26. 11. 2025
Eleven countries – Belgium, France, Slovenia, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Germany, Austria, Romania and Ukraine; numerous institutions – museums, municipalities, heritage agencies, tourism boards, regional development centres, and scientific organisations, but one shared idea – protecting, interpreting, researching, revitalising the heritage of the First World War through a genuinely transnational approach. Under the leadership of the Soča Regional Development Centre (Posoški Razvojni Center), and the Walk of Peace Foundation, this diverse network brings together partners to explore how the landscapes of former frontlines can be transformed into spaces of dialogue, education, and sustainable development. This work takes place under the umbrella of the project GOV4PeaCE – a multi-dimensional and cross-territorial governance model for activating World War I heritage to foster sustainable socio-economic development in remote regions of Central Europe, co-funded by the European Union as an Interreg Central Europe project. Why does a common narrative matter? How can different national traditions of remembrance be connected? What roles can museums, researchers, and local communities play in shaping a shared European memory of the war? These are the questions addressed in this interview, featuring representatives of key institutions engaged in building a new, cross-border perspective on the legacy of the Great War. It is a story about how a once-divided history can become a foundation for a shared European future.
Klavdija Figelj (European Capital of Culture Nova Gorica-Gorizia 2025) in conversation with Francesco Frizzera (Museo Storico Italiano della Guerra), Maša Klavora (Walk of Peace Foundation), Stephen Lodewyck (In Flanders Fields Museum, Ypres), Kamil Ruszała (Jagiellonian University) and Petra Svoljšak (ZRC SAZU – Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts).
The following interview brings together representatives of leading European institutions engaged in the GOV4PeaCE project to discuss how the heritage of the First World War can serve as a foundation for transnational cooperation and sustainable development. Under the title “Transnational Heritage of War: Knowledge Transfer and Sustainable Development Beyond Borders,” the conversation explores how partners from different countries work together to reinterpret and preserve the legacy of the war through shared research, education, and museum practices. By linking academic knowledge with local and international heritage management, the dialogue aims to highlight how collective memory can foster peace, resilience, and cultural exchange across borders – transforming the remnants of conflict into a living space of cooperation and learning for future generations.
The Transnational Dimension
The heritage of the First World War reaches far beyond national boundaries. Its preservation and interpretation demand collective effort, dialogue, and mutual understanding across the countries once divided by conflict. Why is international cooperation between Slovenia, Poland, Slovakia, Italy, Belgium, France, Hungary, Romania, Germany, Austria, Ukraine and others (delete: and others) so crucial in a project dealing with WWI heritage?
Maša Klavora (Walk of Peace Foundation): Because the First World War was a global conflict, it affected people and landscapes everywhere, regardless of which side they were on – and its traces continue to shape communities and environments today. WWI heritage was created by different peoples, nations, and cultures, and it commemorates diverse groups of victims. This makes it a shared heritage and history for many of us, regardless of its location. It forms a collective memory, not only an individual or family one. Today, WWI heritage carries outstanding universal value and a distinctly transnational meaning, as well as an important responsibility. To truly understand its many stories – and the emotions and interpretations of today’s generations – this history must be researched by specialists from different countries and perspectives. Only cross-border and transnational cooperation can enable genuine exchange of knowledge, ideas, and best practices, encourage joint projects, and allow us to meet, learn from one another, and confront both our shared and our distinct pasts. This form of cooperation is, in itself, a pathway to peace and reconciliation. Approaching heritage and history transnationally, rather than solely within national frameworks, significantly enhances their relevance for contemporary societies. Europe – and the world – need such reflective stories, experiences, and practices now more than ever.
Stephen Lodewyck (In Flanders Fields Museum): Although national borders were still relevant just before the start of the First World War, their significance disappeared as a result of the warfare. Geographical features in the landscape, on the other hand, became all the more important. The diverse heritage of the First World War is mainly located in former frontline landscapes that cross national borders. However, preservation and disclosure follow regional/national standards, regulations and perspectives. But since the conflict was fundamentally transnational in its causes, experiences and long-term consequences, no single country holds the full narrative and as the historical landscape of the war stretches across Europe, understanding it requires bringing together knowledge and perspectives from different regions. The different legal frameworks for protection can be evaluated in a joint effort, from which we can learn from each other and eventually harmonise standards. This need for collaboration also reflects a broader historiographical shift. The First World War is increasingly approached as not just a series of isolated national stories, but as a shared experience in Europe. Strengthening this perspective requires a stable network of international partners who can exchange expertise, research and so collectively shape a more comprehensive interpretation of the war’s history. Strong cooperation between these partners through in-depth dialogue on the interpretation of history and its heritage aims to achieve a shared framework of values regarding the losses caused by war and the importance of (working towards) peace (conditions).
Kamil Ruszała (Jagiellonian University): The Eastern Front crossed several present-day borders, creating a landscape of shared history that cannot be understood through a single national lens. Cooperation between different countries in the region allows us to connect fragmented archives, cemeteries, and memory cultures into one coherent narration. Each country preserves only a part of the wartime experience, which is unique for them, however, only by working together can we reconstruct the full scale of what war brought: starting with displacement, violence, destruction and reconstruction, but also a new cultural and material landscape which needs an appropriate definition. Transnational collaboration also helps harmonise preservation standards and supports local institutions that often work in isolation. Above all, it strengthens the idea that WWI heritage belongs to all of Europe, not to individual national canons.
Petra Svoljšak (ZRC SAZU, Milko Kos Historical Institute): The First World War was the first major conflict with mass character in many respects: mass mobilisation, mass death, mass refugeeism, mass destruction. After more than a hundred years the remains, the heritage and the legacy of this war remind us of the need to learn from the mistakes of the past to preserve peace; hence, many of the present conflicts are the legacy of the First World War, the geo-political decisions and of the practices of management of the human resources stem from the First World War. The commitment of civil society, science, and museums to work transnationally on the topic of the heritage of the First World War is an important step towards mutual understanding, shared knowledge, and the overcoming of prejudices, which often lead to conflicts and misunderstandings. It is also important to connect different parts of Europe that had very different experiences during the war, different politics of memorisation and commemoration practices after the war.
Bridging National Traditions of Remembrance into Transnational Understanding
Every nation remembers the First World War through its own cultural lens. Yet, the greatest challenge – and simultanously opportunity – lies in creating a shared European narrative that embraces diversity while promoting dialogue. What are the main challenges of connecting different national traditions of remembrance within the same project framework?
Petra Svoljšak (ZRC SAZU): The main challenge is knowledge and overcoming an often Western European-focused narration of the First World War. The transnational cooperation is thus of key importance in overcoming the differences and promoting the shared narration, respecting the differences and acknowledging the importance of cross-border and transnational cooperation in all fields dealing with the heritage of the war. Creating a network of institutions and individuals across the former fronts is the best and most efficient practice in forming a pan-European narrative of the First World War, respecting the individual traditions. On the other hand it is important ot raise the awareness of an overall remembrance and a connective heritage of the war that helps overcome ignorance, promote a culture of peace and coexistence.
Francesco Frizzera (MITAG): The greatest hurdle in fostering a shared European narrative is navigating the inherent tension between distinct national traditions of remembrance and the need for transnational understanding. Every nation filters the First World War through its own cultural lens, often solidified by monolithic retorics established by successor or victorious states. These narratives, designed to build national unity, have historically obscured the experiences of minorities and "the other," resulting in varied historical perspectives and disparate levels of heritage infrastructure across Europe. This makes reconciling diverse commemorative traditions and sensitivities a significant challenge. However, the immense opportunity lies in leveraging the unique nature of border areas and post-imperial spaces. In these contexts, the historical experience is far more nuanced; individual stories — such as grandparents fighting on opposing sides — create a dynamic tension that resists facile, teleological readings of history. In these former multi-ethnic territories, patriotic-national commemoration can often feel superficial or imposed. Instead, deeper, more rooted forms of remembrance exist, which hold a universal value that transcends the victors and the vanquished. These pre-existing cultural transfers and shared histories in post-imperial settings naturally foster platforms for common coexistence, making these regions the most promising sites for developing an inclusive, transnational narrative that genuinely embraces diversity and promotes dialogue.
UNESCO and the European Heritage Framework
The European Walk of Peace Trail aims to become part of the UNESCO-recognised network of heritage routes, linking WWI sites across Europe under a shared message of peace and reconciliation. How does the idea of developing the European Walk of Peace Trail relate to the UNESCO nomination process?
Stephen Lodewyck (In Flanders Fields Museum), The values that underlie recognition as Unesco World Heritage should be well understood in order to ensure that the European Walk of Peace Trail is aligned as closely as possible with a recognition process. The ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ expects an cultural and/or natural significance so exceptional that it transcends national boundaries and is of common interest to present and future generations of all humanity. The continued protection of this heritage is therefore of the utmost importance to the international community as a whole. I am convinced that connecting WWI sites in a physical, transnational way embodying a shared peace message has the potential to fulfill these Outstanding Universal Values as was achieved by the WWI-remembrance sites on the Western front.
Maša Klavora (Walk of Peace Foundation): One of the strongest outstanding universal values – and a key element for any UNESCO nomination – of the Walk of Peace and of (at least some parts of) the WWI heritage is the message of peace. Because the First World War was a global conflict, with significant heritage sites still visible in many countries and carrying clear transnational meaning, the Walk of Peace could become a transnational serial nomination. Such a nomination would have powerful symbolic value for both past and present: it would support shared remembrance of all victims, foster reconciliation today, and contribute to the sustainable development of regions once devastated by the war. The name of the nomination is also essential: Walk of Peace. Although it tells the story of war, it communicates a positive and forward-looking message — one of hope, optimism, and a commitment to the future. Importantly, it is not aimed only at historians but also engages wider audiences and diverse target groups.
Kamil Ruszała (Jagiellonian University): For the Eastern Front, joining the Walk of Peace initiative offers a unique opportunity to place this often-overlooked region on the European heritage map. A UNESCO nomination requires research-based documentation, long-term management structures, and a shared cross-border narrative. In all these areas, universities and research institutions play a crucial role. Our aim is to contribute academic expertise to extend the route eastwards, linking sites in Poland, Slovakia, and even in the next step beyond this region, with those already recognised in Slovenia and Italy, as well as in Belgium. This provides a framework for a future transnational understanding of the past. By building strong partnerships with municipalities, museums and NGOs, we hope to demonstrate that the heritage of the Eastern Front carries the same universal message of peace and reconciliation as other European First World War landscapes.
The Role of Science and Academic Institutions
As the discussion has already touched upon the role of universities and the idea of “research to society,” we will continue by asking how research and education – at the heart of heritage interpretation – enable universities and academic institutions to provide the evidence, context, and narratives that transform history into living culture: What is the role of science and academic institutions in the GOV4PeaCE project, and how does collaboration between researchers, museums, and local authorities strengthen its outcomes and long-term sustainability?
Maša Klavora (Walk of Peace Foundation): The most important topic of GOV4PeaCE is governance - how to improve governance of the WWI heritage also with support and inclusion of different sectors (municipalities, museums, research centres, NGOs, protection heritage institutions, regional development agencies, education), and to reach this goal we need also good research work, comparing analyses of best practices and different knowledge. Walk of Peace has to be developed with bottom-up and top-down approaches and multisectorally, multidimensionally and multilevelly. As an example, Posoški razvojni center, ZRC SAZU and PromoTurismoFVG have for many years supported partners in Slovenia and Italy in shaping professional, cross-border standards for WWI heritage management. At the same time, the Jagiellonian University – particularly the Faculty of History and the Critical Heritage Studies Hub – brings an innovative East-Central European perspective to the project, offering models of heritage protection and activation that link public institutions, museums, NGOs, tourism and education. Their research on battlefield landscapes, conflict archaeology and the reconstruction of lost or forgotten sites has been crucial for identifying burial places and understanding the material traces of the war. This expertise is not only valuable for partners across East-Central Europe, but also directly supports stakeholders in Slovenia and Italy, helping them to recognise the transnational nature of WWI heritage and to implement more integrated and sustainable governance models.
Stephen Lodewyck (In Flanders Fields Museum), The collaboration between research in museums and research in academic institutions should result in cross-fertilization. Researchers in museums put certain topics and themes on the academic research agenda, complement research (results) with knowledge from practice in the field, and work concretely with or translate research results from the academic sector into accessible exhibitions and public programmes, while local authorities embed these insights in planning, tourism, and conservation strategies. The cross-fertilization not only improves the quality of the project’s outputs but also strengthens community involvement and long-term sustainability. The knowledge that the In Flanders Fields Museum has built up in the past from this collaboration is shared, where relevant, with partners in the creation of a governance model and applied in the actions and work packages for which the museum is responsible.
Francesco Frizzera (MITAG): Academic institutions are central to the GOV4PeaCE project, acting as the primary drivers of change by facilitating "research to society" and "research to development." Universities and research centers, such as ZRC SAZU and Jagiellonian University, are essential for providing the evidence, context, and rigorous narratives required to transform historical data into living culture and sustainable heritage management tools. They guide the process of knowledge transfer from the academic realm into practical application. In the case study of Trentino, the collaboration between the university and territorial museums exemplified this role by radically shifting the public discourse. They brought back the "forgotten" subjects – combatants in Austro-Hungarian uniforms, women, prisoners, and children – who were previously marginalized by national patriotic rhetoric. By highlighting their movements, fates, and shared experiences, like the phenomenon of refugees and displacement, researchers generated a widespread sense of public awareness and a collective desire to rediscover a previously hidden past. This insight was then translated into tangible outcomes: exhibitions, digital platforms, and community journeys, for example, to Bohemia or Moravia, where locals visited the burial sites of their ancestors. This demonstrates how academic collaboration strengthens outcomes, ensuring that heritage management is rooted in accurate, multifaceted historical understanding.
Social and Educational Impact
Beyond preservation, heritage projects like GOV4PeaCE also serve as educational platforms that teach empathy, peace, and historical awareness, so it is worth asking: what is the academic and social significance of GOV4PeaCE for future generations, how can wartime narratives help us reflect on today’s challenges such as conflict and resilience, and what message about the legacy of the First World War and the culture of peace would you like to convey to European audiences?
Petra Svoljšak (ZRC SAZU): The starting point in understanding the importance of the heritage of the First World War is the knowledge about the long-termed consequences of this war, even for the present-day armed conflicts and the impact on the present world. The sites of memory and commemoration convey to young generations all the absurdity and the tragic outcomes on personal, local, national and global level. Sites of mourning that shifted into sites of shared and common memory could teach about the importance of tolerance and cohabitation. The younger generations could learn about the importance of an inclusive society, in which every voice matters and multiconfessionalism, multiculturalism, and multilinguism enrich the society. The values that are promoted by the project GoV4Peace are not only about common politics in the preservation and interpretation of the heritage, but above all, the values of the Walk of Peace are focused on creating a society that is based on tolerance, a culture of peace, and inclusiveness. This is the focal point of the connective heritage, and the Walk of Peace is one of the best examples of connectivity, which is based on a troubled and conflicting past, but looks forward to a connective present and future.
Kamil Ruszała (Jagiellonian University), WWI sites on the Eastern Front remind us how deeply the war shaped local communities and entire regions. Through GOV4PeaCE we translate these experiences into educational tools that foster empathy, resilience, and critical reflection. For younger generations, learning about a shared and multicultural wartime past helps overcome national stereotypes and understand how closely European societies were interconnected. Monuments and cemeteries become messages about peace and humanitarian responsibility: they teach care for the dead while revealing the senselessness of war when confronted with hundreds of thousands of scattered graves. Heritage thus serves not to glorify conflict but to understand its consequences, and to use that knowledge to build solidarity and a more peaceful future.
Partners’ Perspectives and Legacy
After establishing a network and experience with transnational cooperation in the field of WW1 Heritage, GOV4PeaCE project has extended its networks, created new tools, and models for cross-border cooperation. Looking forward, its partners reflect on what has been achieved and what comes next. From your institution’s perspective, what have been the most important outcomes of the project so far? How do you envision the continuation of cooperation after the GOV4PeaCE project ends?
Maša Klavora (Walk of Peace Foundation): The most important outcomes so far include the establishment of strong cross-border cooperation networks: between Poland and Slovakia – and even Ukraine – between Hungary, Romania, and Serbia, and between Slovenia and Italy (across four regions, not only Friuli Venezia Giulia and parts of Veneto). Belgium is involved throughout as well. This has enabled the exchange of practices and knowledge and the preparation of new joint projects. We have also carried out extensive research work: we identified around 400 WWI heritage sites across all participating countries and presented them on the Walk of Peace platform. In addition, we are conducting many capitalisation and synergy activities with other Interreg projects and related initiatives. We are developing a governance model and an online tool that partners will be able to use in their heritage development processes even after the project ends. Looking ahead, we hope that in autumn 2026, at the conclusion of the project, all partners willing to continue this work will sign an agreement supported by a transnational action plan and platform, ensuring long-term cooperation. The Walk of Peace and its EU-funded projects were also presented in October 2025 at the European Week of Regions and Cities in Brussels as a good practice example. Of course, further concrete work will be needed under future cross-border Interreg projects or other funding schemes – just as we have done between west of Slovenia and Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (Italy) over the past 15 years with Soča Regional Development Agency, PromoTurismo FVG, GECT GO, municipalities, ZRC SAZU, and other partners in the Interreg Italy–Slovenia programmes, and most recently within the European Capital of Culture Nova Gorica - Gorizia 2025 framework. On a very personal level, what matters most to me is the feeling that the people working on GOV4PeaCE and other Walk of Peace projects are not only colleagues but also friends: people who stay in touch long after the projects end and who are truly dedicated to this topic.
Francesco Frizzera (MITAG): From the perspective of GOV4PeaCE partners, the most significant outcomes achieved so far are fundamentally relational and cognitive. The project has successfully established robust new transnational partnerships and fostered a crucial awareness of shared experience across institutional boundaries. The collaborative mapping process revealed striking symmetries and analogies: despite different national contexts, the models, procedures, and challenges related to managing and developing this shared heritage are remarkably similar. This realization is key to the project's legacy. By utilizing common tools and platforms, all partners are implicitly compelled to consider the actions and development plans of their peers, ensuring long-term synergy. Looking ahead, the continuation of cooperation will be driven by these shared understandings. Future plans include the promotion of common research projects that go beyond the academic sector and the expansion of the heritage routes network (like the Walk of Peace) as a shared promotional tool. This conscious embedding of collaboration into future strategic thinking ensures that the innovative management and educational models developed during GOV4PeaCE evolve into a shared mission, securing the future of this European heritage beyond the project's official end.
The Future of European Heritage Routes
Indeed, one of the long-term ambitions of GOV4PeaCE is to expand the network of European heritage trails and connect new regions, creating a truly continental map of remembrance. How do you see the future development of European heritage routes, and what steps are needed to integrate new regions, such as the Eastern Front, into the wider Walk of Peace network? What role do cross-border municipalities and local networks play in maintaining and promoting the WW1 thematic trails, and how can they help strengthen connections between heritage, tourism, and education?
Petra Svoljšak (ZRC SAZU): The main goal of all the projects related to the Walk of Peace is the creation of a network of different routes of remembrance based on the WW1 heritage, connecting former Eastern, Western, Southwestern, and Southeastern fronts and thus forming the bases for the European Cultural Route. The European Cultural routes are a bottom-up initiative that needs the strong support of local communities and municipalities, but also diverse tourist and educational programmes. It would need an effective transnational management board and a strong scientific board, which would be able to expand the idea and the values of the Walk of Peace across the continent. One of the goals is also to find good partners in the Southeastern Europe that hold an enormous and important heritage of the First World War, which was a constituent pillar of national remembrance in the past and would represent an added value to the existing network of the Walk of Peace. It could also contribute to the EU enlargement processes. Another ambition of the existing network is also being inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list, but this decision needs the support of the state and a strong diplomatic action. Slovenia is certainly looking towards this goal, the Slovenian part of the heritage of the former Isonzo front is already on the UNESCO Tentative list (2016). The final aim or ambition would be to expand the inscription to as many sites of memory and heritage of the First World War, possibly gathered into a unique and united inscription, which would convey the message of peace and tolerance.
The role of the Museums
As the European Walk of Peace and other heritage routes connect historical landscapes across borders, museums play an equally vital role as hubs of these dispersed memories. They not only curate exhibitions but also link local sites, communities, and transnational narratives. How do institutions such as the In Flanders Fields Museum, the Museo Storico Italiano della Guerra, and the planned Museum of the Eastern Front in Gorlice reflect this expanded role – binding national and transnational perspectives, and transforming the museum space into a living network of heritage beyond its walls?
Francesco Frizzera (MITAG): The museum is the regional or national pivot for heritage development and the indispensable cultural mediator within the network of dispersed memories. Institutions like the In Flanders Fields Museum (Ypres) or the Museo Storico Italiano della Guerra (Rovereto) have expanded their roles far beyond curating exhibitions. They act as the central element connecting the essential triad of heritage: material objects/testimonies, significant sites/trenched landscapes, and people/protagonists/cemeteries. The museum, both as a physical hub and an institution, connects and mediates these places, stories, and artifacts both inside its walls and through open-air museum concepts. It serves as the powerful pivot of a regional network, offering crucial services — research, education, and interpretation — to smaller, local actors who are vital for on-site preservation. With its communicative strength, it connects nationally and forges international relationships with other regional peers. Critically, the museum is the point of articulation for heritage routes and hiking trails, providing the necessary scholarly context and cultural services when mediation is needed. Without this central institution, the development of a coherent territorial valorization system and the provision of essential research and educational services are severely hampered.
Stephen Lodewyck (In Flanders Fields Museum): The In Flanders Fields Museum collects, researches and presents the history and heritage of the First World War in Belgium. The museum not only tells the military-historical story, but also highlights the total impact of war on people and their environment. The museum gives voice to the multiple voices and perspectives on the theme of war and the commemoration ever since and facilitates discussion, how controversial that may be. The museum and research centre encourages people and communities throughout the world to share their stories and heritage linked to the First World War in Belgium. Where possible and appropriate, the shared collection of stories and heritage is shared again with museum visitors, thereby preserving and strengthening the museum space as a living network of heritage. The In Flanders Fields Museum gives meaning to war heritage in all its forms, both within and beyond its walls. The museum, housed in the Ypres Cloth Hall, a lieu de mémoire in the former frontline region, pays great attention to the contemporary landscape as one of the last tangible witnesses of the war history. Various tours, routes, and apps exploring the former war landscape, start in the museum and connect various WWI sites — both war relics and remembrance sites — in an educationally responsible manner, giving the landscape meaning for residents and visitors today. By actively connecting landscapes, places and people across the region and beyond, the heritage becomes relevant to the world of today and tomorrow.
Kamil Ruszała (Jagiellonian University): Following the good practices developed by WWI museums in Belgium and Italy, and by networking with other institutions across Europe, the planned Museum of the Eastern Front in Gorlice treats transnational cooperation as a structural principle rather than an addition. The museum aims to become a hub for dispersed heritage in the landscape, integrating local sites, archival sources, and international research into a broader European narrative that moves beyond national heroism. Institutions such as the IFFM and MITAG offer inspiring models of how museums can act as centres of distributed memory, linking historical landscapes, digital tools, and local communities. Our ambition in Poland is to build a platform that follows these ideas. In this sense, museums become bridges: they translate the complexity of wartime experiences into accessible knowledge while fostering cross-border dialogue and long-term partnerships.
Local Communities and Public Participation
Heritage preservation is not only an institutional task but also a community effort. How can local communities be engaged in the protection and promotion of WWI heritage, and how does their participation contribute to building a sustainable culture of memory?
Maša Klavora (Walk of Peace Foundation): The first essential step is to raise awareness of the importance of WWI heritage and the opportunities it offers to local communities. This is why local residents should be involved in the processes of protection and promotion from the very beginning: only a participatory approach can lead to a successful and sustainable culture of memory and meaningful remembrance practices. Any forced, top-down model would create a negative environment and hinder the development of heritage-based cultural tourism or educational programmes, leaving them as nothing more than ideas on paper.
Stephen Lodewyck (In Flanders Fields Museum): The In Flanders Fields Museum connects the heritage collection, knowledge and research on the history of the First World War with residents, visitors and communities today. A diversified cultural programme and extensive educational activities, tailored to a wide range of school groups – from local (heritage) communities to (inter)national (school) visitors – aims at connecting different communities. The museum has a ongoing and profound relationship with the Friends of the In Flanders Fields Museum who endorse the mission and support the functioning of the museum and the research centre. Moreover, the friends contribute to the museum programme through their own activities. They organise commemorative events, walks, excursions and trips at home and abroad. Their journey into the past of the First World War follows the traces of mankind in times of war, and along the way they search for the mechanisms of war and peace, to show the meaning of this past for the world today. The friend act as ‘the first public’ of the programme and exhibitions of the museum.
This exchange makes one point clear: when shared history becomes shared responsibility, the legacy of the First World War gains new meaning for Europe today. Thank you for this forum.
Klavdija Figelj, head of Media Relations of European Capital of Culture 2025 Nova Gorica - Gorizia, journalist
Foto: Tanja Gorjan
