80 let po zmagi: Ali še razumemo sporočilo zgodovine?

Ob 80. obletnici konca druge svetovne vojne in ob dnevu Evrope Urad vlade za komuniciranje v novi epizodi GOVSI podkasta gosti dr. Aleša Gabriča, uglednega zgodovinarja in predsednika Slovenske matice. Z voditeljem Zoranom Potičem razmišljata o pomenu 9. maja nekoč in danes – kot dnevu zmage, dnevu osvoboditve in dnevu povezovanja Evrope.

Epizoda osvetljuje, kako so evropske države po drugi svetovni vojni izhajale iz protifašistične koalicije in zakaj so vrednote miru, povezovanja in sodelovanja še danes temelj evropske prihodnosti. Dotakneta se tudi sodobnih izzivov, kot so vojne grožnje, porast skrajnih ideologij in vprašanje sprave v Sloveniji. Ob tem dr. Gabrič izpostavi pomen zgodovinskega spomina in vloge manjših narodov pri gradnji močne, solidarne Evrope.

Vabljeni k poslušanju in ogledu! 

[ENGLISH VERSION]

80 Years After Victory: Do We Still Understand the Message of History?

On the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War and in celebration of Europe Day, the Government Communication Office presents a new episode of the GOVSI podcast featuring Dr. Aleš Gabrič, a renowned historian and president of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. In conversation with host Zoran Potič, they reflect on the meaning of May 9—once and today—as a day of victory, liberation, and European unity.

The episode explores how post-war Europe emerged from the anti-fascist coalition and why the values of peace, cooperation, and unity remain the foundation of Europe's future. The discussion also touches on today’s challenges, such as the threat of war, the rise of extremist ideologies, and the unresolved issue of reconciliation in Slovenia. Dr. Gabrič highlights the importance of historical memory and the role of small nations in building a strong and united Europe.

Tune in and watch!

Transcript

Vladni podkast GOVSI

Voditelj Zoran Potič: Lep pozdrav v najnovejšem podkastu GOVSI, ki ga za vas pripravlja Urad vlade za komuniciranje. Tokrat ga vodim Zoran Potič. V letu 2025 je veliko okroglih letnic. Ena od izstopajočih je zagotovo dan Evrope, ki ga slavimo v kratkem. To je 9. maj, ko nekateri označujejo ta dan tudi kot dan zmage. Že iz tega izhaja, da imamo v Evropi malo različne poglede na obletnice. Na okrogle obletnice, kot je ta. Kot vemo, dan Evrope se nanaša na konec druge svetovne vojne. Kot vemo, je takrat nemška vojska, nacistična oblast kapitulirala. Položili so orožje in na evropskih tleh je bilo konec vojne. Čeprav druga svetovna vojna se je še nadaljevala za nekaj mesecev na drugem koncu sveta. O vlogi in pomenu, kako razumeti danes dan Evrope po osemdesetih letih, ni boljšega sogovornika, kot je dr. Aleš Gabrič. Naj ga na kratko predstavim. To je zgodovinar, ki raziskuje slovensko novejšo kulturno in politično zgodovino. Je zaposlen na Inštitutu za novejšo zgodovino v Ljubljani. Je soavtor zgodovinskih učbenikov in je bil predsednik maturitetne komisije za zgodovino. Je avtor več zgodovinskih del in številnih znanstvenih in strokovnih prispevkov, zlasti zgodovine Slovencev v dvajsetem stoletju. In je predsednik Slovenske matice. Lep pozdrav, gospod. 

Gost dr. Aleš Gabrič: Dober dan.

Voditelj: Preden vam predam besedo, naj na kratko uvedem najino debato. Namreč iz današnje perspektive, s časovne distance je sosledje, se zdijo dogodki precej logični. En dogodek si sledi drugemu, vmes so neke razlage. Ampak logično je. Vstop v 20. stoletje pa je bil viharen, kmalu zatem krvav. Na bojnem polju so propadala stoletna cesarstva, pojavljale so se nove paradigme, vznikali so totalitarizmi, nastajale so nove države, tudi ta, v kateri je potem Slovenija se nekako formirala. Že tako grozljiva prva svetovna vojna je bila le uvod v še bolj grozljivo 2. sv. vojno. Po mraku v tem obdobju 2. sv. vojne, ki je padel na Evropo in cel svet, je z 9. majem posijalo, če se malo figurativno izražamo, posijalo sonce. Ljudje so na novo zadihali. Zdelo se je, da se ustvarja nov svet, drugačen svet. In to se je tudi dejansko zgodilo z mnogimi inštitucijami in novimi odnosi med državami, velesilami. Dobili smo Združene narode, kasneje tudi Evropsko unijo. S predhodnicami. Multilateralne mednarodne organizacije so zaživele. Človeštvo je začelo bolj sodelovati in nekako DNK vseh teh aktivnosti, povezovanj, sodelovanja je pač bilo sporočilo: nikoli več, nikoli več te morije, ki smo jo spremljali med drugo svetovno vojno. Je to glavno sporočilo te 80. obletnice danes še vedno, ali so pred nami neki drugi izzivi?

Gost: Izzivi so vedno novi, če pa govorimo o 9. maju 1945, lahko rečemo, kaj nam je prinesel. Bil je začetek najdaljšega obdobja v Evropi brez vojne, kar si ga novejše generacije zapomnijo. Torej, Evropa do devetdesetih let in do novih balkanskih vojn ta čas ni imela vojne. Seveda, če slavimo dan zmage, govorimo o tem dogodku. Če govorimo o dnevu Evrope, seveda sežemo par let naprej, ko so se začeli evropski združevalni procesi in nato kasneje v petdesetih letih s podpisom rimskih sporazumov  in seveda že prej z ekonomskim povezovanjem Evrope, torej ob tem spoznanju. Imeli smo dve veliki svetovni vojni. Pa če lahko računamo, v prejšnjih stoletjih smo imeli še kaj podobnega po Evropi, kar bi lahko v takratnih tehnoloških razmerah tudi imenovali največje vojne sveta, da ne gremo nazaj do tridesetletne vojne, ampak gre enostavno za to spoznanje, da Evropa, če hoče živeti naprej, izgublja pozicijo, ki jo je imela v svetu. Poglejmo samo razliko med prvo in drugo svetovno vojno. Po prvi svetovni vojni. Kdo je glavni odločevalec o usodi sveta? Še vedno dve evropski velesili, torej Velika Britanija in Francija. Kdo sta glavni odločevalki o usodi sveta po drugi svetovni vojni? Združene države Amerike in Sovjetska zveza. Ki je nekateri niso ocenjevali niti kot del Evrope, ampak bi jo nekam drugam dali. Torej, center odločanja se je premaknil drugam. Če Evropa hoče znova zaživeti v stari obliki, pomeni sporočilo: do te točke smo se pripeljali sami, s svojimi vojnami. Kako to preseči? Preseči s pogajanji v miru. Torej o miru in v miru. Pogajanje o čem? O povezovanju. Če hočemo nasproti velikim, ki sedaj odločajo o usodi sveta, nastopati, moramo sodelovati. Seveda ta povojna Evropa temelji na porazu nacizma in fašizma. Vse, in leve in desne stranke, ki v zahodni Evropi takrat prevzemajo oblast v takšnih ali drugačnih koalicijah, ne glede na to, v kateri državi z demokratičnim sistemom je, od desnih do levih, temeljijo na protifašizmu. Torej, krščanske, liberalne ali pa socialistično... Socialistične in komunistične. No, dobimo pa še eno stvar, eno izhodišče, leto 45, kar sicer ni na evropskem teritoriju, je pa z zaključkom druge svetovne vojne povezano. Mogoče je malce bolj črna, je pa začetek vstopa v jedrsko dobo, tako kot smo vstopili v jedrsko dobo. Ampak lahko tudi pri tem najdemo svetlobo, ker se kasneje potem to ni ponovilo. Torej, uporaba jedrske energije v vojne namene, ampak se je začela razvijati v civilne namene. Sporočilo je, če hoče Evropa zopet doseči tisto, kar je nekdaj bila, bo to dosegla v miru in bo to dosegla v povezovanju in na poraženih temeljih nacizma in fašizma.

Voditelj: Ja, mogoče, veliko izhodišč je bilo tukaj postavljenih, ampak dajmo sistematično se tega lotevati. Temelji Evrope tudi po osemdesetih letih še vedno so na podlagi boja proti nacizmu in fašizmu.

Gost: Absolutno. Protifašistična koalicija. V njej so bile združene tako demokratične stranke, torej, države z demokratično ureditvijo v zahodni Evropi, kot avtoritarne države srednje Evrope ali pa komunistična Sovjetska zveza. Skupni temelj je protifašistična usmerjenost.

Voditelj: Kaj narediti potem s tem komunizmom, katerega del smo bili tudi v Sloveniji? Namreč dandanašnji spremljamo plakate po Ljubljani, po Sloveniji. Nekdo se na beli podlagi zahvaljuje boju proti trem totalitarizmom, fašizmu, nacizmu in komunizmu. V bistvu je dal eno vrečo vse tri totalitarizme. Je to v redu pristop?

Gost: Zame osebno vsekakor ne. Ker če govorimo o drugi svetovni vojni. Pri vsaki stvari moramo definirati pojem, o katerem govorimo, tako pojme fašizem, neofašizem, komunizem, neokomunizem ali totalitarnost, totalitarizem. Se v tem medijskem, ali pa bom rekel ljudskemu diskurzu ali pa recimo gostilniškem diskurzu uporablja drugačna terminologija, kot se uporablja pri temeljni literaturi, v kateri je ta napisana. Ko torej govorimo o Hannah Arendt in njeni knjigi Izvori totalitarizma, že tam natančno opisuje, daje striktna merila, kaj pravzaprav lahko ocenjujemo pod totalitarno.  Že sama, denimo, ima zadržke do fašizma, da ni v popolnosti razvit totalitarizem. In če gledamo nekatere ... Ta knjiga je vseeno stara. Če gledamo novejše zgodovinske knjige, se večinsko primerjata kot najbolj totalitarni obliki nacizem in stalinizem. Ampak ta dva sta bila v drugi svetovni vojni na nasprotnih straneh in stalinizem je bil pač na strani zmagovalk. In druga stvar, kar je torej, če delamo to primerjavo, tudi če damo komunizem zraven, moramo povedati, katere države in kdaj komunistične lahko označujemo kot totalitarne. Rekel sem že, da stalinizem po svoje je označen kot to. Pa tudi če govorimo o naši povojni Sloveniji ali povojni Jugoslaviji,  seveda vse tiste elemente, s katerimi to označujemo nekje izgubimo v začetku petdesetih let. To je to. Torej moram reči, da se prav pošteno potem nasmejem. Ko sem v enem poskusu, ne bom rekel zgodovinskem delu,poskusu zgodovinskega dela videl: slovenska izkušnja s totalitarizmi, pa mislim, da je letnica napisana na koncu 1991, kar pomeni, da bi bil še začetek Peterletove vlade v tem obdobju. Pri tem imamo vedno ... Pravzaprav niti ni dileme. Sam osebno nimam dileme. Ali bomo govorili v strokovni terminologiji ali bomo govorili o gostilniški terminologiji? 

Voditelj: Namreč, po teh osemdesetih letih se tudi, kot sem uvodoma poskušal ugotavljati, se zgrinjajo črni oblaki po osemdesetih letih. Generacije ljudi, ki so doživele to obdobje druge svetovne vojne in ki so gradile to ureditev. Nekako jih ni več. Ostal je spomin. Tu so spomeniki, obletnice in po tem obdobju se, če spremljamo aktualne politične razmere po celi Evropi, pojavljajo neke nove sile, ki nekako iščejo navdih v fašizmu. V Nemčiji imamo zelo močno stranko. Na zadnjih volitvah se je videlo, da imajo zelo odprt odnos do nacizma. Demokratične sile v Nemčiji ne želijo sodelovati in tako naprej. Neki neofašizmi in neonacizmi se pojavljajo. Z zgodovinskega vidika, z vidika pogleda zgodovinarja. Kako vi to razumete? To dogajanje trenutno? 

Gost: Če govorimo o koncu tiste Evrope, ki je bila zgrajena leta 1945, tiste njene bipolarnosti, dejansko pade po padcu berlinskega zidu. Torej, meje, ki so postavljene po drugi svetovni vojni, se razlikujejo od meja po prvi svetovni vojni po tem, da so po prvi svetovni vojni poskušali ustanavljati nove države, postavljati meje na novo. Po drugi svetovni vojni se naj te ne bi spreminjale. Z izjemo Poljske, ki je bila prestavljena za 150, 200 km proti zahodu, ostale meje pa naj bi ostale tako, kot so, in naj bi namesto tega opravili, kot so takrat imenovali veliko humano preseljevanje ljudstva, torej da dobijo čim bolj nacionalno monolitne države. Drugo spremembo meje, poleg tiste, ki sem jo omenil, Poljska, so samo še slovensko-jugoslovanski partizani izsilili, torej spremembo jugoslovansko-italijanske meje. Smo bili pač del zmagovite koalicije. In če to tako primerjamo, nemške armadne skupine, so se v Evropi pred 9. majem ali 9. maja pač predajale velikim zavezniškim zmagovalcem. Na eni strani Sovjetski zvezi, na drugi strani Angloameričanom in Francozom in kot vemo, ena armadna skupina slovenskim partizanom. Torej, ta druga sprememba meje je bila izsiljena. Kdaj se te meje začnejo spreminjati? Po padcu berlinskega zidu. Je pa bistvena razlika v situaciji po prvi ali po drugi svetovni vojni, ko o tem odločajo veliki. Sprememba, če se tako zgodi, kot je bil razpad Sovjetske zveze ali kot je bil razpad Češkoslovaške, ki je dogovorno, je to seveda nekaj drugega, je v dogovoru s prizadetimi državami. V Jugoslaviji je bilo že malce drugače, ampak še vedno ne tako, na ta način seveda dovolj krvavo v Bosni in Hercegovini, v delih Hrvaške. Še vedno pa ne tako, kot sta prva in druga svetovna vojna. To, če imamo zdaj poizkuse oživljanja nekih idej, ki zopet temeljijo na pogledih na vzpostavljanje nekoč velike, močne Rusije oziroma Sovjetske zveze ali če bi drugi nekateri ali pa ta drugi zmagovalec druge svetovne vojne, torej preko Atlantika, na oni strani Atlantika želel priključiti eno državo, pa bi še kakšen otok zraven imel, pa še koga od kaj drugega, je tukaj seveda nekaj povsem drugega. Tukaj ne gre za sporazumno, ampak gre že, se vidi, da je v ozadju tudi mišljeno, če ne bo šlo zlepa, bo šlo pa zgrda. In moram reči, da tudi sam osebno ta dogovarjanja, ki se zdaj dogajajo poskusno okoli vzpostavitve miru v Ukrajini, seveda, mirovna pogajanja morajo potekati, da se takoj razumemo, in se je treba dogovarjati. A če to počneš brez predstavnikov te države in če to počneta dve državi, ki se čutita, da sta trenutno najmočnejši in da bi o tem lahko odločali, mene dejansko najbolj spominja na münchenski sporazum, po katerem so zmagovalci prve svetovne vojne, torej Velika Britanija in Francija, dvema agresorkama druge svetovne vojne, fašistični Italiji oz. predvsem nacistični Nemčiji pravzaprav podarili, prodali Češkoslovaško brez njene prisotnosti.

