chapter 1 Monuments, Mediatisation and Monuments, Mediatisation and Memory Politics. Memory Politics The Slovenian Post-socialist Memorial Landscape in Transit Oto Luthar (T)he only way that history could work is if we continue to think of it precisely as history, rather than as a policy of memory. Timothy Snyder Introduction As the (re)interpretation of the Second World War on Slovenian territory re- mains the focal point of the post-1991 Slovenian politics of the past, its mediati- sation, and the mediatisation of the socialist period, is continually perceived as the greatest “division in the Slovenian nation.”1 In this vein, the Slovenian nation is portrayed as a bipolar political entity or society in which, after a brief interlude of harmonious unity during the independence process, a cultural struggle between liberals and conservatives has reignited. One characteristic of such an interpretation is its deliberate disregard of historical analyses and its dismissal of the influential role played by the media and popular historiog- raphy. The latter has not only overshadowed historical research on the Second World War, but it has started to define national history in general, as well as having an influence on everyday political decisions: be they in regard to the role of women, migrants, homosexuals, or cultural heritage. Part of the populist understanding of the past also includes changes in the memorial landscape, which I previously brought to the fore in one of my first articles on this topic.2 Ever since then, the interpretation of the developments that unfolded in Slovenia during the Second World War has undergone radical 1 The term was first used by Tamara Griesser Pečar, the author of the following book with a similar title: Razdvojeni narod. Slovenija 1941–1945 [A Divided Nation. Slovenia 1941–1945]. 2 Luthar and Luthar, “Kolonizacija spomina. Politika in tekstualnost domobranskih spome- nikov po letu 1991”. © Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2020 | doi:10.30965/9783657704477_003 26 Oto Luthar shifts, which have recently even culminated in the reversal of the roles of victims and perpetrators. A Historical Perspective Whereas the first twenty years following the end of socialism were marked by the ambition to redistribute responsibility for (and guilt over) the Civil War, during the Italian and German occupation (1941–1945) by also stressing the responsibility of the Slovenian resistance movement, recent changes in Slovenia’s memorial landscape have sought a more radical reinterpretation. According to inscriptions on the last version of the so-called parish plaques erected in 2014, the Partisans and civilian victims of the Nazi and fascist occupation are being transformed into wartime perpetrators, while members of collaborationist units, organised as the Home Guard (Domobranci), are being praised as members of “the Slovenian National Army.”3 However, by reconstructing these changes in the post-socialist memorial landscape in Slovenia after 1991, I am interested not only in the latest shift in this process, but also in its presentation and mediatisation, which has had a major impact on the interpretation of the Second World War in Slovenia. In doing so, I am primarily interested in “calling to mind” the images represented by the Monument to “the victims of all wars.” Together with more than two hun- dred post-1991 monuments memorialising local fascist and Nazi collaborators,4 3 The label “parish plaques” for the Home Guard (Domobranci) monuments was introduced by those who organised the monuments’ installation in parish cemeteries across central Slovenia. Some were active members of the collaborating Home Guard units established under Nazi supervision following Italy’s capitulation. As the plaques were placed on the cha- pels of parish cemeteries, the name has a factual basis. What remains unclear though, are the connections between the initiators and local communities, as the installation of the plaques was supported and disputed at the same time. Some supporters were not satisfied with the politicisation of the project, while others vied for an even more direct confrontation with the (if present) already existent Partisan monuments. There were also cases where the creators would erroneously include the names of persons who died on the Partisan side. 4 When using the term collaboration, I follow the dictum of The Oxford Companion to World War II, which states “in wartime, collaboration assumed meanings that went far beyond its neutral dictionary definitions of ‘co-operation’ or ‘unity effort.’ It was always used in the pejorative sense of ‘working with the enemy’ or ‘assisting the occupying power.’” In refer- ence to Slovenia, the Companion mentions “southern Slovenia, which had been annexed to Italy” and the “peasantry … because “communist partisans alienated” them from “organized village guards. These were gradually pushed into collaboration as they came to depend on Italians for arms. The Germans, after they had taken over from the Italians, set up a native administration under General Leon Rupnik, who was allowed to turn what remained of the .