|
Post by radovic on Oct 10, 2007 16:49:51 GMT -5
I don't think it's just Milosevic. The initial cause was the status of Vojvodina and Kosovo. Liberals in Serbia wanted their status changed -- either Vojvodina be abolished it's seat on the SFRY presidency or their status be changed so that they have advisory positions (non-voting) positions, that they can only vote in Serbia under circumstance and so on. Basically, accross the Serbian spectrum they wanted to change the status of those two provinces. For various reasons the SFRY presidency refused to support this (mainly Croatia and Slovenia woudl benefit from keeping such a system). serbia was unable to do this so milosevic came and he took an agressive approach which allowed him to take contorl of 4 seats on presidency, had the SFRJ presidency approved earlier attempts Serbian extreme nationalism wouldn't of become so huge.
I agree Milosevic was Yugoslavist, but he was incompetent and feared losing his power -- which was possible at the time.
He wasn't a figure head. He chose not to do anything that could have prevented violence because he saw he could use it to keep power and strenghtn his power.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Oct 10, 2007 16:54:58 GMT -5
The violence in Croatia I agree was started by Croat authorities -- but no through firing shots. Also, technically it was the JNA who started the violence because the first act of war in bosnia was in late 1991 when the JNA killed 13 people in a Croat village in Bosnia.
The break up was starting before they came to power. Milosevic came to power before they did. I doubt Milosevic could have been coming to power but if SFRY preisdency had done what Serb liberals wanted regarding Kosovo and Vojvodina I doubt Tudjman or Izetbetgovic would have come to power.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Oct 10, 2007 17:01:52 GMT -5
In Croatia, when Croatian militias attacked JNA barracks’ and in Bosnia when Muslim militias opened fire on a Serb wedding. That was not the first shot fired -- it was the JNA committing acts of violence in the late 90s. Specifically the deaths fo 13 Croats in a small village in Herzegovina by Montenegrin JNA recruits. In Croatia the first shot was not Croat attacks on the JNA. The first acts was the passage of a new Croat constitution that didn't mention Serbs unlike the 1974 constitution did and tghen Croatia firing Serb policemen and sending Croatian police into Serb areas. The Serbs reacted to this constitution by doing something allowed the forming of "Associations of Municiplaities", but when Croatia sent Croat police into these areas the Serbs reacted by violent means to blockade these areas from Croat troops and then forming election "Serbian Autonomous Oblasts." May be those in Serbia and Bosnia at the time. Those in Croatia could care less about Kosovo. Those in Croatia after the Croatian constitution was passed pushed for dissasociating themselves from Croatia through illegal means and then started creating illegal "Se4rbian autonomous olbasts.".
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Oct 10, 2007 17:09:41 GMT -5
Actually. What Croats did was a mirror of what Serbs did in Kosovo. Croatia passed a new constitution opposed by the biggest minority group in the republic, just how Serbia did. It then fired police officers belonging to that ethnic group for refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the republic that employed them (the difference was in Croatia this was not mandatory to all employees just non-Croats and Croatia was defined as the Croat nation state, Serbia at the time was not defined as a Serb nation state and it was required of al police in Serbia). Those Croats were following orders, the Serbs then reacted to something that can be considered illegal although they didn't they reacted to it in an ethnic sense.
|
|
|
Post by serbguerrilla on Oct 10, 2007 18:13:18 GMT -5
What holocaust are you talking about and who denied it? Tudjman. He claimed that the number of 6,000,000 Jewish deaths was a lie and that no more then 30,000 Serbs were killed by the Ustasha. #1. There are not 400,000 Serbs who can't return. miost of them do not want to return. There are not 400,000 Serbs who can't return in RS. Not wanting to return? If that is not returning because you are scared of Muslims gutting you then yes, they do not ‘want’ to return.
|
|
Demonel
Amicus
I am Jack's regained insanity.
Posts: 833
|
Post by Demonel on Oct 11, 2007 9:36:53 GMT -5
Bosnjaka u RS procentualno najviše ima u opstinama: Vukosavlje 57,1%, Osmaci 47,5%, Istocno Gorazde 40%, Srebrenica 37,3% i Jezero 33%.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Oct 11, 2007 13:14:19 GMT -5
Yes. They do not want to return. Second, you (just like bosniaks and croats do), exagerrate the threat people face if they return. Hiow about instead of spreading lies you actually state the truth. Majority of Serbs do not want to return and the institutions of RS and political parties in RS do not want them to go back to where they came from but to say in the RS.
|
|
|
Post by serbguerrilla on Oct 11, 2007 18:39:05 GMT -5
Yes. They do not want to return. Second, you (just like bosniaks and croats do), exagerrate the threat people face if they return. Hiow about instead of spreading lies you actually state the truth. I never said that it would happen, I said that they are afraid of that, which is true. Perhaps you should read my posts carefully next time before you accuse me of ‘spreading lies‘. Majority of Serbs do not want to return and the institutions of RS and political parties in RS do not want them to go back to where they came from but to say in the RS. The reason why is because those Serbs feel safer in RS. Before and during the war they were persecuted by Muslims in Muslim dominated cities. Basically I really don’t see the problem with this, all Serbs in RS and all Muslims in BiH would mean that there is less chance of a civil war in the future. The biggest reason as to why there was so much ethnic strife was because the Yugoslav government was forcing everyone to live together despite them not wanting to.
|
|