By: Gašper Blažič
The cover of the 51st issue of Demokracija has stirred significant controversy among leftists. They are even demanding criminal measures and the abolition of our weekly publication. However, they have only given it additional publicity.
Perhaps the issue lies in the fact that the cover, featuring caricatures of the three most notorious MPs from the Gibanje Svoboda party – Urška Klakočar Zupančič, Lena Grgurevič, and Tamara Vonta – depicts them dressed in “Gestapo-style” uniforms designed by Hugo Boss. This coincided with a particularly sensitive moment for the ruling coalition. At the end of 2024, the National Assembly officially passed a law banning the use of Nazi and fascist symbols (but not communist ones), the most controversial project to date of historian and MP Martin Premk. Premk, however, will not be able to claim that Nazi symbols are visible on this cover. This is in contrast to years ago when Mladina published a cover depicting Janez Janša in a Nazi uniform with an outstretched arm, where the uniform clearly featured a Nazi swastika.
A mirror that hurts
One thing is clear: the caricature has obviously achieved its purpose. It held up a mirror to the entire coalition and evoked feelings that the opposition has endured for years – constant labelling as alleged sympathisers with, or even collaborators of, Nazism and fascism. This is an old propaganda tactic that the Communist Party of Slovenia used as early as World War II. It is worth reiterating the facts: the first village guards appeared in mid-1942, after the communist VOS (Security Intelligence Service) had already physically liquidated over a thousand Slovenians. Incidentally, the VOS – formally part of the Liberation Front (OF) but actually established by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Slovenia (KPS) – was founded in August 1941 as the revolutionary strike force, even before the first partisans had formed. There were also letters from Boris Kidrič and his comrades, who, at the start of World War II on Slovenian soil, emphasised in their correspondence and propaganda that the “white guard” was a greater enemy than the occupier. As Boris Kidrič famously said: “A communist who shoots without mercy is never cruel as a person.” Interestingly, the communists even admitted that their goal was to create the “white guard”. Kidrič wrote: “If we see that complete unity cannot be achieved for class reasons, then it is essential that, for the same reasons, the white guard emerges.” In one way or another, the communists pre-emptively determined who their class enemy was. They also calculated that they could force the class enemy to defend itself, leaving it no choice but to rely on the occupiers’ weapons since they had none of their own. All subsequent accusations of collaboration were, in reality, just part of their propaganda tactics and a justification for revolutionary crimes. Until Germany attacked the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, Slovenian communists, following Stalin’s orders, were allies of the Germans. As we know, Angela Vode opposed this alliance, and events later proved her right. However, Kidrič never forgave her “sin” of defiance.
Fraternising in Trbovlje and Moscow
It is well known that on April 26th, 1941, an informal meeting of the Society of Friends of the Soviet Union took place at the Vidmar Villa in Ljubljana. However, some prominent members of both the Communist Party of Slovenia (KPS) and the Christian Socialists were absent. During this meeting, the Anti-Imperialist Front was reportedly formed, though without a clear programme specifying whom it was meant to fight. Just four days after this meeting, Stalin hosted the Nazis in Moscow to jointly organise a May Day parade. This was possible because Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) was an ideological cousin of the communists, who were formally internationalists. Inspired by this, similar joint parades were organised in occupied Slovenia, with evidence of such events in Trbovlje. Shortly afterward, however, came the great Nazi betrayal: Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union. This prompted the rebranding of the Anti-Imperialist Front into the Liberation Front. Nevertheless, the communists’ plans for a violent seizure of power remained firmly in place. Even later, there were multiple instances of contact between the German occupiers and Tito’s delegation, such as attempts to coordinate a joint attack on the Western Allies in case of a landing in the Adriatic, which was part of Stalin’s sphere of interest. The most notorious instance of collaboration occurred in 1943 during a joint attack by partisans and Italian artillery on Turjak and Grčarice. The targets of these attacks were village guards and members of the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland, who were attacked alongside their so-called “allies” from the Italian army. The Italians subsequently withdrew without significant losses, having done the communists’ dirtiest work for them. It was precisely this large partisan offensive at the end of 1943 that triggered a new consequence – the emergence of the Home Guard.