Voditelj: Ja, smo kar v nekem absurdnem položaju. Namreč, ta ureditev, ki je veljala po letu 45, se je znašla v resnih težavah. ZDA, ki so bile garant te ureditve, tudi so denarni sistem, sistem pomoči in tako naprej po celem svetu razvile zelo široko mrežo. To ukinja. Po drugi strani imamo drugo garantko te ureditve. Naslednica Sovjetske zveze, Ruska federacija, je v bistvu napadla sosednjo državo in si odrezala kos ozemlja. Čeprav v tem mednarodnem redu je veljalo zlato pravilo, da se meja ne spreminja na silo. Ustanoviteljica, garantka te pogodbe je to prekršila. To je nekaj, neko naznanilo nečesa drugačnega. Kaj se lahko naučimo iz zgodovine? Kam to pelje potem?

Gost: Torej, če pogledamo ... Zopet se vrnemo v leto 1945, ko se je ta red vzpostavljal. Takrat ga kdo vzpostavi? Zmagovite sile, ki v nekaj letih nato sprejmejo v svoje članstvo tudi poraženke. Seveda gre za Organizacijo združenih narodov, ki jo je takrat, torej junija 1945 na ustanovni skupščini v San Franciscu, dokument podpisalo 50 takratnih držav. Računajmo, takrat še večina Azije, večina Afrike, Oceanije so še kolonije. To število se nato v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih nekajkrat pomnoži, in ne vem točno na pamet, danes ima OZN nekje, Združeni narodi nekaj manj kot 200 članic, čeprav vemo, da vse države niso včlanjene. Torej, prvič, slika sveta se je bistveno spremenila. Število članov članic Združenih narodov se je bistveno spremenilo. Varnostni svet, način odločanja v Združenih narodih, imamo pa še vedno tisti iz leta 1945, kar je že svojevrsten anahronizem. Kdaj so se pravzaprav nekatere stvari lahko premaknile na globalni ravni? Ko je bil dosežen prek Generalne skupščine kakšen močan pritisk, In priznajmo, pri tem je bila zelo uspešna tudi Jugoslavija. V času neuvrščenih je prek Generalne skupščine za nekatere socialne in varnostne zadeve takoj pridobila osemdeset ali več glasov v skupščini, kar pomeni, da nek pritisk je bil. Po padcu berlinskega zidu je seveda padel tudi stari svet. Pomeni, da tretji svet kar naenkrat ni imel samo toliko skupne moči v teh državah, o katerih govorimo, pa tudi v zahodnoevropskih najbolj demokratičnih se je pa kaj zgodilo? S padcem komunističnih držav. Pravzaprav so tudi sami gledali vladajoči krogi. Ni več potrebe, da vzdržujejo tudi nek socialni red, kakršnega so do takrat držali. Pravzaprav tudi v teh državah zahodnega sveta zdaj ni več tega socialnega korektiva, kot je bil še v strahu pred širjenjem komunizma. Ne da bi komunizem zagovarjal. Ampak tudi takrat so te demokratične države drugače odreagirale na pobude za reševanje teh svetovnih konfliktov ali konfliktov v lastnih državah, ki so jih imele številne.

Voditelj: Čeprav danes, ne vem, koliko spremljate razvoj politike v Združenih državah Amerike, tam predsednik te države glasno in jasno zmerja nasprotnike, bolj levo usmerjene za komuniste in tako naprej. Tako da ta neki strah kljub temu obstaja. Čeprav tega komunizma, ne vem, je? Vi ste zaznali kje, da bi se kje kot ideja ponovno pojavljala?

Gost: V borbi s komunizmom se najbolj strinjam s tistimi, ki uporabljajo: to je brcanje mrtvega konja. Na ta način ga ni več. Borba za delavske pravice, ki jo vodijo socialistične ali socialdemokratske stranke, ponekod tudi nekatere liberalne. Seveda s to klasično komunistično idejo nima nič kaj. Oziroma ideje za socialne pravice ja, ne pa z načinom prevzema oblasti, kot so ga komunistične stranke v vzhodni Evropi peljale in ki so jih peljale v neke blage oblike ali nekatere bolj grobe, nekatere blage oblike totalitarnosti, ki se je kasneje prelevila v neko avtoritarno obliko. Pravzaprav ne poznam levih strank, evropskih ali srednjeevropskih ali tudi vzhodnoevropskih, ki bi zagovarjale enopartijske sisteme. Torej, tega pravzaprav ni. Poleg tega pa, če smo že omenili predsednika ZDA, kako vlada? Z odloki. Kakšno asociacijo dobim na to? Da je jugoslovanski komunistični režim po letu 1945 prav tako vladal z odloki nekje do leta 1953, do ustavnih sprememb, ko je takrat šele prvič predsednik vlade poročal pred skupščino in podal poročilo vlade skupščini. In od takrat je večina stvari prešla na parlament,  ki je bil sicer enostrankarski, ampak seveda to vladanje z odloki nikakor ni značilnost demokratično urejenih držav.

Voditelj: Ja, bi se dalo strinjati. Namreč, v Sloveniji smo devetega maja oziroma osmega maja slavili dan zmage in dan osvoboditve Ljubljane, prestolnice. Po vstopu v Evropsko unijo je to dan Evrope. Je to, kako je to različno dojemanje takratnega dogajanja, dogajanja v Sloveniji še vedno po vašem prisotno? Ta različnost, različni pogledi. 

Gost: Jaz niti ne vidim različnosti. V tem vidim samo dopolnjevanje celo. Torej, kot sem že uvodoma omenil, eno je zmaga nad tistim, kar nam škoduje. Evropa pa v smislu povezovanja. Če gledamo na Evropo trenutno na prej omenjene težave, ki jih imamo z Združenimi državami Amerike in Rusijo, torej Evropa, je moje mnenje se lahko izvleče iz tega samo z močnejšim svojim povezovanjem. Da imamo torej več enotnosti znotraj Evrope, kar pomeni, da bo treba tudi še nekatere stvari prenesti na evropsko raven odločanja. Ker samo na ta način bomo lažje reševali in gospodarske in varnostne probleme Evrope. Če računamo naš prvi projekt. Mislim, da tudi če bi zdaj šli delati anketo, koliko ljudi se kar naenkrat spomni, ko gre kaj plačat, da plačujejo v evrih, ne več v tolarjih. Mislim, da večina ljudi že zdaj več ne joka, pa se spominja, ko plača, da je pa mogoče narobe, če plačujemo v evrih.

Voditelj: Čeprav to, kar vi omenjate, pomeni prenos dela suverenosti na neko novo, višjo raven.

Gost: Odvisno, kako zdaj to suverenost, suverenost imamo še vedno. Suverenost je vedno v tem, da lahko vsak trenutek izstopiš oziroma ker se s tem ne strinjaš in nočeš več sodelovati. Da pa igraš dvojne karte kot neka naša severovzhodna soseda, ko bi bil notri, pa ne bi bil. Oziroma tako, kot pravijo, politiki vedno držijo kljuko v roki, tako da niti ne veš, ali prihajajo ali odhajajo. To je stvar izgube suverenosti, da o tem ne moreš odločati. Konec koncev, v vseh državah, v katerih smo Slovenci bili, so bile večnacionalne in pri vseh je bila stopnja avtonomnosti izrazito omejena. Kar ne pomeni, da sem omejevanje samostojnosti, ampak da se točno ve, o čem se sploh ne pogovarjamo, o čem pa bomo sprejemali skupno evropsko rešitev. Priznajmo, dvomilijonski narod je za reševanje varnostnih problemov sredi globalno skreganega sveta, kjer se grozi s toliko orožja, se sam ne more braniti.

Voditelj: Slovenski narod ima veliko izkušenj s temi večnacionalnimi imperiji, kraljestvi, državami, federacijami. Imamo tu po vašem več pozitivnih, mogoče več negativnih izkušenj? Kaj te naše izkušnje slovenskega naroda lahko pomenijo za naprej? O tem, kar ste govorili do zdaj, o graditvi močnejše, bolj povezane Evrope, so lahko manjši narodi, kot je Slovenija, kot je slovenski narod mogoče bolj zagret za to povezovanje. Ker vidi več priložnosti, so se manjši narodi bolje znašli v teh skupnostih večjih. Ali obratno? Je to mogoče problem?

Gost: Če bomo šli na anekdotično, šaljivo plat, bom rekel tisto, kar sem enkrat rekel nemškim zgodovinarjem, pa so takoj dali na začetek reportaže. Sem rekel, tako je bilo še pred sprejemom Slovenije v Evropsko unijo, sem rekel: Slovenci smo bili vedno v večnacionalnih državah, ki so doživele svojo usodo. Nismo bili prvi, ki smo razbili Avstro-Ogrsko, smo bili pa med tistimi, ki smo jo s svojim zapuščanjem pomagali uničiti. V Jugoslaviji smo bili prvi, ki smo šli v eno smer, Sem rekel, kaj se bo zgodilo z vašim EU-jem, če boste dejansko sprejeli Slovence noter. Ampak to je pač anekdotična plat, druga plat je pa, iz tega vemo, pravzaprav mislim, da smo se ravno Slovenci naučili, čemu se ne smemo odreči, če hočemo preživeti kot narod. Denimo, v Avstriji, ki je bila v prvi Jugoslaviji zmerjana kot ječa narodov, smo o tem govorili, smo Slovenci vendarle razvili svojo kulturno identiteto. Smo prišli do tiste stopnje, ko bi lahko stopili višje. Ker nam avstrijska oblast tega ni dala, smo se odločili, da se tega ne gremo več. Smo pravzaprav že samo v prvih letih Jugoslavije. Takoj dobimo univerzo, ki nam prej ni bila omogočena, ampak če jo dobiš v enem letu, to pomeni, da so bili potenciali že izgrajeni. V enem letu sloveniziramo ves šolski sistem in v nekaj letih pravzaprav ustanovimo kot državne ustanove vse centralne kulturne ustanove, ki smo jih prej bazirali kot kulturna društva. Torej smo se tega naučili, kako je treba to razvijati in se kljub temu, da živiš v večnarodni skupnosti, temu ne odrečeš. In ko me večkrat vprašajo, kako bi predstavil to specifiko, tudi Slovenijo v Jugoslaviji, ali pa našo pripravljenost na osamosvojitev. Vedno pravim, da smo bili verjetno bistveno bolj in politično in narodno pripravljeni na to. Po navadi rečem, naj mi nekdo pokaže nek dvomilijonski narod, ki je nacionalno osamosvojitev dočakal z dvema popolnima univerzama. Nacionalno akademijo znanosti in umetnosti, z nekaj izdajami Nacionalnega atlasa, s približno pol izdaje nacionalne enciklopedije in z ne vem koliko izdajami nacionalnega književnega jezika. Naj mi še nekdo najde približno takšen dvomilijonski narod. In v tem smislu mislim, da so slovenska in kulturna podstat, In če govorimo tudi o politični, ko razpada komunistični sistem, nastajajo te male države. Torej več slovanskih držav na pogorišču Jugoslavije in Češkoslovaške in Sovjetske zveze leta 1989. Ko pade berlinski zid, edino pred padcem berlinskega zidu, ki že načrtuje svoje življenje v drugi državi, so Slovenci, ki imajo takrat že izdano gradivo za slovensko ustavo in ki imajo pred tem z novo revijo 57 že napisan nacionalni program. Druge države, drugi narodi do takrat delajo tako imenovano antipolitiko, torej nasprotovanje obstoječemu komunističnemu režimu. Slovenci imamo takrat že v obtoku, ne v ilegalnem tisku, ampak v legalnim tisku, že priprave na naslednjo stopničko, kjer je osamosvajanje in demokratizacija z roko v roki.

Voditelj: Tudi to je dan zmage.

Gost: To je seveda posledica tega, da smo iz tega takoj šli.

Voditelj: Se pa seveda v Sloveniji postavlja vprašanje tudi ob taki obletnici, ki zaznamuje konec druge svetovne vojne. Ali smo spravljeni? Namreč, zgodovina druge svetovne vojne v Sloveniji ima tudi globoke korenine, globoke zamere. Kaj menite o tem? Smo spravljeni?

Gost: Bomo o tem govorili? Ali govorimo o ljudeh ali govorimo o politikih? Če tako rečem, se grobo sliši, kot da politiki niso ljudje. Ljudje so že zdavnaj dali, ne da bi dali ad acta to točko, ampak je ne bodo pogrevali v pogovoru s sosedom ali pa mogoče z družinskimi člani na družinskih obletnicah. Če se skregajo, pa ne vem. To je njihov problem. Mislim, da je za nekatere to predvsem priročno politično sredstvo vzbujanja in nagovarjanja svoje politične volilne baze. Sam se pa ob tem dejansko vedno spomnim na to, da ko sem peljal svojega očeta prvič in zadnjič v življenju na grob njegovega očeta, torej na sever Norveške,v ta nemška suženjska taborišča, kjer je tudi končal leta 1944 svojo življenjsko pot, tam pač eno ob drugem stojijo tri pokopališča, jugoslovansko, sovjetsko in nemško. Torej vsa tri so oskrbovana, vsa lepa, oziroma sovjetsko še najmanj, ker so jih po drugi svetovni vojni deloma prekopali, jugoslovansko lepo vzdrževano in nemško lepo vzdrževano, torej vzdrževana pokopališča tistih enih in drugih, enih, ki so mučili, in drugih, ki so bili mučeni, in seveda zraven, pa še ker je bilo to taborišče, kjer so po koncu zbrali vse te žrtve, denimo, da so tam, kjer so suženjsko delo opravljali, ko so gradili cesto in železnico, so jih pokopavali med vojno sproti na mestu, kjer so bili, kjer so končali življenje, po vojni pa jih dali v skupna pokopališča. Tiste, ki so vedeli, so z imeni napisani, moj dedek smo ga našli, Ponekod so skupinski grobovi, torej tam, tudi če se kdo sreča, se ne prepira več o teh vprašanjih. 

Voditelj: Namreč, ker v Sloveniji še vedno pokopavamo te mrtve.

Gost: In je tudi prav, da jih, torej tisto, kar najdemo, je treba pač na tak način tudi urediti. Skupinska grobnica ali pa če hočejo svojci prevzeti, jih lahko sami pokopljejo. Drugače po mojem mnenju je to še vedno najboljše na licu mesta, tako kot sem rekel na tem norveškem primeru, urediti spominske grobnice, spominska pokopališča, kjer enostavno se zaznamuje, kje so ti padli. S tem, da seveda pozabljamo vedno v zadnjih letih, ko vedno pride, kadar je prišla ta tematika večinoma vedno pride na tiste pobite po letu 45. Pozabili smo pa tudi seveda, da veliko še nismo niti partizanskih grobov našli in da smo se šele pred nekaj leti začeli ukvarjati, koliko Slovencev je denimo padlo v nemški uniformi na vzhodni fronti. To je to. Ne moremo govoriti samo o enih grobovih, ampak o drugih. Še vedno pa mislim, da je po mojem mnenju najbolj smiselno ta pokopališča oziroma spominske obeležja delati tam na licu mesta, kjer so končali svoje življenje. Ker prekop ne vem koliko, iskanje 10 000 slovenskih vojakov po Rusiji in Ukrajini, Belorusiji, pa prekopavanje, bi bilo malce dolgoročno in problematično. 

Voditelj: Namreč sledimo tej zgodbi, ko iz kočevskega območja, kjer so bila morišča, se še išče lokacijo in se v bistvu v Sloveniji znamo skregati ob vsaki zadevi. Se pač išče lokacijo in se prepirajo, kje se bo pokopalo. Kolikor jaz vas razumem, ni najbolj pomembno, kje. To je bolj politično vprašanje, ampak tam, kjer se je to zgodilo, je najbolj primerno. 

Gost: Zdaj ne vem, kakšne ima ta komisija načrte, sem pa tja, denimo tiste, ki govorijo, da so jih peljali iz Teharij, če je bil tam mišljen spominski park. Ali je bil mišljen tudi pokop, to ne vem. Vsekakor se mi zdi na eni od teh dveh točk potem narediti skupna grobišča in skupno grobnico, ker razvoz na 100 mest, ne vem, po mojem občutku ni najboljši. Ampak to je stvar osebne opredelitve.

Voditelj: Dan zmage, dan Evrope. Kako naj zdaj, ta dan, to obletnico za prihodnost računamo, za naslednje obdobje? Kako naj to nove generacije... Generacija mojih otrok, ki zdaj zaključuje, eni zaključujejo osnovno šolanje, srednjo šolo, osnovno šolo, živijo v nekem novem okolju, nekih novih dimenzijah. Jih bo ta preteklost dohitela, pa jih bo potem uokvirila, pa utirila v neko ne vem kakšno prihodnost dan zmage. Ali se odpira neka nova dimenzija?  Kaj nas nauči zgodovina? Namreč, tukaj so tudi tehnološke spremembe. Tehnologija je zelo vplivala na zgodovino, na potek dogodkov. Tukaj je umetna inteligenca. Razmerja moči na globalni ravni se spreminjajo, Kitajska se dviguje, Amerika išče svojo vlogo. Skratka, kakšen bo ta dan zmage? Ne vem, če se malo postaviva v vlogo, s kristalno kroglo pogledava? Kaj bi lahko bilo čez 10 let, 20 let?

Gost: Ja, vedno pridemo na to točko. Zgodovinarji se ukvarjamo s preteklostjo in ne s prihodnostjo.

Voditelj: Ampak pravimo, zgodovina nas uči nekaj.

Gost: Ampak to bi dejansko rekel, čim bolj posiljujemo ljudi z nekimi pogledi nazaj, se vrnemo do teh točk, ki ste jih že omenili, do kregarij o pravih, do kregarij o pokopih in tako naprej. Če pa bomo gledali s poskusom združevanja prijetnega s koristnim, pa je dan zmage seveda lahko v Ljubljani tudi to, da gredo ljudje na pohod okoli Ljubljane, da spoznavajo, pa ne samo okoli Ljubljane, ni bilo edino slovensko mesto, ki je bilo popolnoma obžičeno. Bilo pa je edino evropsko glavno mesto trenutno, ki je bilo med drugo svetovno vojno v popolnosti obdano z žico, da je ob tej poti hkrati torej prijetno s koristnim in rekreacijo in z druženjem spoznavajo sledove preteklosti. In pravzaprav ob tem lahko spoznavajo tudi svet danes, kar pomeni, meje nas ne smejo, žice, ovire, nas ne smejo ločevati ali pa, če bom zdajle trenutno spet v Ljubljani. Torej tramvaj. Mislim, da je bila linija trojka, tam, kjer nas je avtobus trojka še naprej pelje torej proti šišenski smeri, je moral imeti med vojno leta 42 skrajšano pot. Zakaj? Ker je prekoračil mejo. Nekaj časa so tramvaji prekoračevali novo nemško-italijansko mejo, potem so raje skrajšali pot tramvaja. Te mlade generacije spoznavajo tudi ob tem obhodu okupirane žice Ljubljane, da teh meja več ne sme biti ne okoli mesta ne okoli države. Enostavno tisto, kar sem si sam lahko oziroma so naše generacije v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih samo sanjale, da se boš usedel v avto ali pa se boš usedel na javni prevoz in se po Evropi peljal kamorkoli. Da lahko pridemo do tam. In priznam, če iz svoje izkušnje rečem, včasih že pozabim, ko grem na kakšno pot ali pa službeno pot, da vse države, tudi v Evropski uniji, še nimajo evra. Pa se že pri tem zmotim. Želim jim, tako kot sem sam nekoč premišljeval, da ko nekam grem, da se ne bom povsod srečeval z mejo, s pregledi in s kontrolo. In v tem mislim, da moramo gledati dan zmage.

