On 8 July 1990 a ceremony took place in the Kočevski rog forest, attended by the highest representatives of the political and public life, including the President of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. The Metropolitan Archbishop Dr Alojzij Šuštar held a mass. The solemn event was supposed to be the "first step towards appeasement, so very important for the Slovenian nation and its state", which would contribute to the "establishment of such a situation in the political and public life of Slovenia where the past no longer represents a burden for interpersonal relations". Božo Repe, Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije. 2. del. – Slovenci in federacija [Resources on the Democratisation of Slovenia and its Attainment of Independence. Part 2 – Slovenians and the Federation] (Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003), 21.

Before that, on 4 March 1990, the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia published a statement on the national and civil appeasement, The statement was drawn up on the basis of a draft, written by the historian Janko Pleterski, a member of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia (1988-1990). Pleterski later explained his attitude towards reconciliation in the article "O NOB in spravi," ["On the National Liberation Struggle and Reconciliation"] in: Narodnoosvobodilni boj v slovenskem narodnem spominu. Slovenski zbornik 2007, eds. Janez Stanovnik et al. (Ljubljana: GO ZZB NOB Slovenije, 2007), 23-31. substantiated with the words "that in this serious and pivotal moment of the transformation into a pluralist democratic system we are obliged to address the issue which the public sees as the problem of the 'national reconciliation'". "Narodna umiritev kot pogoj za mirno sožitje" ["National Appeasement as a Condition for Peaceful Coexistence"], Delo, 5 March 1990, 1, 2. In the opinion of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, the purpose of this discussion should be to

The statement of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia represented a substantial turning point in the attitude towards reconciliatory processes, as it elevated this issue to the level of state institutions. Namely, until then the reconciliatory initiatives had come exclusively from the ranks of the civil society.

On 9 May 1990 (in April 1990 the first free and democratic elections in Slovenia after 1927 took place), the newly-elected President of the Assembly France Bučar opened his inaugural address with the following words:

In such an atmosphere the newly-elected President of the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia Milan Kučan, in his address of the Members of Assembly, explained the reasons for the necessity to carry out the reconciliatory process with the following words:

A few days after the statement of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, but still before the elections in April, at a session on 13 March 1990 the Slovenian Regional Episcopal Conference released a Statement on the National Reconciliation as well. France Martin Dolinar, Resnici na ljubo. Izjave ljubljanskih škofov o medvojnih dogodkih [Truth Be Told. Statements of the Ljubljana Bishops about the Wartime Events] (Ljubljana: Družina, 1998), 31-34. In the introduction this Statement welcomes the gesture of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia as an important step towards "addressing this vital question and the future of the Slovenian nation". However, at the same time it emphasises that "in our statement we do not want to comment on the individual claims of the Presidency's statement. A public discussion should contribute to this." Ibid. An extensive public discussion then also in fact took place. Boris Mlakar prepared the introductory foundations for the survey entitled "Z narodno spravo – konec državljanske vojne?," ["National Reconciliation – the End of the Civil War?"] Borec. Revija za zgodovino, antropologijo in književnost, No. 5-6-7 (1990): 582-716, which was one of the most resounding surveys at the time. The Statement goes on to say:

For the solemn reconciliatory event in the Kočevski rog forest, organised at the initiative of Spomenka Hribar, Zdenko Roter, Padle maske. Od partizanskih sanj do novih dni [Masks Removed. From the Partisan Dreams to the New Days] (Ljubljana: Sever & Sever, 2013), 412, 413. the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia adopted a decision about the concept: it would be a state and Church event with a religious ceremony and two speakers (the President of the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovenian Metropolitan Archbishop). Božo Repe, Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik [Milan Kučan, the First President] (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2015), 282, 283.

On 2 July 1990, shortly before the reconciliatory ceremony in the Kočevski rog forest, the Pravičnost in mir (Justice and Peace) commission released a statement entitled For a Deeper Understanding of Reconciliation, signed by Anton Stres. It expressed the expectations of the Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia with regard to the question of reconciliation far more directly:

With this official standpoint the Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia joined the reconciliatory efforts and started acting as an advocate of the undisclosed victims' interests. In relation to the state it attempted to assert itself as an equal partner and partly also as the only true representative of the Slovenian nation or at least as its supreme moral authority.

A variety of civil initiatives may have surfaced with regard to the question of reconciliation, at least in the initial period, for example those proposed by the United under the Linden Tree of Reconciliation civil society (Združeni ob lipi sprave, Stanislav Klep) or the New Slovenian Covenant (Nova slovenska zaveza). However, these were more or less variations that were basically identical as the standpoints expressed by the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia in 1990.

Otherwise the reconciliation initiative had already been taken in the pivotal days of May 1945. At its session at Tabor on 3 May 1945, the National Committee for Slovenia had drawn up a "proclamation" calling upon "all Slovenians to ensure a general reconciliation in order to release and unite all the modest and weakened national forces, tied up in the internal strife, as in this historical moment they are needed for the purpose of ensuring the highest national goals." Bože Repe, Mimo odprtih vrat. Izbrani dokumenti o dejavnosti okupatorjevih sodelavcev na Slovenskem [Past the Open Door. Selected Documents about the Activities of the Occupiers' Collaborators in Slovenia] (Ljubljana: Založba Borec, 1988), 171. As it happened, the Slovenian anti-communists, in the shadow of collaboration, felt the need to call for "general reconciliation" shortly before they emigrated. At that time – as the Allies refrained from responding to all the appeals while the German authorities still remained in charge – according to the President of the National Committee Jože Basaj the anti-communists realised that "this authority was only a shadow, and therefore we decided to disappear from Ljubljana as soon as possible, because the front lines were getting closer suspiciously quickly". Boris Mlakar, "Protirevolucionarni tabor in konec vojne," ["The Anti-Revolutionary Camp and the End of the War"] in: Slovenska novejša zgodovina. Od programa Zedinjene Slovenije do mednarodnega priznanja Republike Slovenije 1848–1992,, eds. Jasna Fischer et al. (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 2005), 777. Before that, throughout the period of the occupation, the two hostile camps had not appealed to any reconciliation. Only a few initiatives to negotiate a cease-fire had been undertaken, including the efforts of Lojze Ude, which had been the most sensible yet unsuccessful nevertheless. Bojan Godeša, "Lojze Ude in poskus vzpostavitve premirja med drugo svetovno vojno," ["Lojze Ude and the Attempt to Establish a Cease-Fire During World War II"] Acta Histriae, No. 3 (2013): 283–90. Among the political emigration in exile, the wish for reconciliation would sporadically appear among individual people (for example Vinko Levstik, Ciril Žebot). Otherwise the political emigration took part in the developments in its homeland mostly through the Slovenian World Congress, established at its constitutive sitting on 27 and 28 June 1991 in Ljubljana and envisioned as an "all-Slovenian organisation, connecting and uniting Slovenians at home and abroad on the basis of the dedication to Slovenianism regardless of their world-view, political and other differences." Documentation from the opening session of the Slovenian World Congress, Ljubljana, 27 and 28 June 1991 (Ljubljana: Slovenian World Congress, Conference for the Republic of Slovenia, 1994), 3. The issue of the national reconciliation was at the centre of this organisation's attention ever since its establishment, and it was also listed in its statute as one of its main goals. Ibid.

After 1990, when reconciliation was the main topic for a while, this issue became less prominent as the attention of the public focused on the realisation of the Slovenian emancipation. However, the reconciliatory efforts at the time failed to overcome the ideological divisions. Božo Repe, Jutri je nov dan. Slovenci in razpad Jugoslavije [Tomorrow is Another Day. Slovenians and the Dissolution of Yugoslavia] (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2002), 127. It soon became clear that they actually widened the rift.

The commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II in 1995 represented an important symbolical turning point in the intensification of the ideological schism. Thus the statement of the Slovenian Episcopal Conference entitled Služiti resnici, pravici in spravi (In the Service of Truth, Justice and Reconciliation) also includes the following:

The interpretation of the ceremony in the Kočevski rog forest in 1990, as it was expressed at the 70th anniversary of the end of the war by the Ljubljana Auxiliary Bishop Anton Jamnik, should be understood in light of the unrealised expectations of the Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia as well. Jamnik stated the following:

Lojze Peterle also believes that the reconciliatory ceremony in Kočevski rog supposedly contained "elements of deception". Jernej Vrtovec, Vloga nadškofa Šuštarja pri osamosvojitvi Slovenije [The Role of Archbishop Šuštar in the Attainment of the Slovenian Independence] (Celje: Društvo Mohorjeva družba, Celjska Mohorjeva družba, 2016), 96. A very similar viewpoint was expressed also by Jože Pučnik at the 33rd Draga Study Days in 1998. Jože Pučnik, "Sprava kot izhodišče za civilno rast Slovencev iz naroda v državo," ["Reconciliation as the Basis for the Civil Growth of Slovenians from a Nation into a State"] in: Biti to kar si. 33. študijski dnevi Draga 98, eds. Sergij Pahor, Saša Martelanc and Marij Maver (Trst: Mladika, 1999), 137, 138.

The President of the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia at the time, Milan Kučan, stated the following about the issue of reconciliation and the ceremony in Kočevski rog:

In the biography Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik (Milan Kučan, the First President), Božo Repe assesses that "the reconciliatory ceremony was one of the most sensitive as well as far-sighted Kučan's acts in his first term". Repe, Milan Kučan, 281.

In accordance with the reconciliatory efforts that the Church circles associated with the demands for the clarification of the wartime events, among the historians – at least some of them – this aspiration has expressed itself in a specific manner. The efforts to ensure "balance" Janja Slabe, "Narodna sprava v slovenskih časopisih," ["National Reconciliation in the Slovenian Press"] Borec. Revija za zgodovino, antropologijo in književnost, No. 630–634 (2006): 9–60. were characteristic of the first period. However, after the year 2000 demands emerged to adopt the interpretation that the opponents of the Partisan movement had established already during World War II, maintained in emigration and transplanted to their homeland with the advent of interpretative pluralism as the only credible explanation of the wartime events. In line with the principle where anti-communism equals democracy, the advocates of such theories, appearing with the motto "the triumph of the defeated", remain convinced that they are the ultimate moral victors of the internal conflict during the war. Bojan Godeša, Spremembe v vrednotenju druge svetovne vojne na Slovenskem po padcu berlinskega zidu. Lecture at the Historical Seminar of the Scientific Research Institute of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana on 12 May 2016, [Changes in the Assessment of World War II in Slovenia after the Fall of the Berlin Wall] acquired on 10 June 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpyJ2GKuI8.

However, such outlook on the wartime events in fact does not bring anything new to the Slovenian historiography and, of course, the whole of the Slovenian society in the interpretative sense, and we can hardly define it as a revision. Such efforts are actually precisely opposite to what a revision should bring: new thematisation and problematisation of the wartime past. The aforementioned example of deconstructing the myths in order to construct new ones only involves the schematic, ideological and biased efforts to rehabilitate the side that lost the war: the Slovenian forces burdened with collaboration. Ibid.

In 1995 a group of historians, Zdenko Čepič, Tone Ferenc, Aleš Gabrič, Bojan Godeša, Boris Mlakar, Dušan Nećak, Jože Prinčič, Janko Prunk, Božo Repe, Anka Vidovič-Miklavčič, Peter Vodopivec and Milan Ževart. at the request of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, even prepared a scientific report about the contemporary history of Slovenians entitled Key Characteristics of the Slovenian Politics 1929-1955, Zdenko Čepič et al., eds., Ključne značilnosti slovenske politike v letih 1929–1955. Znanstveno poročilo [Key Characteristics of the Slovenian Politics 1929-1955. Scientific report] (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 1995). which was supposed to represent the historiographical foundation for the way in which the National Assembly would address certain open questions about the recent past. However, even this attempt to elevate the discussion from the political sphere to the scientific level failed to appease the passions involved in the examination of the unresolved past.