When a partisan historian describes himself
Why are we writing about these facts? Primarily because of the incredible hypocrisy of the ruling (caviar) leftists, for whom media freedom and freedom of expression mean as much as last year’s snow. Specifically: they invoke these freedoms only when it suits them, but now they are announcing the use of “all legal means”. Yet they know perfectly well what provoked this type of satire. Anyone who followed the session of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia or the debate on the dismissal of the Speaker of the National Assembly, Urška Klakočar Zupančič, could see and hear for themselves how dirty and ruthless the coalition was in its dealings with the opposition. Lena Grgurevič led the charge, while Tamara Vonta’s behaviour during the investigative committee hearings of Boris Tomašič and Jože Biščak has already been well-documented. Thus, the press conference held in the National Assembly’s lobby was nothing short of a bizarre spectacle.
“One of the fundamental rules of Nazi propaganda is to accuse your opponent of the very things you are guilty of. Those who have been sowing hatred, lies, intolerance, and exclusion for decades are now accusing our MPs, who fight wholeheartedly against such things, of Nazism, portraying them in Nazi uniforms. It is simply disgusting,” said Martin Premk, an MP from the Freedom Movement (Gibanje Svoboda) and the main proponent of the aforementioned amendment to the Public Order and Peace Act, which introduces penalties for Nazi-fascist symbols. According to Premk, it is also clear what will follow the publication of such a cover. “To be a politician in Nazism, you do not need to be particularly intelligent; you just need to have a firm character,” he said, adding: “We can expect those who accused our MPs of this to deny it, feign ignorance, and repeat lies in every possible way.” Heavy words indeed – but in saying them, Premk may have best described himself and his parliamentary and party colleagues.
Mladina’s covers contradict them
This was further evident in the statements of Lenart Žavbi, who recently demonstrated his “orthodoxy” at a partisan rally. Žavbi tried to prove to the public that the masterminds behind such an offensive cover were within the largest opposition party, revealing themselves by placing an ad and membership application on the back page of the magazine. It is worth mentioning that Žavbi’s half-brother, Grega Repovž, is the longtime editor of Mladina, a publication known for its notorious covers. The opposition Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) has developed a thick skin because of these and no longer reacts to them. Meanwhile, the “offended” Tamara Vonta repeated her claim that SDS is “the champion of defamation, shaming, and degrading all those who stand in their way.” She announced that they would use all available legal means, both criminal and civil, in this case. And we add: we cannot wait.
Well, we will not summarise other reactions from the left here, as they are irrelevant. Paper endures everything. However, it is worth recalling the opinion of NSi MP Vida Čadonič Špelič, who noted that this would not have happened if conditions were normal, adding, “Not all female colleagues in parliament always behave like ladies, and when they do not, action leads to reaction.” Similarly, Jelka Godec (SDS) questioned, “Have you ever asked me or anyone else what we think about the covers of Mladina? When someone on the left does it, it is acceptable. But when it happens on the right, everyone questions what is wrong and why it is happening.”
The case of media attacks on Grims’s family
The case of the Demokracija cover is undeniably linked to the time when, in 2011, Mladina compared SDS MP Branko Grims, who had been photographed with his family at Brezje, to the family of notorious Nazi Joseph Goebbels in its satirical column.
This was undoubtedly a more drastic action, as the far-left bulletin effectively intruded upon the rights of Grims’s wife and children. Civil lawsuits followed, as expected. Initially, the district court dismissed the Grims family’s claim, justifying that Mladina merely sought to critically portray how Grims exploited media for self-promotion, similar to Goebbels. Conversely, both the appellate and supreme courts ruled that comparing the Grims family’s photo with the Goebbels family’s photo was offensive to Grims. The Constitutional Court later concluded that the publication of photos comparing Grims’s family with Goebbels’s family did not critique the actions of two politicians but rather compared two families. While Grims, as a politician, must endure harsh and provocative criticism, the court recognised his constitutional right to protection against unwarranted harm to his family’s reputation. This ruling carries an important message, as the cover of Demokracija did not feature any family members of the three MPs depicted. In 2017, the District Court in Ljubljana awarded Grims €5,000 in damages from the requested €40,000. However, Mladina appealed the Constitutional Court’s decision to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). According to our sources, no decision has been made, as the court would have published it on its website. In any case, the Constitutional Court’s opinion will have a significant impact on any potential proceedings that may follow.