favorably accepted, the polemics was marked by individual anniversaries and
speeches at celebrations. This was begun by the decision of the government to not support the
celebration of the creation of the post-war government, which the Slovene National Liberation
Council had appointed on May 5, 1945 in Ajdovščina. The »pagan« (partisan) government is,
according to a negative interpretation within the leading part of politics, a communist
government and symbolizes the post-war takeover of authority, even though the partisan side
was part of an anti-Fascist coalition, while on the Yugoslav level the dualism of authority was
by that time long eliminated, with the members of the Home Guard and their leadership
considered as quisling units by the partisans.
The relativization of the partisan contribution to the attaining of independence is occurring on
several levels within the mentioned context. I quote a few chosen examples:
a) With the thesis on the alleged »collaboration« of the communists with the Germans (due to
the Hitler – Stalin pact), and later with the Soviet Union, which is supposedly why there was,
in addition to the occupation of the three attackers, also a »Bolshevist occupation« in
Slovenia. Much has been written on the political doubts of the KPS in the spring months of
1941 – at a time between the attack on Yugoslavia and the attack on the Soviet Union, some
of which also appears in the second part of my contribution, however, the demonstration of an
alleged co-operation, which was to have taken place especially in Gorenjska, is based solely
Dostları ilə paylaş: |