Voditelj: Ja, namreč obletnice so zato, da nas opominjajo na nekaj in da ne pozabimo. Ob zgodovini, zlasti neprijetnih dogodkih, je nekakšno splošno prepričanje: Pustimo to, to je zgodovina. Pozabimo, gremo naprej. Poglejmo naprej. Ampak ravno zato imamo obletnico, dan zmage, dan Evrope, dan republike. Da nekako se kot nacija za trenutek zazremo v ta dogodek in mogoče te to pripelje k nečemu boljšemu v prihodnje. 

Gost: Absolutno. Zgodovina je bila polna svetlih in polna temnih trenutkov in tudi današnji čas je poln svetlih in poln temnih, temnih trenutkov. Vsako srečanje s preteklostjo, pravzaprav ni namen zgodovine to, da bo to eden tistih osovraženih šolskih predmetov, kjer se bodo zahtevale letnice imena in številke, ampak da bo to neko seznanjanje tudi s sedanjostjo in prihodnostjo, da vemo, da so v določenih težavah ali travmah, s katerimi se srečujemo ljudje že bili, v takem času, že živeli in se vprašamo, kaj so oni naredili, da so lahko živeli naprej in da so naredili korak naprej.

Voditelj: V redu. Na tej točki, gospod doktor Aleš Gabrič, bi potegnil črto. Najlepša hvala za pogovor na to zelo zanimivo temo. Ob vas bi se poslovil Zoran Potič. Se vidimo enkrat prihodnjič. Hvala.

Gost: Hvala tudi vam in hvala za povabilo.

[ENGLISH VERSION]

GOVSI, the Government's Podcast. 

Host Zoran Potič: Hello and welcome to the latest GOVSI Podcast, prepared for you by the Communication Office. I'm today's host, Zoran Potič. This year marks many important anniversaries. One of them is certainly Europe Day, which will take place on May 9. Some countries also celebrate it as Victory Day. This shows that we Europeans view anniversaries differently. Europe Day marks the end of World War II. As we know, the Nazi regime in Germany surrendered on that day. They laid down their arms and the war ended on European soil, even though it continued for a few months on the other side of the world. To address the role and our understanding of Europe Day today, after 80 years, there's no better interlocutor than Dr. Aleš Gabrič. A quick word of introduction: he's a historian of recent cultural and political history of Slovenia. He works at the Institute of Contemporary History in Ljubljana, has co-authored history textbooks, and has served as the Chair of the Matriculation Exam Committee for History. He has authored many works of history and scholarly articles, particularly covering 20th century Slovenian history. He is also the President of the Slovenian Society. Hello, Mr. Gabrič. 

Guest Aleš Gabrič: Hello. 

Host: Before I give you the floor, let me introduce our conversation. From today's perspective and given the passage of time, the timeline of events seems fairy logical. One event follows another, with a bit of interpretation along the way, but things are logical. On the other hand, the start of the 20th century was tumultuous and soon turned bloody. Centuries-old empires collapsed, new paradigms appeared, totalitarian ideas emerged, as did new countries, such as the one in which Slovenia later formed. The already horrific World War I was just an introduction to the even more horrific World War II. After the darkness that enveloped the whole world in the wake of that war, the sun came up on May 9, figuratively speaking. People could breathe again, and it seemed that a new, different world was emerging. This really did take place with many institutions, new relations between countries and superpowers, and so on. We got the UN and later the EU or rather its predecessors. Multilateral international organizations came to life, humanity began to work together. The DNA of all this activity, all this cooperation, was based on the idea of "Never again", not repeating the slaughter of World War II. Is this still the key message of the 80th anniversary or are we facing new challenges? 

Guest: We always have new challenges. When we look at May 9, 1945, we can analyze what it brought us. It was the beginning of the longest period without war in Europe still remembered by recent generations. Until the 1990s and the new Balkan wars, Europe hadn't experienced any wars. When we celebrate Victory Day, that's what we're talking about. When we mark Europe Day, we go a few years into the future to a time when European integration processes began. That happened in the 1950s with the Rome Agreements and even earlier with economic integration. We had just experienced two world wars, and in the previous centuries, we had conflicts that, given the technology of the time, could have been called the worst wars in the world, not to mention the Thirty-Year War, so it's all about the realization that Europe wants to live on, but it's losing it's position in the world. Just compare the two world wars. Who decided the fate of the world after World War I? We still had two European superpowers, the UK and France. Who decided the fate of the world after World War II? The United States and the Soviet Union, which many didn't even see as a part of Europe. The center of decision-making had shifted elsewhere. If Europe want to regain its former status, it needs to hear the message that it got itself to this point on its own, with its wars, and can only transcend this though negotiations in peace. About peace and in peace. The negotiations must be about integration. If we wish to act with those now deciding the fate of the world, we need to ensure a level playing field, so we must work together. That postwar Europe is based on defeating Nazism and fascism. Both the left-wing and the right-wing parties that took power in various coalitions throughout democratic Western Europe based themselves on anti-fascism: Christian democratic, liberal, socialist, and communist. There was another turning point in 1945 that didn't take place in Europe but was connected with the end of World War II. It's a darker development: the beginning of the nuclear age. But there's a bright spot even here, namely in the fact that the use of nuclear weapons in war didn't repeat itself, and we got civilian use of nuclear energy. The message is that if Europe wants to return to where it already was once, it can only attain that though peace and integration, and with the defeat of Nazism and fascism as its foundation. 

Host: You've presented many points, so let's tackle them systematically. The foundations of Europe, even 80 years later, are still based on the fight against Nazism and fascism. 

Guest: Absolutely. The anti-fascist coalition included democratic parties of the democratic Western European countries, the authoritarian countries of Central Europe, and Communist Soviet Union. The anti-fascist orientation was their common foundation. 

Host: How should we deal with communism, a part of which we were in Slovenia? These days, we see posters in Ljubljana and throughout Slovenia with someone expressing gratitude for the struggle against three forms of totalitarianism, namely Nazism, fascism, and communism. Is that the correct approach? 

Guest: I don't think it is, at least when talking about World War II. We always need to define the term we're discussing. When we have terms such as fascism, neo-fascism, communism, neo-communism, or totalitarianism, the terminology used in the media or among ordinary people is somewhat different from the terminology used in the foundational literature of the field. If we look at Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism, she gives us strict instructions on what we can classify under the term "totalitarianism." She is sceptical about the inclusion of fascism, which he considers a partially developed form of totalitarianism. If we examine more recent works of history, there is a comparison of Nazism and Stalinism as the most totalitarian regimes. However, those two were on opposite sides of World War II, and Stalinism was on the side of the victors. Also, if we're doing this comparison and adding communism, we should state which countries and periods could be considered totalitarian. I mentioned that Stalinism is defined as such, but even when we consider post-war Slovenia and Yugoslavia, the elements used to define totalitarianism went away in the early 1950s. I had a good laugh when I read, in an attempted historical article, about Slovenia's experience with totalitarianism and the final date was given as 1991, which would have put the beginning of Peterle's government in that period. We always have a dilemma... I don’t have a dilemma. Either we're going to use scholarly terminology, or we'll resort to barroom talk. 

Host: After 80 years, as I've mentioned, there are dark clouds on the horizon. The generations who lived through World War II and built this order are largely gone. We're just left with memories, statues, and anniversaries. When we look at politics across Europe, we see the rise of new forces that seek inspiration in fascism. In Germany, we saw the emergence of a new party that did well in the election and that has an open attitude to Nazism. Democratic forces in Germany don't want to work with them. We-re seeing the rise neo-fascism and neo-Nazism. How do you perceive this from a historical perspective? 

Guest: If we bring up the end of Europe built in 1945 and its bipolar nature, that happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The borders defined after World War II differ from those defined after World War I in that the ones post-WWI were a part of creating new countries and setting new borders, but after WWII, borders weren't supposed to be changed with the exception of Poland, which was moved 150-200 kilometers toward the west. The rest were supposed to stay as they were, so instead of changes, countries were supposed to carry out "humane" population transfers to get more ethnically homogeneous countries. The other change of borders, in addition to the Polish one, was the one forced by the Slovenian and Yugoslav Partisans with the new Yugoslav-Italian border. We were a part of the winning coalition. In the days before May 9, German military units across Europe surrendered to the major victorious allies, the Soviet Union or the UK, the US, and the French. Among them was one Slovenian Partisan unit. This second change of borders was forced. When do these borders start to change? After the fall of the Berlin Wall. But there's a key difference between that and situations after the two world wars, when the major powers got to decide. The dissolution of the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia were agreed upon by the affected countries. The case of Yugoslavia was a bit different and very bloody in Bosnia-Herzegovina and parts of Croatia, but not as bloody as the world wars. If we're seeing attempts to revive some ideas that are based on reestablishing the might of the Soviet Union or the victor on the other side of the Atlantic wanting to annex a country and an island or something like that, that's a different matter altogether. It's not consensual, but we sense that might makes right. I feel that if the peace talks that are taking place in Ukraine, and they need to take place, are conducted without the representatives of the country in question and carried out by two countries that feel that they're the strongest and should get to decide, I'm reminded of the Munich Agreement, in which the victors of WWI, the UK and France, ceded Czechoslovakia, without its presence, to the aggressors of WWII, Fascist Italy and, most of all, Nazi Germany. 

Host: We're certainly in an absurd situation. The post-1945 world order has found itself in serious trouble. The US, which was the guarantor of this order and developed the financial system and the system of foreign aid, which spanned the world, is now shutting this down. Then we have the other guarantor of this order. Russia, the successor of the Soviet Union, essentially attacked a neighboring country and annexed a chunk of territory even though the existing order prohibited the use of force to change borders. The founder and guarantor of the world order violated that rule. That must be and omen of something new. What can we learn from history? Where does that lead? 

Guest: We can return to 1945, when that order was established by the victorious powers. Within a few years, they invite the defeated nations to join them. We're talking about the UN, which was founded in June 1945 in San Francisco by 50 signatory countries. At the time, most of Africa, Asia, and Oceania still consisted of colonies. In the 1960s and '70s, the number increased several-fold, and these days the UN has just under than 200 members, and not all countries are members. The world situation has changed substantially. The number of UN members has also changed substantially. However, the decision-making process in the Security Council is still the way it was in 1945, which makes it an anachronism. When was it possible for things to change on the global level? When the General Assembly was able to exert pressure. We need to admit that Yugoslavia was very successful in that. During the Non-Aligned era, it was able to get 80 or more votes in the General Assembly to support some social or security measures. This means that a certain pressure was there. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the old world collapsed. The Third World no longer had much joint power. So what happened in those countries and even in the most democratic Western European ones? When the communist countries fell, the ruling circles saw that there was no longer a need to maintain the social order that they have kept up to that point. Even in the countries of the western world there was no longer the kind of social corrective that existed with the fear of the spread of communism. Not to defend communism, but those democratic countries did respond differently to initiatives to solve global conflicts or internal conflicts, which many countries had. 

Host: I don't know how closely you follow political developments in the United States. The President loudly and clearly insults his opponents, the more left leaning ones, as communists, et cetera. So, there is still a fear, although, did you perhaps detect this sort of communism reemerging anywhere as an idea? 

Guest: Regarding the fight of communism I subscribe to the notion that it's like beating a dead horse. It no longer exists in this form. The fight for workers' rights at the head of socialist, social-democratic and some liberal parties has nothing to do with the classic communist idea. It does with the idea for social rights, but not with the way of assuming power that communist parties in Eastern Europe introduced in various crude and mild forms of totalitarianism, which later morphed into authoritarianism. I do not know of any European, Central or Eastern European left parties advocating single-party systems. So, that doesn't exist. And since we mentioned the president of the US, he rules through decrees. That reminds me of the Yugoslav communist regime after 1945, which also ruled through decrees until the constitutional changes in 1953, when the prime minister presented the governmental report to the Federal Assembly for the very first time and since, most things went to the Parliament, which was single-party. But ruling through decrees is in no way a characteristic of democratic countries. 

Host: Yes, agreed. In Slovenia, we celebrated the 9th or rather the 8th of May as the day that Ljubljana, our capital, was liberated. Since acceding to the EU, it has become Europe Day. Do you believe that there are still different interpretations and different views on the events that happened in Slovenia at the time? 

Guest: I do not really see them as being different, but complementing, even. As I said, one is victory over the thing that is harming us, whereas Europe unites. Looking at the problems we have got with the US and with Russia, I am of the opinion that Europe can only get away from them by uniting even more and having more unity within Europe. Meaning that some more things will have to be elevated to the European level of decision-making, as that is the only way that we will be able to solve Europe's economic and security issues. For instance, if we were to now conduct a survey among people who no longer pay in tolars but in euros, I think most people would no longer think that it is so bad that we are now using euros instead of tolars.

Host: Yes, although, what you mentioned means transfering part of our sovereignty to a higher level. 

Guest: Well, we still have sovereignty, which means that you can withdraw at any moment when you no longer agree and wish to participate. But to play a double game, like a certain northeastern neighbour of ours, being in, but not being in, one hand on the doorknob so you don't know whether they're coming or going, that is a loss of sovereignty. All of the countries Slovenia has been a part of were multi-national and the level of autonomy was very limited in each one. I'm not for limiting independence, but for knowing exactly what we are not talking about and what we will be adopting a common European solution for. Let us admit that a nation with a population of 2 million in a world of global conflicts and threats with so much weaponry, cannot defend itself.

Host: Slovenia has a lot of experience with multi-national empires, kingdoms, countries, federations ... Do you think we have more positive or negative experience? How could our experience help with what you talked about, building a stronger, more united Europe? Can smaller nations, such as Slovenia, be more eager for this unification, as they see more opportunities? Did smaller nations manage better in such large communities, or worse? Is it perhaps a problem? 

Guest: I have a funny anecdote for this. As I once told German historians, before Slovenia acceded to the European Union, we Slovenians have always been part of multi-national countries that have met their end. We were not the first to break Austria-Hungary, but we were among those that helped destroy it by leaving it. We were the first to leave Yugoslavia and I asked what will happen to the EU if they let Slovenians in. That is just an anecdote, but we Slovenians did learn what we mustn't give up if we want to survive as a nation. For instance, under Austria, which we called "the jail of the nation" in Yugoslavia, we Slovenians nevertheless developed our cultural identity and reached a level where we could have developed further. As Austria didn't allow us to, we decided we're done with that. Within the first years of Yugoslavia, we immediately got a university, which we were not allowed before. But getting it in one year means the potential was already there. We slovenised the entire education system in one year, and in a few years, we established national cultural institutions, which were previously cultural associations. So, we learned how this needs to be developed and to not give it up despite living in a multi-national community. I am often asked how I would present the situation of Slovenia in Yugoslavia and how ready we were to gain independence. I always say that we were politically and nationally significantly more ready for it. I usually ask for someone to show me a nation of two million people that has gained independence having two complete universities, a national academy of sciences and arts, a few editions of the national atlas, about half an edition of the national encyclopaedia and many editions of the national literary language. Find me a similar nation of two million people. In this regard, I think we have already had both a cultural and a political base. When the communist regime dissolved, several Slavic countries rose from the ashes of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. The only ones already planning their life in another country before the Wall even fell, were Slovenians, who already had the material ready for the constitution and a national programme published in the Nova Revija 57 magazine. Other nations have thus far been doing anti-politics, so, opposing the existing communist regime. At that point, Slovenians have already begun using not illegal, but legal print, to prepare for the next step, where gaining independence and democratisation go hand in hand. 

Host: That is why we have Victory in Europe Day. 

Guest: Exactly. 

Host: In Slovenia, the question is, even on anniversaries like the one marking the end of World War II, whether we are reconciled. Namely, the history or World War II in Slovenia comes with deep roots and deep grudges. Do you think that we are reconciled? 

Guest: We are talking about either people or politicians, although that sounds as though politicians aren't people. The people have long since ... They haven't really put it behind them, but they won't rehash it in conversation with their neighbour. Maybe with relatives during family gatherings. And if they fall out, that's their problem. I think that for some it is a convenient political means of inciting and addressing their voter base. But personally, I always remember driving my father to his father's grave in the north of Norway, the German concentration camp where he passed away in 1944. There are three graveyards there situated next to each other, a Yugoslav, a Soviet and a German graveyard. All three are kept and maintained. The Soviet one least of all as it was partly dug over after World War II. The Yugoslav and the German graveyards are well kept, so, the graveyards of both the tormentors and the tormented. There was forced labour in that concentration camp and people were forced to build roads and railroads. During the war, the victims were buried where they passed away, and after the war they were reburied in collective graveyards. Some who were known had their names written down as well, that is how we found my grandfather, while some were buried in mass graves. When people meet there, they no longer argue on such issues. 

Host: We are still burying those people in Slovenia. 

Guest: Rightly so. When we find such things, we have to put them in order with collective tombs. Some relatives may bury them themselves, if they wish to. But I still think it's best to do it on-site, like in Norway, and build memorial tombs or memorial graveyards, denoting where those people have fallen. There is another thing we have been forgetting in recent years. We usually talk about the people killed after 1945, but we forget that we still haven't found many of the partisans' graves and only in recent years we started finding out how many Slovenians fell wearing German uniforms on the Eastern Front. We cannot just talk about some graves and not others. I believe it makes the most sense to build commemorative graveyards on-site, where they passed away. Digging around and looking for 10,000 Slovenian soldiers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus would probably be a bit troublesome and take a long time. 

Host: We are still looking for the location of the killing fields in the Kočevje area. In Slovenia, we can argue over anything. Now people are arguing where the burial location should be. As I understood you, it doesn't really matter where, it's more of a political question, but on-site seems most appropriate. 

Guest: I do not know what the commission is planning. Regarding the bodies taken from Teharje, there was a memorial park planned there, but I do not know whether burial was also planned there. I think a memorial grave site should definitely be built on one of the two sites, because I think scattering them in a hundred places isn't the best, but that is a matter of personal opinion. 

Host: Victory in Europe Day. Europe Day. What will this anniversary mean in the future or in the coming period? What will it mean to the new generation, the generation of my children, who are now completing high school and primary school? They live in a new environment, in new dimensions. Will the past catch up to them and spell out the same meaning of Victory Day for them? Or is there a new dimension opening up? What does history teach us? For we also have technological changes, technology has had a profound impact on history and events. We have AI, the global balance of power is shifting, China is on the rise, America is finding its role ... What will Victory in Europe Day be like? What could happen in 10 or 20 years' time, if we were to look inside a crystal ball? 

Guest: We, historians only deal with the past, not the future. 

Host: Although we learn precisely from history. 

Guest: The more we force-feed people with retrospectives, the more we keep coming back to arguments on reconciliation, arguments on burials, et cetera. But from a perspective of combining enjoyable and beneficial aspects, Victory in Europe Day could also mean people going on the Walk around Ljubljana. Although Ljubljana was not the only Slovenian city that was completely surrounded with barbed wire, but I think it was the only European capital that was completely surrounded with barbed wire. So through recreation and socialising on the walk, they can get to know traces of the past, as well as the world as it is today, meaning that we should not be separated by borders and wire. Going back to Ljubljana, the tramway, which ran along the bus line number 3 today, which goes toward Šiška and onward, had to have its route shortened during the war in 1942. because it crossed the border. The tramway crossed the new German-Italian border for a while, but then they shortened its route. Walking along the wire that ran around occupied Ljubljana, the younger generations learn that such borders shouldn't exist either around the city or around the country. My generation in the 70s and 80s could only dream about getting in your car or taking public transport and going anywhere you want in Europe. And I admit, sometimes when I travel, I forget that some countries, including some in the EU, don't have the euro yet, so I already make mistakes there. So I wish for them what I used to think about, being able to go somewhere and not encountering borders, checks and control everywhere. That is what Victory Day should be about. 

Host: Anniversaries are meant to remind us of something, so we wouldn't forget. With history, especially unpleasant events, the prevalent belief is: It's history, let's leave it in the past and look forward. But that is exactly why we have the anniversaries, Victory in Europe Day, Europe Day, Republic Day ... So that we may look back at those events for a moment, which may lead to something better in the future. 

Guest: Absolutely. History is full of both bright and dark moments. The current times are also full of bright and dark moments. History's purpose is not to have such encounters with the past become a hated school subject where all those dates, names and numbers are required, but to become acquainted with the present and the future, so that we may realise that people have already experienced and lived through the troubles and traumas we are experiencing and to ask ourselves what they did to be able to survive and take a step forward. 

Host: All right, Dr. Aleš Gabrič, let us end on that note, thank you for the conversation on this riveting topic. My name is Zoran Potič, see you next time. Thank you. 

Guest: Thank you for inviting me.