Spominska slovesnost v Kočevskem Rogu 2010
V nedeljo, 4. julija 2010, je bila v Kočevskem rogu pri grobišču pod Krenom obletna spominska maša in slovesnost za pobite domobrance in druge žrtve revolucionarnega nasilja.
Slovesnost je vodil ljubljanski nadškof in metropolit msgr. dr. Anton Stres. Nadškof je med nagovorom dejal, da je bilo v obdobju dvajsetih let od prve spravne slovesnosti leta 1990, odkritih in ugotovljenih več sto drugih večjih ali manjših množičnih grobišč, med njimi posebej pretresljivo pred dobrim letom odkrito morišče v rovu sv. Barbare v Hudi jami. Poudaril je, da sprava ni enkratno dejanje, ampak proces, ki mora narediti več korakov, med njimi so neizogibni brezpogojna privrženost resnici, zadoščenost pravici in odpuščanje.
Kočevski rog je bil vrsto let sinonim za povojne množične pomore na Slovenskem, čeprav posamezna grobišča na njegovem območju do demokratičnih sprememb konec 80. let 20. stoletja javnosti niso bila znana.
Povojna jugoslovanska in slovenska oblast sta Kočevski rog izbrali za kraj, kjer so maja in junija 1945 skrivaj pobili več tisoč nasprotnikov partizanskega oziroma komunističnega tabora, med njimi velik del slovenskih domobrancev, ki jih je britanska vojska med 27. in 31. majem 1945 iz zbirnega taborišča v Vetrinju pri Celovcu vrnila v Slovenijo in izročila Jugoslovanski armadi. Iz taborišča v Šentvidu nad Ljubljano so zatem Hrvate, Srbe, Slovence in druge jetnike z vlaki odpeljali do Kočevja, od tam pa s tovornjaki do Kočevskega roga, kjer so jih pomorili in zmetali v brezna. Najbolj znani grobišči sta Jama pod Krenom in Jama pod Macesnovo gorico.
Premier slovenske vlade Borut Pahor je na slovesnosti sodeloval s krajšim nagovorom. Ob grobišču jame Pod Krenom je pred začetkom slovesnosti položil venec.
V kulturnem delu slovesnosti, ki ga je pripravila Nova slovenska zaveza je sodelovalo več govornikov, osrednji govornik pa je bil urednik Zaveze Justin Stanovnik. S svojim bogatim besedilom je sočutno nagovoril udeležence v Kočevskem rogu, ki ob njegovih besedah niso ostali ravnodušni.
Spominske slovesnosti so se s Študijskega centra za narodno spravo udeležile Mirjam Jurjevčič, Marta Keršič in Jelka Piškurić. Številnim udeležencem so ponudile publikacije, ki jih izdaja Študijski center za narodno spravo in jim razdelile kratke predstavitvene liste z vsebinskim povzetkom izdanih publikacij.
Direktorica SCNR na sestanku z direktorico Euroclia
Ljubljana (5.7.2010) – Direktorica SCNR mag. Andreja Valičev se je v Bruslju na delovnem sestanku srečala z izvršno direktorico EVROPSKE ZVEZE UČITELJEV ZGODOVINE EUROCLIO gospo Joke van der Leeuw Roord. Pogovarjali sta se o skupnih mednarodnih izobraževalnih projektih o totalitarizmih 20. stoletja.
Srečanje je potekalo v sproščenem in ustavrjalnem vzdušju.
EUROCLIO, ki ima svoj sedež v Haagu, združuje učitelje zgodovine iz 46 držav. V sodelovanju s Svetom Evrope in Evropsko unijo organizira in vodi mnoge pomembne izobraževalne projekte s področja zgodovine.
Srečanje mag. Valičeve z Joke van der Leeuw Roord v Bruslju.
Direktorica SCNR na predstavitvi knjige Marta Laara “Moč svobode”
V Evropskem parlamentu je potekala predstavitev knjige nekdanjega estonskega premierja Marta Laara. Knjiga z naslovom Moč svobode, Centralna in Vzhodna Evropa po letu 1945 (The power of freedom, Central and Eastern Europe after 1945) analizira prehod iz komunističnega režima v demokracijo v tem delu Evrope. Opiše tudi različne oblike tranzicije iz enega v drug sistem v posameznih državah.
Predstavitev knjige…
Knjiga avtorja, ki je tudi sam igral pomembno vlogo pri padcu komunizma, govori predvsem o zmagi svobode in demokracije nad strahom in zatiranjem.
Poleg avtorja sta knjigo predstavila še evropski poslanec iz vrst Evropske ljudske stranke (EPP) György Schöpflin in predsednik EPP Wilfried Martens. Predstavitve se je udeležilo še mnogo drugih uglednih političnih in znanstvenih osebnosti, med njimi tudi evrospki poslanec dr. Milan Zver in direktorica Centra za Narodno Spravo mag. Andreja Valič.
Na sliki iz leve proti desni: mag. Andreja Valič, dr. Milan Zver in nekdanji estonski premier Mart Laar.
Ob tej priložnosti je Zver podaril Wilfriedu Martensu in Martu Laaru svojo knjigo z naslovom From the edge to the triumph in the European elections.
Direktorica SCNR mag. Andreja Valič se je pogovarjala med drugim z Laarom Martom in evropskimi poslanci: Tokesem – ki je nedavno postal podpredsednik evropskega parlamenta (na fotki), Tunne Kelamom, Schoepflinom (Gyoergy Schoepflin prihaja iz Madžarske, Fidesz, EPP, nekdanji profesor na Jean Monnet U).
Mag. Andreja Valič z oporečniškim kitajskim reporterjem dr. Lixin Yangom.
Udeležba na dogodku je bila zelo velika, prevladovali so predvsem mladi.
Direktorica SCNR na sprejemu ob Dnevu državnosti v Bruslju
Bruselj (17.2010) – Ob nedavnem slovenskem državnem prazniku, Dnevu državnosti, je potekal slavnostni sprejem tudi v Bruslju. Organizirali so ga trije slovenski diplomati: Anita Pipan, slovenska veleposlanica v Belgiji, Igor Senčar, stalni predstavnik Slovenije pri EU in Božo Cerar, stalni predstavnik Slovenije pri Natu. Sprejema se je med drugimi udeležila tudi direktorica Študijskega centra za narodno spravo mag. Andreja Valič.
Na sliki iz desne proti levi: veleposlanica Anita Pipan, Stalni Predstavnik Igor Senčar s spremljevalko, direktorica SCNR mag. Andreja Valič, Stalni Predstavnik Božo Cerar s spremljevalko
Speech of Vaclav Havel in the European Parliament
Thank you for your invitation and the opportunity to speak to you as we mark the twentieth anniversary of the dramatic breaking down of the closed borders, the cutting of the barbed wire, the demolishing of walls between the European nations, and, in the case of Germany, of the wall dividing two parts of the same nation. It was the end of the bipolar division not only of Europe, but, to a large measure, of the world as a whole. At was such a historically important moment that various people had the impression that henceforth calm would reign and the world would simply flourish.
Vaclav Havel.
That didn’t happen. History did not come to end, of course. And that makes it even more important to treat the present anniversary not only as an invitation to reflect on the present but above all as a challenge to consider the future. I will contribute to that reflection five remarks on the theme of European unification.
(1) No one was completely prepared for such a rapid collapse of the Iron Curtain. Nor could they have been. It would have been unnatural. And so there ensued a phase of perplexity, a search for various alternatives, and uncertainty. Then NATO took the bold step of accepting new members, which had the effect of anchoring them and helped them concentrate on preparing to join the European Union. Subsequently the EU did indeed start to open its doors to the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. From time to time those countries cause it headaches of various kinds. But that is perfectly understandable. A democratic political culture cannot be created or renewed overnight. It takes a lot of time and in the meantime there are plenty of unanticipated problems to be solved. Communism ruled just once in modern times (and, hopefully, for the last time), so the phenomenon of post-Communism was also a novelty. We had to confront the consequences of the rule of fear that lasted for so many years, as well as all the dangers related to a redistribution of property without precedent in history. So there were and are lots of obstacles and we are only now acquiring experience of such a state of affairs.
I believe, nonetheless, that the West went about things in the right way. Any other approach would have given rise to even more anxieties for it and it would also have been more costly. Not only could it have seriously triggered a new struggle over spheres of influence, or the actual domination of one group by another, but the states that remained outside the western gates would most likely have turned into a stamping ground for various nationalists and populists, along with their armed militias, and also possibly a place of dangerous local conflicts, which would be all the more dangerous in that, for well-known reasons, no real peace conference took place after World War II to decide on a binding, precise and lasting post-war settlement in Europe. I think that many of those who until recently wielded a flag with a hammer and sickle would be capable, without much ado, of reaching for a national flag instead. We were able to see where that path could lead in the former Yugoslavia. But demons, as is well known, always awaken other demons. So no one can tell whether that contagion would not soon infect the western half of Europe. And we live in a period of history, when, as a result of globalisation, any local conflict could easily develop into a world war.
So the approach adopted was the most natural in historical terms, and the most advantageous in practical terms. Moreover, it was an approach that could also be interpreted as an expression of thoughtful shared responsibility for the way things had evolved in the recent past, which were partly due, in their origins, to short-sighted concessions on the part of the democratic world. To sum up then: however bothersome we might have been to the European Union up to the present, it is worth putting up with it, because any alternative to the course of events to date would most likely have been much worse and more dangerous. In the circumstances, all one can ask of Europe is patience and understanding.
However, the question is what can we offer Europe. It has long been my opinion that after what we underwent at the time of the totalitarian system, we ought – or we are duty-bound even – to explain to others in a convincing manner what we went through, and make specific suggestions based on its various implications. It is not an easy task and I am not sure we’ve made a good job of it to date. The point is that totalitarian or authoritarian forms of government tend to have very inconspicuous beginnings and employ very ingenious means of controlling society. Only now, in hindsight, do many of us realise how deviously they were entangled in the totalitarian web. That all obliges us to be particularly circumspect. It should be the way we can help guarantee that what we endured will never be repeated.
What does it require?
Above all, clear and unequivocal solidarity with all those confronted by totalitarian or authoritarian regimes wherever they are in the world. And economic or other particular interests should not hinder such solidarity. Even a minor, discreet and well-intentioned compromise can have fatal consequences– even if only in the long term, or indirectly. One must not retreat in the face of evil, because it is in the nature of evil to take advantage of every concession. Besides, Europe has already had its own unfortunate experience of appeasement policies. Our support can help open-minded people or outspoken witnesses to the situation in North Korea, Burma, Iran, Tibet, Belarus, Cuba or anywhere else, much more than we think. But it will help us too. It will help us build a better world and also to be more true to ourselves; in other words, to put into practice the values that we proclaim in general terms.
Recently the European Parliament awarded the Sakharov Prize to Memorial, the Russian association that monitors how human rights are respected in Russia. I think that was an important act. I recall how important it once was in my country when the French President invited us – the opposition – to a working breakfast during his state visit – against the wishes of the state leadership. These are only seemingly superficial matters. That is how things operate in totalitarian regimes: a single breakfast or a single suppressed student demonstration can – in certain circumstances – set history moving
(2) Our identity is created not only by what is unique to us as individuals, but also by certain so-called shared layers of identity. The identity of each of us is moulded, to a greater or lesser extent, by our membership of family, community, region, firm, church, association, political party, nation, sphere of civilisation, and, last but not least, of the planetary community. All this has to do with various sorts of homes we can have: based on geographical location, or on opinion, language and ethnic or other grouping. These all help create us. It is also connected with our various types of ownership, our goals, our affinities, inclinations, our sources of pride, our emblems, traditions, customs, habits and peculiarities. In short, the world is full of diversity, and that is equally true of humankind and each one of us.
These shared affiliations are also the origin of shared sovereignty, of course. At each level of our identities we have a certain measure of sovereignty, but at none of them do we have absolute sovereignty, nor can we have. The only thing that matters is that these sovereignties should be mutually complementary and that, as far as possible, they should not contradict each other.
I’m sure you have an inkling of why I am following this train of thought at this particular time: after all, to a large extent, the debates about the European constitution and the Lisbon Treaty centre on the issue of what should be the relationship between national and European sovereignty.
The answer is obvious: the two should complement each other.
After all, the fact that I feel myself to be a European doesn’t mean that I stop being a Czech. On the contrary: as a Czech I am also a European. I tend to say somewhat poetically that Europe is the “homeland of our homelands”.
At the same time I am convinced that European sovereignty will gradually grow stronger in the future. At what tempo I cannot say. Nor do I know what sort of circuitous route it will take. But I do know that the process of integration must continue, because it is in the fundamental, nay existential, interest of everyone, not just the Europeans.
The reasons are obvious: we are part of a single global civilisation in which it matters little whether the owner of a fishing business in Greenland lives in Taiwan and owns part of a bank in Brazil, or that the owner of mines in the Czech Republic runs his operations from a computer in Iceland. In such a context various supranational or continental associations will play increasingly important roles. This is not the end of nation states, neither now nor in the future. They will simply continue to associate and act together in many respects. Technological and economic developments will quite simply demand it. On the other hand, at a time when the world is heading for ominous unification, the establishment of various smaller associations of states and nations, sharing certain affinities, can be instruments for ensuring better protection of their national or regional identities.
The gradual and non-coercive grouping of states naturally strengthens peaceful coexistence as well. Or perhaps the majority of wars in recent centuries were not wars between nation states? How better to restrain various national demons than by practical co-operation among nations?
However, the only way the principle of multilayer sovereignty can be accepted is if there is civic and political identification with it. I have observed that in our country – and most likely in many other countries too – people talk about “us” – in my case Czechs – and “them”, “them” meaning some wicked foreigners in Brussels – as if we weren’t in Brussels too! This division into “us” as people who are by definition good, on the one hand, and some evil “them”, who want to harm us at all costs, on the other, is evidence of just one thing: scant understanding of the very principle of integration. So that too is something that needs to be tackled with patience.
We are all in the same boat and that boat is steering a good course. And it will continue to do so, so long as all its passengers share the responsibility and do not play their own game and are follow their private interests. Shouting about unspecified national interests, which is simply a cover for lack of self-confidence, is not the way to acquire prestige or a unique position in an existing community. That can be achieved only by purposeful interaction with others and involvement in the common cause.
(3) For many centuries Europe was the centre of civilisation on this planet, and even if it wasn’t, it definitely thought it was. It therefore felt entitled to export its culture, its religion and its inventions to the entire world regardless of whether or not anyone wanted them. Besides, on numerous occasions, the export of those values was linked with violence. In fact one can go so far as to say that the entire civilisation of modern times originated in Europe, not only in terms of the splendid things it has done for the world but equally as regards its present short-sightedness.
That should all be a lesson for Europe, which should find a new way to draw inspiration therefrom. In other words, not imposing things on the world but simply by seeking to be a source of inspiration. Quite simply by offering an example that others can follow, but are not obliged to.
It would be hard to find on this planet a region where so many nations or ethnic groups are concentrated, not to mention all the minorities and minorities within minorities. Nevertheless over recent decades Europe has managed to create maybe the firmest supranational union in the world today. And yet – and this is the most important thing – this union did not come into existence – as invariably in the past – as a result of the conquest of the weaker by the mighty. On the contrary it was the product of pragmatic agreement. Thus integration shifted from the battlefield to the conference hall. If nothing else, then this alone can serve as a challenge to the rest of the world.
I have mentioned the increased significance of supranational entities in today’s world. What I see as the optimal political order in the coming decades is the creative co-operation and partnership of these larger supranational or continental entities based on a certain common minimum, one that is more moral than political.
However, if these relationships are to be meaningful, they must be based on two fundamental principles: total mutual equality and maximum sincerity. A relationship in which, for some practical reasons – such as fear that deliveries of crude oil or gas might be disrupted – people place blinkers on their eyes and forget about all the open-minded journalists who have been murdered or about many other similar negative phenomena – even though in other circumstances they would readily speak of them – is not a relationship of partnership, because it is based on duplicity. Real partners must be capable of speaking their mind fully to each other, speaking the whole truth, in other words, and they must also be capable of listening to it all.
European integration, thanks to which the greater part of our continent has lived so long at peace, truly is a unique attempt at the democratic union of states. It is not a pure federation, let alone a traditional confederation, nor will it be soon. It is simply something new. Hopefully it is an experiment that will prove instructive for others too!
But that’s not the main thing. It is my belief that the European Union has a chance to inspire the rest of the world with something much profounder than its model of international co-operation I refer to the consistent striving to remedy all the questionable things with which Europe predetermined or influenced the entire character of contemporary civilisation. It is a trend that is possibly beginning to happen.
What I have in mind is the shift away from the cult of profit at all costs and regardless of its long-term and irreversible consequences, a shift away from the cult of quantitative growth and “growth of growth”, a shift away from the primitive ideal of catching up with or outstripping America or China or anyone else, as well as a shift away from the perilously haphazard settlement of the Earth and the mindless plunder of the planet without regard for the environment or the interests of future generations. I’m referring, of course, to the ingenious saving of energy, when the success of a state is not measured by the growth of its consumption but its reduction.
This is only conceivable, however, if something starts to change in the very soul of present-day Europeans. In the light of the latest cosmological discoveries they really ought to show a bit more humility, and give some thought to what will happen after their deaths. They ought to show deference to the mystery of the universe and of being per se – in short, they ought to renew a greater relationship with eternity and infinity, as was once the case in the initial phases of European development. We should give serious thought to the fact that nothing that has happened can unhappen, that the memory of everything is retained somewhere, even if only in the form of flying light – and therefore nothing is forgiven for ever.
But to return to the question of Europe as a partner of others: the overwhelming majority of wars in the known history of humankind were wars over frontiers or territorial boundaries. This is an important lesson: not only nation states but also supranational communities should have a clear awareness of the extent of their territory. Fuzzy or disputed boundaries are often the source of misfortune. That is something the European Union should bear in mind too. That is why it should also be clear about its external borders. If it wants to break down borders then it must first realise where it is located. So it should support the idea of geographical self-identification on a broader, i.e. planetary scale. That would also constitute an important and very specific contribution towards what we all yearn for: peace among the peoples and nations of this planet.
(4) In European debates, the topic of shared sovereignty is most frequently raised in connection with the institutional organisation of the EU. I respect the energy devoted by the EU to this issue in recent years, as well as the successes it has achieved. For that very reason I will make so bold as to view this question as well from a longer term perspective.
This parliament in which you sit, is directly elected, and the number of seats held by the individual states is intended to correspond to their size. I think the European Parliament should have somewhat greater powers than it does at present, since it is the only body elected directly by all Europeans. Thus legislative activity should shift more distinctly from the executive authority to the legislative authority. The European Parliament must not be allowed to appear to anyone as some costly embellishment of the EU.
However, it is my belief that in the future another, smaller body could come into existence, to which national parliaments would elect representatives, with each member state represented by the same number of members. In this or a similar fashion it would be possible to solve two issues at once: Firstly, it would eliminate the feeling manifested in various national parliaments that they are excluded from European decision making. Secondly, it would ensure there existed one EU body in which the absolute equality of all member countries would be guaranteed. A body such as this would meet only on the rarest of occasions, of course, only when a certain number of members requested it, and only in respect of matters requiring a consensus. Moreover, such a solution would mean that the composition of the Commission would not have to be based on a complicated national ratio, and the Council of Europe would not have to count its votes in such a complicated fashion. I must admit that, as I far I personally am concerned, it is more important for the commissioners to be proper specialists in their fields than for them to be my compatriots at all costs, let alone fellow party members.
As far as the Council of Europe is concerned, it is currently an odd amalgam of executive and representative authority. Its status should also be clarified. It seems to me that it ought to be something like the specific status of heads of state in a parliamentary democracy, in other words, it should be a sort of semi-concealed and semi-overt collective head of the union of states, whose visible representative, intelligible to all, would naturally be an individual, the President, whose existence is already reckoned on in the Lisbon Treaty, and who is of great importance: we should bear in mind that wherever some sort of collective state leadership emerges, there is generally a risk of its collapse. I don’t suggest that this necessarily applies to supranational communities, but I feel nonetheless, that somewhere there should be just one single human face representing that entire complex machinery, one that would ensure a better understanding of it all.
On numerous occasions I have indicated that I think it would be splendid if, sometime in the future, there existed a short, intelligible and readable European Constitution, understandable even to schoolchildren, while the rest, which already amounts to thousands of pages, would simply be addenda to it. Naturally, part and parcel of such a constitution, or even the very first section of it, should be a Charter of Fundamental Rights, in the shape of a text setting out the values and ideals to which the EU is attached, which it seeks to be in accord with, and which it bears in mind when taking its decisions.
(5) Seen from a distance, the European Union looks like a very technocratic body dealing solely with economics and money. That never-ending quibbling over the budget, quotas, customs duties, trading rules and the various regulations is probably necessary and I do not disdain it in the least. What is more, I actually think that the proverbial recommendations or standards regarding the cooking of goulash – the usual target of Eurosceptic scorn – are intended more as protection of something Czech or Hungarian, rather than an attack on a given member state and its identity.
Nevertheless, I believe that the EU should place greater and more evident stress on the things are truly of foremost importance, namely its spiritual foundations and values. After all, this is an unprecedented attempt to build a large and original supranational community on the basis of respect for human freedoms and human dignity, on a foundation of genuine and not simply ostensible or formal democracy, trusting in common sense, decency, and the power of equal dialogue within this community and with anyone else. And also based, of course, on respect for individual nations, for their traditions and achievements, for to the lands they inhabit, for their homes and the landscape in which they are located. And also, of course, on respect for human rights and on human solidarity.
Europe’s rich spiritual and cultural history – combining elements of Antiquity, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment – has created an array of indisputable values, to which the European Union pays lip service, but which it often regards simply as pretty packaging for the things that really matter. But aren’t these values what really matter, and are not they, on the contrary, what give direction to all the rest?
I’m not advocating anything revolutionary or radical here. I am simply advocating deeper reflection about the very foundations of European unification, a more emphatic cultivation of our Europeanness, and an articulated relationship to the moral order that transcends the world of our immediate benefit, or a world of mere prosperity going in no particular direction and determined solely by quantitative indicators.
For twenty years now, Europe is no longer severed in half. I firmly believe that it will never again allow itself to be divided, but, on the contrary, it will provide scope and initiative for ever deeper solidarity and co-operation. My wish is that Schiller’s Ode to Joy should cease to be for us and our descendants simply a poem celebrating friendship among people and be transformed instead into a powerful symbol of our common striving for a more humane world.
Brussels, 11.11.2009
Regarding the Consequences of the World War II in Europe
Regarding the Consequences of the World War II in Europe
Tunne Kelam, Member of the European Parliament
Tunne Kelam na novemberski konferenci v organizaciji IJP ob 20 letnici ustanovitve Demosa.
Since May 2005, when celebrations took place to mark 60 years from the end of the World War II in Europe, the debate on the full meaning and consequences of the victory over Nazi Germany has gathered momentum. This debate was stimulated by the controversial move of the then Russian president Putin to celebrate the anniversary in Moscow on May 9th with the participation of all European leaders. In 2005, the Estonian and Lithuanian presidents decided not to attend.
The European Parliament reacted to these developments by initiating an independent debate on the consequences of WW II. The debate took place on May 11th, 2005 and resulted in a EP resolution in which probably for the first time Europe-wide, the experiences and conclusions of the other half of Europe were represented.
To this other half of Europe, that after 1945 was left under the Soviet totalitarian domination, Stalin’s victory over Hitler brought not real liberation but rather “liberation” from freedom they had longed for while under Nazi occupation, “liberation” of mothers from their children and wives from their husbands who were murdered or sent for 10 – 25 years of slave labour to the far reaches of the Soviet Union.
The European Parliament concluded that “for some nations the end of World War II meant renewed tyranny inflicted by the Stalinist Soviet Union.” At the same time the Kremlin-initiated celebrations organized in 2005 and once again in 2010 highlight the continued confusion about the two dates marking the end of the war, and the different meaning attributed to each of them.
The surrender of the Nazi Wehrmacht was signed on May 7, 1945 in Reims, with the participation of all four allied powers, including representatives of the Red Army. Still, Stalin insisted on a separate act of capitulation on May 9 according to his own scenario in order to accentuate the Red Army’s role in defeating Hitler.
These two dates symbolize two antithetical dimensions of WW II. The 7th of May marks the triumph of a hard-won victory over Nazi totalitarianism. The 9th of May, on the other hand, could well symbolize the victory of one totalitarian dictatorship over the other. Therefore, the venue and style of the ceremonies organized by Russian authoritarian leadership in Moscow can hardly be associated with the fundamental principles for which the historic victory in the Second World War was fought. The Bristish historian Gregor Dallas has described May 9 as a “poisoned peace”.
I saw Estonia invaded by the Red Army in 1944. As an eyewitness to the subsequent general marauding and destruction, I still remember the words of the Soviet captain who entered the farm where my family was staying: “My soldiers are not the worst ones. But beware of the NKVD [later KGB] troops who will follow us – they are the ones you should be afraid of”. In an effort to make human contact and to forestall the Soviet officer’s obvious desire to grab my father’s watch, my parents had started a conversation with him in Russian and also put my two-year-old brother on his lap. Frustrated in their attempts at this farm, the captain and his unit then raided the neighboring one and took by force everything they wanted – as victors they felt it all belonged to them.
Sadly, the Soviet captain’s warning very soon came true. In the first five years after its “liberation”, Soviet-occupied Estonia, with a population of little more than one million, saw the arrests of 65,000 individuals on political grounds. Of those, many thousands were murdered outright or died in concentration camps. In just one month, March 1949, 22,000 persons were deported from their homes to Siberia. Those who survived and were able to return to Estonia after many years, lost all their property and mostly remained a discriminated category of Soviet subjects for the rest of their lives.
The real experience of May 9th for those of us living in Soviet-”liberated” Eastern Europe was deprivation of all civic and many human freedoms and of any right to a democratic and independent state. Estonia was subjected to intensive sovietization and russification which brought the Estonian people to the brink of becoming a minority in their home country.
World War II did not know ideal allies. The existence in Europe of two aggressive and evil empires made it almost impossible to build any coalition that could have been based on common values. Taking a pragmatic stance – my enemy’s foe is my ally – didn’t overcome the fundamental differences between an aggressive dictatorship and the rule-of-law societies.
The basic goal of the war – to defeat the Nazi Germany and its allies – was absolutely right. However, one should never forget that the launching of WW II was the result of the August 23, 1939 alliance between Stalin and Hitler. From the beginning, both dictatorships had similar long-term strategic goals – primary among these being world domination. These goals never changed during the course of the war or as a result of changing alliances.
It was Stalin, who on August 19, 1939 addressed his Politburo: “Comrades! It is in the interests of the USSR … that war break out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. For this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany. Therefore our task consists in helping Germany to wage war as long as possible with the aim in view that England and France would be in no condition to defeat a sovietized Germany…. At the same time, we must conduct active Communist propaganda especially as directed at the Anglo-French bloc … the task of our French comrades will be to break up and demoralize the French army and police. … This will likewise ensure the sovietization of France…”
The Kremlin dictator saw a new world war as the most efficient means to prepare the ground for the planned world revolution. As a result of the Soviet-Nazi friendship pact of August 23, 1939, that goal of world war was achieved. Within a week after its signing, having gotten a green light from the Kremlin, Hitler was able to attack Poland. Stalin followed in three weeks, taking the eastern half of Rzceczpospolita. After the dismemberment of Poland, the two invaders, who had coordinated their activities quite precisely, celebrated the end of the Polish state with a joint parade in Lviv. Soviet authorities delivered more than 60.000 imprisoned Poles to the Nazis.
Although eventually an important partner in crushing Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union remains co-responsible for launching the very same war, the end of which Moscow rulers are now so eager to celebrate. Taking equal advantage of the Soviet-Nazi pact, the Soviet Union carried out its imperialist plans, committing aggression against Finland (for which it was expelled from membership in the League of Nations), occupying and annexing the three Baltic States in June 1940, and adding to its territory large parts of Poland and Romania. The Soviet Union also helped Hitler to conquer Western and Southern Europe, supplying the Wehrmacht with all possible strategic raw materials for 22 crucial months of the war.
The end of WW II in Europe is generally taken to mean that the Allied powers restored freedom to the European nations subjugated by Hitler. Particularly the Baltic nations, former active members of the League of Nations, had counted on the implementation of the Atlantic Charter which promised to restore independence to every territory that had lost it as the result of the war. The Charter remained a weakly flickering source of hope for several years after the war. People living under Soviet occupation would comfort each other: we must endure for a time; eventually the Western Allies will make the Soviets comply with the Atlantic principles and allow Estonian independence to be restored.
Tragically for Central and Eastern Europe, the coming of the Red Army did not mean restoration of freedom. On the contrary, it simply meant the replacing of one form of murderous dictatorship with another. It also meant being totally cut off from the rest of Europe by the Iron Curtain, unable even to cry for help. What really happened in those countries under the long years of Soviet domination is only now reaching a wider audience in a reunited Europe.
A fundamental question needs to be answered: was it possible for a totalitarian regime that had waged a permanent implacable war against its own population since 1917, destroying more human lives in “peacetime” at home than it lost on the battlefields, to bring freedom merely by helping to oust the Nazi armies?
Taking a look at what happened after the war makes the answer crystal clear. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet POWs, who managed to survive German captivity, were not freed but were immediately sent to Gulag prison camps. They were “guilty” because they had survived. So they were treated as traitors or potential German spies. Such contempt by the victorious Soviet regime for its own people tells all. The number of Gulag inmates more than doubled during the period immediately following the war.
In Central and Eastern Europe alone, in the first five years after the defeat of the Nazis at least one million persons were killed during the formation of so-called peoples’ democracies. The left-over Nazi concentration camps did not suffice – additional camps had to be built to accommodate the hundreds of thousands new political prisoners.
Two terrorist dictatorships wreaked havoc and caused immeasurable suffering in 20th century Europe. After WW II, Germany’s war criminals were brought to justice and the Nazi political system was uprooted. New Germany apologized to the victims of the Third Reich and made restitution. As a result, today’s Germany is a reliable democratic state, one of the founders of European integration. Even the slightest hints of anything smacking of Nazism are dealt with swiftly and firmly. The famous motto “Never again” is guaranteed.
Nothing even remotely similar has ever taken place in the Russian Federation. There is not even a national monument to respect the memory of the millions of Communist victims. Instead, Stalin is gaining new popularity.
Therefore, for the millions of victims of the Soviet terrorism and their descendants, both in Russia and abroad, there is nothing that would unequivocally guarantee a “Never again!” Here lies the co-responsibility of the Western democracies. Despite winning the Cold War, they have never insisted on a principled assessment of the crimes of the totalitarian Communist regimes.
Alexander Yakovlev, a one time Politburo member, concluded his book (”A century of violence in Soviet Russia”, Yale, 2002) with the following warning: “The main source of our troubles has yet to dawn on us: without the de-Bolshevization of Russia there can be no question of the nation’s recovery, its renascence and its resumption of its place in world civilization. Only when it has shaken free of Bolshevism can Russia hope to be healed.”
Sergei Kovalyov, the 2009 Sakharov prize winner, has written:
“Until Germans, regular people, who did not belong to the SS and did not participate in any crimes, understood that they carry part of the blame for Oswiecim, Nazism was not completely defeated”.
He continues: “And until we, Russians, acknowledge loudly and clearly our national – I repeat – national guilt for the crimes of communism, including the occupation of the Baltic States, deportations and shootings, and the cruel suppression of the national fight for freedom in the post-war years – until then the communism is not completely defeated.”
The reunited Europe ought to remind Russia, the legal successor to the Soviet Union that apologies for past crimes have to precede future victory parades. Continued May 9 festivities in Moscow under the scenarios of the KGB-FSB leadership, nostalgic about the collapse of the Soviet Union, will only help to obfuscate the truth.
The European Parliament’s resolution on European conscience and totalitarianism (April 2009) concluded that reconciliation on crimes committed by Communist totalitarian regimes can be achieved by “admitting responsibility, asking for forgiveness and fostering moral revival”.
In the future, the end of WW II in Europe should properly be celebrated in Strasbourg, the symbol of true reconciliation and the cradle of united democratic Europe. It is high time for the European Union member states to implement the call by the European Parliament to proclaim August 23 as a Europe-wide Day of Remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian regimes. The Estonian Government and Parliament passed these respective decisions in June 2009 and organized the first official commemoration on August 23, 2009, culminating with the performance of the Russian Requiem by the Russian composer Lera Auerbach.
Brussels, May 5, 2010
Parastos za pobite Črnogorce v Kamniški Bistrici in predstavitev knjige o pobojih Črnogorcev v Sloveniji »Streljaj, vojna je končana«
Kamniška Bistrica/Ljubljana (21.6.2010) – Današnji dan je minil v znamenju spomina na pobite črnogorske četnike (vojake jugoslovanske kraljeve vojske v domovini), civiliste (tudi žene in otroke), številne protikomunistične intelektualce in duhovnike, ki so jih sredi maja 1945 enote Titove jugoslovanske vojske pobile na kamniškem območju, zlasti v zgornji dolini Kamniške Bistrice, na Kopiščih. Tam je najprej ob somaševanju predstavnikov Srbske pravoslavne Cerkve potekal parastos za pobite Črnogorce, popoldne pa je v Muzeju novejše zgodovine Slovenije potekala še predstavitev knjige Save Gregovića »Pucaj, rat je završen” o tragičnih dogodkih v maju 1945.
VIDEO: Parastos za pobite Črnogorce v Kamniški Bistrici; pričevanje dveh Črnogorcev (bratov Dušana in Vlada Niklanovića), ki sta preživela tragedijo pobojev maja 1945.
Parastos za vse žrtve “Bistriškega pokola”: paroh Srbske pravoslavne Cerkve v Sloveniji, Peran Bošković, Iguman samostana Grbija iz Črne gore, oče Luka in pop SPC iz Novega mesta, ki skrbi za duhovno oskrbo vernikov Srbske pravoslavne Cerkve na Kamniškem, Goran Šljivić.
Vlado in Dušan Niklanović, sta se maja 1945 znašla v konvoju črnogorskih ujetnikov v Kamniku, a sta ostala živa, dva njuna brata Tomo in Demitrij, pa sta bila ubita v okolici Kamnika, najverjetneje v Kamniški Bistrici.
Popoldne je v Muzeju novejše zgodovine Slovenije potekala predstavitev knjige Save Gregovića »Pucaj, rat je završen«, kjer je predstavljen spominski zapis večmesečnega umikanja črnogorskih protikomunistov, ki se je za večino udeležencev “Velikega zbjega” končalo prav na območju Kamnika. O tragični usodi Črnogorcev na slovenskih tleh ob koncu 2. svetovne vojne so spregovorili avtor Savo Gregović, Iguman Luka, zgodovinar dr. Mitja Ferenc in brata Vlado in Dušan Niklanović.
V knjigi »Pucaj, rat je završen« (Streljaj, vojna je končana” so prvič zbrani poimenski podatki 5221 oseb, ki so na tem pohodu izgubili življenje, večina na slovenskih tleh (cca. 3.400), pod streli zmagovite Titove partizanske vojske. Njihovi posmrtni ostanki leže v Teznem, Starem Hrastniku, Lancovem, Kamniški Bistrici, Kočevskem Rogu, v okolici Kamnika, Zidanega mosta, Celja in drugod.
Knjigo je izdalo Zduženje “Otkritćemo istinu” (Odkrili bomo resnico) iz Budve, ki jo vodi Dušan Niklanović (pred kratkim je prejel posebno odlikovanje srbskega matropolita za Črno goro za zasluge pri razjasnjevanju in pomirajanju posledic povojnih pobojev – red Sv. Save druge stopnje) in si prizadeva za razjasnitev povojnih pobojev Črnogorcev. Kot je poudaril ob koncu svojega nagovora je namen knjige, da se s tem postavi spomenik vsem žrtvam. “Naš cilj je rehabilitirati in v spomin obuditi ljudi, ki so bili dvojno ubiti (s streljanjem in izbrisom spomina nanje); ti ljudje so bili ubiti z odločitvijo političnega vrha partizanskega gibanja brez dokazovanja njihove krivde, brez sojenja, brez pravice do obrambe, in to v času, ko je bila 2. svetovna vojna uradno končana. To delamo brez namena politizacije in brez revanšizma, saj nam ne gre za kaznovanje in obsodbo krivcev, ampak za obsodbo zločina kot takega, z namenom, da se kaj takega v prihodnosti nikoli več ne ponovi”.
S knjigo “Pucaj, rat je završen”, mnoge žrtve, tudi tiste, pokončane v Kamnišiki Bistrici, ponovno dobivajo svojo podobo, ime, priimek,… Naj nam bo knjiga v spodbudo da, kot je povedal Iguman Luka, “svetopisemski brat Kajn ne bi nikoli več dvignil roke nad brata Abela”.
Kaj je “Veliki beg” oz. “Veliki zbjeg” Črnogorcev?
Novembra 1944 se je skoraj 20 tisoč pripadnikov kraljeve vojske v domovini z območja Črne Gore, 80 duhovnikov črnogorsko – primorske metropolije, številni intelektualci, znanstveni delavci Črne gore in na stotine žensk, otrok in starcev v begu pred partizansko vojsko začelo umikati prek Bosne, Hrvaške, Slovenije proti Avstriji. Številni Avstrije po večmesečnem begu nikoli niso dosegli, pač pa jih je konec vojne zatekel še na slovenskih tleh. Po navedbah Dušana Niklanovića, naj bi bilo na Kamniškem zlasti v Kamniški Bistrici pobitih okoli 1.800 Črnogorcev, od tega poleg pripadnikov jugoslovanske kraljeve vojske (črnogorskih četnikov) okoli 80 pravoslavnih duhovnikov in 200 intelektualcev in več otrok in žena. Črnogorce so na območju Kamnika pobijale črnogorske partizanske enote (3. črnogorska proleterarska divizija pod poveljstvom Save Burića), glavnina pobojev pa je trajala od 14. do 22. maja. Med prvimi je bil v Kamniški Bistrici ubit dr. Luka Vukmanović eden vodilnih črnogorskih pravoslavnih teologov, znanstvenik in filozof, sicer pa velik nasprotnik komunizma, čeprav je bil njegov brat Svetozar Vukmanović Tempo eden vodilnih jugoslovanskih komunistov in najbližjih Titovih sodelavcev.
Skratka, to kar je za Poljake Katynski gozd, je za Črnogorce Kamniška Bistrica.
Kje dobiti knjigo?
Še informacija za vse, ki bi želeli knjigo kupiti oz. naročiti. Lahko se obrnete na Oddelek za zgodovino FF v Ljubljani, na dr. Mitjo Ferenca 01/241 11 96 oz. mail: ferenc.mitja@guest.arnes.si.
Posvet o holokavstu na INZ
Ljubljana (20.5.2010) – Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino je pripravil okroglo mizo o najnovejših raziskavah v zvezi s holokavstom na Slovenskem. Kot referent je na tej okrogli mizi poleg dr. Andreja Pančurja, dr. Marjana Toša in mag. Vilme Brodnik nastopil tudi sodelavec SCNR mag. Renato Podbersič, ki je na kratko predstavil zgodovino goriške in tržaške judovske skupnosti. Obenem je opozoril na arhivske vire, ki jih hrani tržaška judovska skupnost in so pomembni za preučevanje omenjenih judovskih skupnosti.
Udeleženci okrogle mize o holokavstu.
Na okrogli mizi je bila poudarjena potreba po sodelovanju in medsebojnem informiranju vseh subjektov (inštituti, muzeji, šole), ki se ukvarjajo z omenjeno problematiko.
Mag. Renato Podbersič.
“Sprava je zelo pomembna”
“Reconciliation is very important,” je dejal ob svojem obisku na Študijskem centru za narodno spravo dr. Carlos Juárez, profesor političnih znanosti z univerze Hawaii Pacific University in častni konzul Peruja v Združenih državah Amerike. V pogovoru s sodelavci Študijskega centra za narodno spravo mag. Andrejo Valič, Boštjanom Kolaričem in Jelko Piškurić je orisal spravni proces v Latinski Ameriki ter izrazil zanimanje za spravni proces v Sloveniji in širši regiji.
Podprl je prizadevanje Študijskega centra pri evropski in mednarodni povezanosti v spravnem procesu. Seznanili smo ga z našim delom in načrti za prihodnost, kjer smo posebej izpostavili problematiko zbiranja zgodovinskih virov in izobraževanja mladih. Dr. Juárez, ki je že večkrat nastopil kot gostujoči profesor na Univerzi v Ljubljani, je poudaril pomembnost ozaveščanja in izobraževanja, ki sta temeljna za spravo v družbi.
Kako sta Španija in Slovenija stopili na pot demokracije
Ljubljana (17.5.2010) – V Muzeju novejše zgodovine Slovenije je dopoldne v organizaciji MNZS in španske ambasade v Sloveniji potekala okrogla miza z naslovom “Slovenija in Španija na poti k demokraciji in Evropski uniji”, na katerem so vidike demokratizacije Slovenije in Španije predstavili predsednik DZ RS Pavel Gantar, evropski poslanec Lojze Peterle, španski evropski poslanec Joze Maria Gil Robles Gil-Delgado in Josep Borrel Fontelles.
Gosti med predavanjem…
Slovenija in Španija sta v preteklosti izpeljali prehod v demokratični režim in sta danes članici EU. V obeh državah je prehod potekal na miren način, kljub temu pa med potema obstajajo tudi razlike, so danes v Ljubljani ugotovili udeleženci okrogle mize Slovenija in Španija: Pot k demokratizaciji in EU.
Pozdrav španske veleposlanice v RS.
Predsednik DZ Pavel Gantar je poudaril vlogo, ki jo je v procesu demokratizacije Slovenije odigrala civilna družba. Civilno družbena gibanja sredi 80. let prejšnjega stoletja po njegovih besedah niso neposredno ciljala na politične spremembe, so pa ustvarila paralelno družbo, kar je kasneje pripomoglo k mehkemu prehodu v demokracijo. “Mnenja o tem, ali je bil mehak prehod za kasnejši razvoj Slovenije koristen, so različna, sam pa menim, da je bil,” je še dejal Gantar, ki je bil pred osamosvojitvijo Slovenije sam dejaven v različnih civilno družbenih gibanjih.
Okrogle mize se je na povabilo španskega veleposlaništva v RS udeležila tudi direktorica SCNR, mag. Andreja Valič.
V Španiji pa civilna družba pri prehodu iz totalitarizma ni odigrala tako pomembne vloge, saj je bila v času konca Francovega režima sredi 70. let prejšnjega stoletja še precej nerazvita, je povedal nekdanji predsednik Evropskega parlamenta, španski socialist Josep Borrell. Pojasnil je, da je bilo v primeru Španije ključno to, da so bili ljudje, ki so tedaj zasedali ključna mesta v političnih strankah, sposobni sodelovati in se dogovarjati. Borrell je povedal, da je bilo sprva precej dvomov v to, ali bo Španiji uspelo stopiti na demokratično pot in tudi obstati kot enotna država. Slednje ji je uspelo, ker so regije dobile precejšnjo avtonomijo, obenem pa si po smrti diktatorja Franca nihče ni želel ponovitve krvave državljanske vojne. Prehod v demokracijo pa bi bil veliko težji brez EU, je poudaril Borrell in dodal, da ne gre le za finančna sredstva, ampak tudi za to, da so si Španci, s tem ko so se vrnili v Evropo, pridobili samozaupanje.
In še nekateri sodelavci SCNR.
Prav tako nekdanji predsednik Evropskega parlamenta, sicer pa krščanski demokrat Jose Maria Gil-Robles pa je povedal, da je Francov režim temeljil na diktatorjevi osebnosti in za seboj ni imel kakšne posebne ideologije. Zato je po Francovi smrti prevladala želja po evoluciji in ne po revoluciji, k čemur je pomembno prispevalo tudi dogajanje v sosednji Portugalski ob koncu Salazarjeve diktature leto pred smrtjo Francisca Franca. Predsednik prve vlade v samostojni Sloveniji Lojze Peterle je opozoril, da je Slovenija hkrati šla skozi dva procesa, demokratizacijo in boj za neodvisnost, poleg tega pa je morala opraviti prehod iz dogovorne ekonomije v tržno gospodarstvo. Peterle je kot pomembno izpostavil dejstvo, da so prve demokratične volitve potekale v mirnem ozračju, pa tudi sodelovanje s tedanjim predsednikom predsedstva Milanom Kučanom – bil je med poslušalci okrogle mize – v ključnih trenutkih. Sicer pa tranzicija v Sloveniji po Peterletovih besedah še vedno ni končana, prav tako Slovenci še niso opravili s svojo preteklostjo.
S slednjo pa očitno ni dokončno opravila niti Španija, saj so, kot je povedal Josep Borrell, šele 35 let po diktatorjevi smrti začeli odkrivati grobove žrtev državljanske vojne. Okrogla miza, ki je potekala v Muzeju novejše zgodovine, je bila eden od dogodkov, ki jih v času polletnega predsedovanja Španije EU organizira špansko veleposlaništvo v Ljubljani.