Generally the more reconciliatory and well thought-out emphases, opposing the widespread atmosphere of the cultural struggle, were exceedingly rare. Let me underline, for example, the speech of the President of the Government at the time, Janez Janša, at Mala gora on the Day of Uprising against Occupation in April 2005 Govor predsednika Vlade RS Janeza Janše ǀ SDS, [A speech by the President of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia Janez Janša ǀ SDS] acquired on 10 June 2016, http://www.sds.si/novica/govor-predsednika-vlade-rs-janeza-janse-3264. and the discussion during the relocation of the mortal remains of Bishop Rožman to the minster in the spring of 2013. Jožica Grgič, "Kočljivi medvojni položaj ljubljanskega škofa. Zgodovinarja Dolinar in Godeša o Rožmanu," ["The Awkward Wartime Position of the Ljubljana Bishop. Historians Dolinar and Godeša on Rožman"] Delo, 12 April 2013, 3. Aleksander Kolednik, "Griesser-Pečarjeva: Rožman si je prizadeval, da bi narod s čim manjšimi izgubami prebrodil vojno," ["Griesser-Pečar: Rožman strived to ensure that the nation could make it through the war with as few losses as possible"] (11 April 2013), acquired on 10 June 2016, http://siol.net/novice/slovenija/griesser-pecarjeva-rozman-si-je-prizadeval-da-bi-narod-s-cim-manjsimi-izgubami-prebrodil-vojno-159685. Even this most likely took place only because the President of the State Kučan refused to let Rožman's reburial turn into a political manifestation. Repe, Milan Kučan, 431.

Throughout this time, the Federation of Associations of National Liberation War Veterans (hereinafter the ZZB) has had a clear, consistent and principled standpoint with regard to reconciliation – a term that it always uses merely in quotation marks. As it is, the ZZB uses the term "appeasement", which was already used in the Statement of the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia. In its Statement of the Federation of War Veterans about the Values, the Presidency of the ZZB for the values of the National Liberation Struggle of Slovenia summed up its standpoint with regard to this issue at the session on 6 October 2015:

The efforts to ensure reconciliation as the basic characteristic of resolving the wartime past in the last 25 years can be defined synthetically with the finding that Božo Repe used years ago as a title for a discussion of his: Reconciliation as the Cultural Struggle. Božo Repe, "Sprava kot kulturni boj," ["Reconciliation as the Cultural Struggle"] in: Onstran demokracije. Izjave in stališče Liberalne akademije po letu 2005, ed. Božidar Flajšman (Ljubljana: Liberalna akademija, 2009), 93–101. The result of this fact is also completely evident today: with every reconciliatory declaration the conflicts and ideological divisions in the Slovenian society are only deepening. Bojan Godeša, "Social and Cultural Aspects of the Historiography on the Second World War in Slovenia," Sozialgeschichte und soziale Bewegungen in Slowenien / Social History and Social Movements in Slovenia. Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für soziale Bewegungen 41 (2009): 111–25.

Who is responsible for such a state of affairs in the Slovenian society? The answer may not be completely unequivocal, as it seems that such a situation actually suits many people on both sides, in a way. However, differences were already evident in the very definition of the foundations of the reconciliatory process in the aforementioned statements of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia and the Slovenian Episcopal Conference. While the former focuses especially on the aspect of piety involved in reconciliation and recommends that the resolution of the pressing issues from the past be depoliticised, in this regard the Roman Catholic Church has made very resolute demands for the re-evaluation of the past, which it has supported with the line of reasoning that "only truth can set us free and function as the basis for reconciliation, which would allow for appeasement". Dolinar, Resnici na ljubo, 31–34. Despite these very obvious differences, today it is completely clear that the core of the problem nonetheless lies especially in the manner of dealing with the past, which is still seen in a number of diverse ways in the Slovenian society. In view of the fact that until the events related to the fall of the Berlin Wall a biased image of World War II had been dominant in Slovenia, it became clear that this war should nevertheless be interpretatively updated and placed in a new balance. In fact, this should actually be beyond any doubt. However, what had at its initial stages been a completely legitimate demand to clarify the past has not developed into a constructive dialogue, aimed at a comprehensive analysis of the wartime events by means of an unbiased, scientifically irreproachable method. As it happened, the demands for "reconciliation on the basis of truth" soon turned into a struggle for the interpretative dominance in the Slovenian society and did not always adhere to scientific standards. In this sense the process was an attempt to assert the methods that Braco Rotar shrewdly described with the title of his contribution Reconciliation Instead of History Rotar, "Sprava namesto zgodovine." in the survey conducted by the Razgledi magazine, entitled What Has Happened to Our History?

If we keep our distance and look at how the reconciliatory issues have developed after the time when the question of the national reconciliation became topical in the Slovenian society, especially thanks to Spomenka Hribar, and until today, we can ascertain that the predictions of the analysts of the contemporaneous State Security Service have largely come true. These analysts assessed, already back in 1986, that the "goal of the 'national reconciliation' is to ensure that the defeated forces have enough space for rehabilitation and consolidation". SI AS 1931, box 3085, "Nacionalno pomirenje" kao deo taktike unutrašnjeg i spoljnjeg neprijatelja (analitički osvrt) ["National Reconciliation" as a Part of the Tactics of our Internal and External Enemy (Analytical Viewpoint)"]. Belgrade, 4 March 1986.

Thus it is characteristic for the advocates of the "emigrant" interpretation or, as they claim themselves, for the supporters of the new, ideologically unburdened views that they operate extremely confidently, often even aggressively; and first and foremost their side keeps bringing up the topics that should supposedly still be studied or re-evaluated. In a part of the Slovenian historiography the emigrant explanation has in fact asserted itself as a credible interpretation of the wartime events. In the name of the "struggle for the truth", ever since the ideological relaxation in the middle of the 1980s its advocates have in fact – by selectively emphasising certain topics – dictated the orientation according to which the developments during World War II in Slovenia should be understood.

On the other hand, after the fall of the Berlin Wall the left has suffered an identity crisis and gone on the defensive: it seems as if it lacks any vision and that it is unable to find solutions to problems, related to the attitude towards the past which is seen as disputable by the society. Many adherents of the left have experienced significant difficulties with accepting the fact that interpretative pluralism has become completely legitimate also in the Slovenian society. Therefore – at least as far as the exploration of the ambiguous periods of the recent history is concerned – one of the basic characteristics of the representatives of the left is their exceedingly defensive posture. In the interpretative sense it is also possible to note a lack of innovative approaches in the substantive as well as methodological sense.

However, in contrast with such trends, visibly present in the Slovenian society, the newest analyses of this issue, carried out by the author of this text, have refuted the "emigrant" theory in its entirety: not only as biased and black-and-white, but also as a completely implausible explanation without any basis in scientifically-verifiable facts. The problem of the actions of (especially) the Catholic Camp at the beginning of the Axis Power aggression against Yugoslavia was explored in Bojan Godeša, Čas odločitev. Katoliški tabor in začetek okupacije [Time of Decisions: Catholic Camp and the Beginning of the Occupation] (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 2011).

The most blatant example of imposing such interpretations, historically completely preposterous according to the scientific standards, expressed itself in the demand for the renewal of the proceedings against the Ljubljana Bishop Dr Gregorij Rožman. As it was, the rehabilitation of Bishop Rožman had been the primary goal of the Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia all along. Janko Pleterski commented on these endeavours with the following words: "By no means will they let the man Referring to Bishop Rožman. remain in history, they would rather forge him into a weapon for their current political struggle, use him as an object, a kind of a battering ram, for this struggle." Janko Pleterski, "Uvodna beseda," ["Introduction"] in: Škof Rožman v zgodovini, eds. Janez Stanovnik, Slavko Grčar and Hardvik Pirnovar (Ljubljana: Društvo piscev zgodovine NOB Slovenije, 2008), 6. Ever since 1995 official efforts had been invested in the exhumation of Rožman's mortal remains and reburial in his homeland, and the precondition of the Church was his rehabilitation, as "first we have to annul the unjust process against Rožman – otherwise Bishop Rožman should remain buried at the Franciscan cemetery in Lemont". Repe, Milan Kučan, 431, 432. In the context of the imposition of such conditions, the Vatican State Secretary Cardinal Angelo Soldano explained the viewpoint of the Vatican in written correspondence with the then President of the State Kučan, "that the reburial should depend on Rožman's legal and political rehabilitation". Ibid. Naturally, such endeavours do not only call for the re-evaluation of Rožman's wartime role, but rather, in view of the symbolic significance and his vital role in the time of the occupation, also for the rehabilitation of all that he stood for during the war. One of the key arguments for the proposal on the renewal of the judicial process against Rožman was the alleged "new evidence". This evidence supposedly exonerated the convicted Bishop, of course. Some of this evidence had in fact existed already during the initial trial, but the military court refused to take it into account regardless of being aware of it. However, it is true that also other, new and aggravating evidence came to light later. This evidence was not taken into account and suitably placed in the contemporaneous historical context by the authors of the historical expertise, consisting of two independent parts France M. Dolinar and Tamara Griesser-Pečar, Rožmanov proces [The Rožman Process] (Ljubljana: Družina, 1996). and written by two authors, which represented the historical basis for the proposal on the renewal of the criminal proceedings in the "Rožman Case". It is a fact that this evidence – especially certain published diplomatic and military documents originating in Germany, Italy and the Vatican – would have made it much easier for the court, had it had these documents at its disposal at the time, to pass a much more transparent judgement, which would have been, from the viewpoint of its historical credibility, impossible to refute even according to the legal order and values of the today's Slovenian society. Bojan Godeša, "O političnem delovanju ljubljanskega škofa dr. Gregorija Rožmana v prvih mesecih okupacije," ["On the Political Activity of the Ljubljana Bishop Dr Gregorij Rožman in the First Months of the Occupation"] Zgodovinski časopis, No. 2 (2013): 152–70. Bojan Godeša, "O škofovi odgovornosti," ["On the Bishop's Responsibility"] Mladina, 31 July 2015, 29. Bojan Godeša, "Enega mita ni mogoče zamenjati z drugim," ["One Myth Cannot be Replaced by Another"] (Interview by Ženja Leiler), Delo, 27 May 2016, 21. Even though the results of this research had not yet been presented at the time, President Kučan's opinion, expressed in the correspondence with the Vatican State Secretary Cardinal Sordano, was that the reburial should not be based on the legal and political rehabilitation of Bishop Rožman. Instead it should be seen merely as a pious act, stemming from Rožman's right to his grave. Repe, Milan Kučan, 431, 432. In view of the most recent historiographical discoveries, this opinion has nevertheless turned out to be much more appropriate, also from the viewpoint of the historical credibility.

In the discussion Slovenian Historical Burden that the German historian Joachim Hösler, who also wrote a few monographs on the Slovenian history, prepared for the needs of the German politics, Hösler establishes the following:

However, this way of shedding light on the wartime developments has not prevailed in the Slovenian society. It seems that the opinion closest to Hösler's – at least as far as the question of the national reconciliation is concerned – is that of Spomenka Hribar, who, in her essay Guilt and Sin in the middle of the 1980s, established the problem of reconciliation as a socially-relevant question. Spomenka Hribar, "Krivda in greh," ["Guilt and Sin"] in: Kocbekov zbornik, ed. Dimitrij Rupel (Maribor: Založba Obzorja, 1987), 6–68. In the Razgledi magazine in 1994, Hribar argued for a completely different standpoint with regard to the role of reconciliation, as it was understood (especially) in the Church circles. She emphasised the following: