ON
← Back to feed
In 1991, we were still fighting for freedom
Slovenia🏛️ PoliticsLean Conservative

In 1991, we were still fighting for freedom

The article addresses a political controversy in Slovenia regarding the naming of the national celebration for Sovereignty Day on October 25. The President criticized the government's invitation, which added the '35th anniversary of the liberation of Slovenia' to the holiday, arguing this constitutes an abuse and revisionist renaming of a legally defined day. The author argues that both 1945 and 1991 hold distinct historical significance: 1945 marked liberation from Nazi and Fascist occupation but did not result in an independent democratic state due to communist monopoly power within Yugoslavia. In contrast, 1991 involved a struggle for true sovereignty, where the Yugoslav Army used military force against the Slovenian decision for independence made via referendum. The piece concludes that recognizing the importance of 1945 does not negate the fight for freedom in 1991, emphasizing that the final withdrawal of Yugoslav troops on October 25, 1991, solidified this hard-won independence.

Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša has publicly challenged former President Milan Kučan over claims regarding who held ultimate authority during the country’s independence struggle in 1991. The dispute erupted on the eve of the Day of Sovereignty, a national holiday marking the withdrawal of the last Yugoslav People's Army soldier from Slovenian territory. Kuacan asserted that the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia controlled all aspects of the separation process. In response, Janša questioned why Kučan did not inform his Yugoslav military counterparts of this central role, noting that they had directed their ultimatum to the government leader instead. The controversy centers on conflicting narratives about the chain of command during the ten-day war. Kučan stated at a commemorative event in Sromlje that the presidency held all threads in its hands during the time of sovereignty. He described the period as a magnificent event that happens once in a lifetime, particularly for someone in his position as president of the presidency and commander-in-chief of armed forces. Kučan, whose father died as a partisan with a red star, attended a ceremony honoring the Brezje Partisan Unit. He noted that the symbol means something different to him than it does to the current government, which he criticized primarily due to recent intervention laws. Janša countered these assertions by pointing to specific historical inconsistencies. He highlighted that on the morning of June 27, 1991, when Yugoslav army units moved toward Slovenian border crossings, Lieutenant General Konrad Kolsek, commander of the fifth military district, sent a declaration of war to Lojze Peterle, the president of the Executive Council. This document threatened that any resistance would be broken. Janša argued that if the presidency truly led the entire affair, Kučan should have informed his fellow Yugoslav generals of this status. Instead, the military leadership addressed Peterle directly. Furthermore, Janša raised questions regarding the disarmament of the Territorial Defense force in May 1990. He asked how the presidency failed to stop this process in a timely manner despite having the jurisdiction to do so. According to Janša, the presidency was aware of the disarmament plans from the beginning but later claimed ignorance. He characterized Kučan’s actions during that period as playing a double game. These comments were posted on social media, where Janša expressed skepticism about the claim that the presidency managed everything, calling the situation strange given the direct communication lines used by the military. Both leaders will absent themselves from the official state celebration in Koper scheduled for the Day of Sovereignty. Current President Nataša Pirc Musar and former President Kučan will not attend. Kučan explained his absence as a protest against the current administration. He expressed anger that the presidency is no longer mentioned in such contexts, stating that it appears as if the institution did not exist or play a role, even though it actually led the whole matter from that point forward. Pirc Musar’s absence follows her criticism of the invitation issued by the National Assembly and the government. She labeled the addition of the "35th anniversary of the liberation of Slovenia" to the holiday title as an abuse and a revision of history. The debate touches upon broader historical interpretations of Slovenian freedom. While formally the name of the holiday has not been changed by law, the added reference to the 1991 liberation has sparked political sensitivity. The core question is whether Slovenian freedom was achieved solely in 1945 after World War II or if it required renewed struggle in 1991. Historical analysis suggests distinguishing between liberation from Nazi and Fascist occupation in 1945 and the achievement of democratic sovereignty in 1991. In 1945, Slovenia remained a republic within the Yugoslav federation under communist monopoly power, with limited democratic freedoms. The path to full sovereignty began with a referendum in December 1990, where a large majority voted for an independent state based on international law and the constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Independence was declared on June 25, 1991. However, this declaration did not immediately mean effective sovereignty. The following day, the Yugoslav army initiated armed intervention to prevent the realization of this decision. Tanks and armored vehicles appeared on Slovenian roads, representing military force against the will expressed in the referendum. Slovenian territorial defense and police resisted the aggression. The conflict ended with a ceasefire and the Brijuni Declaration, but Yugoslav troops remained in Slovenian territory for several months. It was not until October 25, 1991, that the last soldier left. This date is viewed not just as a memory of troop withdrawal but as a symbolic confirmation that Slovenia could finally breathe freely in its own state. International legal principles support this view, emphasizing the right of self-determination and the prohibition of using force against territorial integrity. Although the departure of the last soldier was not the legal moment of state creation, as independence was declared in June and wider international recognition came in January 1992, the October date marks the end of physical occupation. The current political clash reflects ongoing tensions over how this complex historical transition is officially commemorated and understood today.

How this report was made. Objective News wrote this report from 3 source articles, using AI-assisted synthesis under our methodology. It is our own text, not a copy of any single outlet. Read our methodology.

Responsible editor: Matej BašaSpotted an error? Report it

3 reports

Demokracija logoDemokracijaParty-alignedConservative
Janša challenged the last party leader to betray his claims of leading the independence

On the eve of Slovenia’s Sovereignty Day, former President Milan Kučan attended a commemoration for Brežice Partisan units, stating that the state Presidium led all aspects of the independence process and held command over armed forces. Prime Minister Janez Janša challenged these claims by highlighting historical inconsistencies, specifically noting that Yugoslav Army generals sent their ultimatum to Executive Council President Lojze Peterlet rather than Kučan. Janša questioned why Kučan did not inform his Yugoslav counterparts if he truly controlled the situation, and asked why the Presidium failed to prevent the disarmament of territorial defense in May 1990 despite having the authority to do so. The article frames this as a dispute between current and former leadership regarding who held decisive power during the Ten-Day War.

Bias read (Conservative): The article heavily features Prime Minister Janez Janša's critique of former President Milan Kučan, using Janša's rhetorical questions to cast doubt on Kučan's narrative. It emphasizes Kučan's past association with partisan symbols and implies deception regarding the disarmament of territorial units

Nova24TV logoNova24TVParty-alignedConservative
Janša challenged Kučan for his claims about leading the independence movement

The article reports on a political dispute between Prime Minister Janez Janša and former President Milan Kučan regarding the leadership role during Slovenia’s independence process. Kučan recently attended a commemorative event honoring Partisan units and stated that the Presidency of the Republic held all decision-making power during the 1990 sovereignty crisis. In response, Janša challenged these claims by highlighting historical records showing that Yugoslav military generals sent their ultimatum directly to Prime Minister Lojze Peterlet rather than to Kučan. The Prime Minister further questioned why the Presidency did not intervene earlier to prevent the disarmament of territorial defense forces if they truly controlled the situation. The piece notes that Kučan skipped the main state ceremony in Koper out of solidarity with current President Nataša Pirc Musar, while criticizing the current government over recent legislative measures.

Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the narrative primarily through the critical lens of Prime Minister Janez Janša, using his questions to cast doubt on the credibility of former President Milan Kučan. It emphasizes inconsistencies in Kučan's account and uses phrasing that suggests Kučan's claims are being placed '

+Portal (Portal Plus) logo+Portal (Portal Plus)IndependentProgressive
In 1991, we were still fighting for freedom

The article addresses a political controversy in Slovenia regarding the naming of the national celebration for Sovereignty Day on October 25. The President criticized the government's invitation, which added the '35th anniversary of the liberation of Slovenia' to the holiday, arguing this constitutes an abuse and revisionist renaming of a legally defined day. The author argues that both 1945 and 1991 hold distinct historical significance: 1945 marked liberation from Nazi and Fascist occupation but did not result in an independent democratic state due to communist monopoly power within Yugoslavia. In contrast, 1991 involved a struggle for true sovereignty, where the Yugoslav Army used military force against the Slovenian decision for independence made via referendum. The piece concludes that recognizing the importance of 1945 does not negate the fight for freedom in 1991, emphasizing that the final withdrawal of Yugoslav troops on October 25, 1991, solidified this hard-won independence.

Bias read (Progressive): The article defends the inclusion of 'liberation' in the 1991 commemoration by explicitly framing the 1945 event as insufficient because of the subsequent 'communist party' monopoly on power. It characterizes the 1991 conflict as a defense against aggression by the Yugoslav Army, using strong moral/

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories