Mens Tennis Forums banner

Do you Serbs regret ideas of Milosovic?

16K views 223 replies 32 participants last post by  Virtu4l 
#1 · (Edited)
What is your point of view after all this years?

Tito with all his flaws was still able to keep the union and the constitution in 74 gave people many rights.

Milosovic believed in the Serbian identity only and wasn't able to understand minorities rights, wars erupted, thousands died and union dissolved. He had many supporters between Serbs.

Do you think things should have been done differently? Do you regret what happened, or you still think he is a good leader? Or do you think the union was going to dissolve any way after death of Tito?

Please reply.


Edit July 2014: Because of what is happening now in the world I am starting to look at this conflict differently so I am re-opening it for further debate to understand because I am confused now very much..
 
#2 ·
What is your point of view after all this years?

Tito with all his flaws was still able to keep the union and the constitution in 74 gave people many rights.

Milosovic believed in the Serbian identity only and wasn't able to understand minorities rights, wars erupted, thousands died and union dissolved. He had many supporters between Serbs.

Do you think things should have been done differently? Do you regret what happened, or you still think he is a good leader? Or do you think the union was going to dissolve any way after death of Tito?

Please reply.
Where are you from sweetheart?
 
#3 ·
What is your point of view after all this years?

Tito with all his flaws was still able to keep the union and the constitution in 74 gave people many rights.

Milosovic believed in the Serbian identity only and wasn't able to understand minorities rights, wars erupted, thousands died and union dissolved. He had many supporters between Serbs.

Do you think things should have been done differently? Do you regret what happened, or you still think he is a good leader? Or do you think the union was going to dissolve any way after death of Tito?

Please reply.
I think you should first read his 1989 speech in Kosovo Polje. http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~bip/docs/kosovo_polje/kosovo_polje.html

Then read what the Western media says about his 1989 speech.

It's like night and day.

What you think you know about that region is nothing but a mishmash of lies, distortions, half-truths, and some truth.

Don't get me wrong: there were people and politicians on all sides in those conflicts (of course Serbs among them) who espoused disgusting ideologies, but Milosevic was not one of them.
 
#8 · (Edited)
Don't get me wrong: there were people and politicians on all sides in those conflicts (of course Serbs among them) who espoused disgusting ideologies, but Milosevic was not one of them.
:lol:

I think Milosevic had very little support in 2000, because he was perceived at best as incompetent and at worst as a Western spy. Almost nobody in Serbia, other than the far left liberals, perceived him as a racist, rabid nationalist, or dictator. That's because, compared to many other people at the time and particularly his political opponents in Serbia and abroad (Seselj, Djindjic, Draskovic, etc.), Milosevic was actually quite a moderate. He was cast in the same socialist mold as his wife, Mira Markovic, which meant elevation of socialist PC ideals over crude nationalism.
:lol:

If you read the contemporary Greek/Russian/Chinese media on the destruction of Yugoslavia, it will seem that Milosevic was a peacemaker trying to combat madmen on the opposing side.
:haha:

Blimey, that was a funny read. :)

What is your point of view after all this years?

Tito with all his flaws was still able to keep the union and the constitution in 74 gave people many rights.

Milosovic believed in the Serbian identity only and wasn't able to understand minorities rights, wars erupted, thousands died and union dissolved. He had many supporters between Serbs.

Do you think things should have been done differently? Do you regret what happened, or you still think he is a good leader? Or do you think the union was going to dissolve any way after death of Tito?

Please reply.
He was no leader, more like a wrong man in a wrong place in a wrong time. Of course the union was going to dissolve as soon as the US $$$ dried up, however they didn't have to burn the house down. Of course, it wasn't his fault exclusively, but he had his share in it.

I've never voted for him nor approved what he did, same goes for lots of others here, so in a way we are all victims of the wrong politics that was implemented here.
 
#4 ·
I personally admire and support Tito for uniting a region historically known for having hostile tensions for many centuries. But the unfortunate news was that it was bound to fail since cultural identities prevail over social and economic mutuality. His idea of cross-functional teams was quite an amazing one when he was in power. I don't know how this man even managed to glue this area together.
 
#5 ·
Tito burnished a nice surface on the country as a whole. It was constructed on an edifice of lies. You cannot lie about history with a slogan like "Brotherhood and unity," then think that brainwashing schoolchildren will make people forget what happened.

It's a good lesson to everyone: indoctrinating schoolkids and ruling with an iron fist doesn't stop people from passing down personal memories within their own home, from generation to generation.

My view of Tito is rather dim as my grandfather was imprisoned for 7 years in an Alcatraz-like place called Goli Otok. And that was for saying something he wasn't supposed to say.
 
#21 ·
I think it is absurd to consider it without taking into account that probably 10-100 times as many Muslim volunteers (as Greek volunteers) were brought into Bosnia by Izetbegovic to hack off heads and other body parts of Serbs and Croats.
From what I understand Izetbegovic didn't have support within Bosnians till nationalist ideas from the other side appeared. He was a no body in 70s that didn't find support for his Islamic nationalist ideas.
 
#22 ·
From what I understand Izetbegovic didn't have support within Bosnians till nationalist ideas from the other side appeared. He was a no body in 70s that didn't find support for his Islamic nationalist ideas.
The waves of nationalism were as follows:

1.) Croatian spring in the 1970s.

2.) Albanians in Kosovo in the mid 1980s (when they had autonomy, they wanted a republic).

3.) Serbs in Kosovo and more generally in the late 1980s.

4.) Bosnian Muslims in the early 1990s.

It is true that Izetbegovic was not supported initially by Muslims as much as a much better option. This man was called Fikret Abdic, who was the legally elected head of the Muslims. Izetbegovic did a political maneuver to sideline Abdic and take his place.

Abdic was a tolerant man who dealt well with both Serbs and Croats and ruled a small enclave in Velika Kladusa during the war. He was allied with the Serbs and Croats and an enemy of the Izetbegovic Muslims during the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fikret_Abdić
 
#10 ·
Campaign thread
 
#13 ·
What were your ideas about him?
 
#24 ·
Cleopatra, you have to be very specific about Milosevic. Are you referring to "regrets" in terms of govt. influence in Serbia?
In which Vida, Aloimeh, and everyone else have already answered. Or are you referring to Milosevic in terms of war?
(against the neighboring nations).

I never understood why Montenegro separated from Serbia after a long stay. I don't know if this was U.S. influence pressuring them
to become a nation to make Serbia smaller, or if they really wanted to become sovereign. They did recognize Kosovo, so for this reason,
I'm going to assume could have been outside political pressure, unless of course Montenegrins themselves thought their land would take
a hit if they remain with Serbia because of economic problems of the time.
 
#26 ·
Historically most Montenegrins considered themselves Serbs and only a small minority considered themselves a separate ethnic group. Milo Djukanovic, who drove the independence of Montenegro, was far more nationalistic than Milosevic in the 1990s and called for tougher measures and more warfare.

So the Montenegrin flip-flop is purely a result of politics. They thought they could get by better with tourism and Western cash than in a union with Serbia. Unfortunately, they continue with this policy even while continuing to take advantage of benefits offered (in the past and still now) by Serbia.
 
#37 ·
Thank you guys about Montenegro*

Here is kind of how I see it:

1. Slovenia and Croatia, wanted to separate from the start because they were the more wealthier of the nations of former Yugoslavia. From the inception to its death, most of these people did not want to share their lands resources with their neighbors. They only wanted the lands for themselves. I guess in some sense they were greedy and accused poorer nations like Bosnia, Serbia, and Macedonia etc. of leeching off of them. While wealth was important to these two, so was cultural nationalism that had always existed in these regions.

2. Albanians of Kosovo, Kosovo separated more for cultural reasons than economic ones. The Albanians of Kosovo were waiting for an excuse and Slovenia and Croatia, inspired and provoked them to take action ASAP. These guys were nationalist to the point where they even hated not just Serbs, but Bosnians and other minorities in these lands.

3. Bosnia. I believe most Bosnians had this in mind: "What's the point of Yugoslavia anymore, Slovenia, Croatia, etc. have already split. They don't want to be a part of it. And this system and its economy are going to drop ASAP. We might as well separate too". So when this happened, Bosnians, Serbians, and even Croatians, were quick to react. They realized what was at stake (the lands).

So pretty much I would say at heart, Croatia, Slovenia, and Kosovo, were the perpetrators that never wanted to stick it out. Whereas Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, only reacted to nationalism/separation because they saw what was coming.

I'm sure though, even if Croatia, Slovenia, and Kosovo, wouldn't have sent in their resignation, I'm more than sure the war was imminent (if not), then somehow, someway, the collapse of Yugoslavia would have happened (because of cultural reasons primarily and economic reasons as a secondary motive).

With all said and done. Hopefully there is a way that these people and even their minorities (like Hungarians, Gypsies, Turks, Goranis etc.) can all live in peace.
 
#39 ·
Thank you guys about Montenegro*

Here is kind of how I see it:

1. Slovenia and Croatia, wanted to separate from the start because they were the more wealthier of the nations of former Yugoslavia. From the inception to its death, most of these people did not want to share their lands resources with their neighbors. They only wanted the lands for themselves. I guess in some sense they were greedy and accused poorer nations like Bosnia, Serbia, and Macedonia etc. of leeching off of them. While wealth was important to these two, so was cultural nationalism that had always existed in these regions.
You should read about the creation of Yugoslavia. In 1918, Croats and Slovenes requested to unify with Serbia. That was because if they hadn't they would be paying war reparations to the victors of WWI and would have been annexed by Italy, Hungary, and Austria.

If you look at the Slovenian case, their 2nd largest city - Maribor - is in Slovenia only because of their union with Serbia. The majority of people in Maribor in 1918 were German speakers who were pressured out or expelled. Same thing happened in 1945, when Tito sent Serbs to conquer Trieste from Italy (for Slovenia), but after thousands of lives lost had to return it to Italy (and quite rightly, I might add). With Croatia, it's a similar story. Istria, Rijeka (Fiume), Zadar (Zara), etc. would have gone to Italy if it weren't for Yugoslavia. It is precisely because Serbia accepted Croatia and deprived Italy of Dalmatia that the Italian fascists got so much support as "liberators" of the "unredeemed lands" that should have gone to Italy.

Read about the foibe, where Slovene and Croat communists stole territory from Italy by wiping out the Italians in these areas, despite the fact that in WWII Croatia was a rabid ally of Hitler and Mussolini: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foibe_killings

2. Albanians of Kosovo, Kosovo separated more for cultural reasons than economic ones. The Albanians of Kosovo were waiting for an excuse and Slovenia and Croatia, inspired and provoked them to take action ASAP. These guys were nationalist to the point where they even hated not just Serbs, but Bosnians and other minorities in these lands.
Basically correct. They've wiped Gypsies and Jews out of Kosovo, as well as Vitina Croats and Goranis, who are Serbian-speaking Muslims. Slovenia was coordinating everything with the Albanians. The 1974 constitution which gave Kosovo autonomy was written by a Slovenian schoolteacher named Edvard Kardelj. Slovenia was also sending them weapons starting in 1995 onwards to 1999, so even after their independence Slovenia was promoting the disintegration of Serbia.

3. Bosnia. I believe most Bosnians had this in mind: "What's the point of Yugoslavia anymore, Slovenia, Croatia, etc. have already split. They don't want to be a part of it. And this system and its economy are going to drop ASAP. We might as well separate too". So when this happened, Bosnians, Serbians, and even Croatians, were quick to react. They realized what was at stake (the lands).
Bosnia until the 1960s had Serbs as the largest ethnic group. That situation changed in favor of the Muslims due to Serb migration into Serbia (especially Belgrade), Muslim migration into Bosnia from poor areas of Serbia (Sandzak), and the higher Muslim birthrate. With under 50% of the population, it was suicidal for the Muslims to think they could create a unitary state dominated by them when their Christian neighbors were vehemently opposed to Muslim rule. The Croats played the Muslims well, knowing that they needed their demographic weight to tear Bosnia away from Yugoslavia, but then turning on them in 1993 to stake out their own land.

So pretty much I would say at heart, Croatia, Slovenia, and Kosovo, were the perpetrators that never wanted to stick it out. Whereas Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, only reacted to nationalism/separation because they saw what was coming.
Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, and Macedonians (in the order) were the biggest losers/victims of the breakup of Yugoslavia. They lost territory and lives (Serbs and Bosnian Muslims), or in the case of the Macedonians are dealing with an Albanian demographic timebomb headed the same way as Kosovo.

I'm sure though, even if Croatia, Slovenia, and Kosovo, wouldn't have sent in their resignation, I'm more than sure the war was imminent (if not), then somehow, someway, the collapse of Yugoslavia would have happened (because of cultural reasons primarily and economic reasons as a secondary motive).

With all said and done. Hopefully there is a way that these people and even their minorities (like Hungarians, Gypsies, Turks, Goranis etc.) can all live in peace.
I hope so too. But the machinations of Turkey, Germany, the US, the UK, and the Vatican continue, with Russia tagging along, so the Balkans will continue to see warfare and bloodshed, I am afraid.
 
#38 ·
slovenia broke away because of the yugoslavian regime which stopped working in their favor (in most part because milosevic, who wanted more power, took it over). economically, slovenia had all the interest in the world to stay in yugoslavia, where their main market was.

croatia broke away because their ever long dream was to be an independent nation. similar with kosovo.

macedonia saw their chance to be independent and serbia/yugoslavia had nothing against it.

bosnia was ripped apart by various factions.
 
#44 ·
Some diaspora are similar to mainland people. You can see this in all cultures. Yes, there's a likelihood that Greeks in the U.S. or Australia have additional values than mainland Greeks, but this doesn't mean that they've lost 100% all their original Greek culture and values.

Take for example. There are Poles born in Germany, that may have a dislike of Germans as equally as Poles born in Poland. Yet at the same time there could be Poles born in Poland who love Germans as equally as another group of Poles born in Germany.

Culture, religion, politics, language, and other institutions can still travel with you.
 
#45 ·
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better.
 
#46 ·
I am sorry for asking many questions, I am trying to feel the Serbian society in late 80s and 90s.

When violence erupted in 90s. Did church and leaders tell people to stop it? Were most people happy, shocked, or apologists? What was the reaction in media, in universities, what did famous writers say? Whom they blamed?
 
#49 ·
The issue I have here is that you only ask about Serbs. What about Croats, Albanians Bosnian Muslims, Slovenes, or international politicians and media outlets?

I mean, this kind of tone is what leads so many Serbs to bridle at any political discussion, because it's far from a level playing field, and you're approaching the history with a firmly entrenched position that the Serbs (Serb politicians, society, intellectuals, church, etc.) have some special explanation they owe to others.

No one has explained to us why Yugoslavia had to be destroyed and why its destruction was so encouraged by Western and Islamic powers.

No one has explained to us why WWII genocide against the Serbian people has been dismissed and systematically covered up. There have been no reparations, compensations, or anything from the political inheritor of the responsibility for that genocide, which is Croatia and to some degree Croatia's mentors, the Holy See and Germany. People know about the Holocaust and Armenian genocide. Do they know about the genocide of the Serbs in the NDH? No, most do not.

No one has explained to us why only Serbia - of all ex-Yu republics - had to have a part of it (Kosovo) torn away, yet when Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia protested the secession of those countries from Yugoslavia, their pleas and demands were met with silence, ridicule, lies, accusations, expulsions, bombs, and mass murder.

No one has explained to us why Western media resorted to grotesque lies and propaganda a la 250,000 dead Muslims in Bosnia, "death camps," Dubrovnik razed to the ground out of sheer malice, 100,000 killed Kosovo Albanian men, Kosovo Albanians being disposed of in acid vats at the Trepca mine, and 60,000 ****d Muslim women. Those were total forgeries and lies and completely pointless, since the wars were bad enough as it is.

No one has explained to us why the Jewish community in the West was so vehemently in bed with the propagandists, avidly supporting erstwhile WWII Nazi collaborators (who had murdered their own people, as well as the Serbs, in death camps like Jasenovac) in their bids for independent Serbenfrei states, even while Israel hypocritically continued ethnically discriminatory policies in the occupied territories that went far beyond any policy of Milosevic.

You know, we're still waiting for answers to our own questions. And it isn't "Milosevic."
 
#52 ·
This is a subject I want to investigate... Have any Croatian's or Serbs seen the documentary 'the weight of chains' and if so is it a fair and balanced view on the conflict. I worked with a Croatian who was in the war, he hated it, didnt want the war but said it was just the way it was, he said the people of the old Yugoslavia were much better off, the economy was stronger before joining the euro... I don't know much about it or the politics but from the way I see it I'd say the Croatians were more the good guys in the war as they stood their ground and defended their land, not invade others. But like I said I'm not 100% sure, just seems that way to me.
 
#56 ·
Serbs have been present in Croatia since the 1300s and a major presence since the 1500s. Before WWII they were a full 1/4 of the population of Croatia (all parts, particularly Slavonia and Dalmatia). Today they are 4%. It is these kinds of facts that you were not told by the media because they were inconvenient. So the conflict in Croatia was one between Croats and the native Serbs minority (which had support from Serbia, naturally). In that sense, it was very much a civil war, except rather than political ideologies being the division (as in Spain), it was religion (as in Northern Ireland) and ethnicity (as in Georgia).
 
#63 ·
Hmm, my sense is that the tone of this was not altogether friendly. Oh well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Getta
#66 ·
^^Also the first Serbian king who was crowned, got his crown from the Pope, but people here conveniently choose to ignore that :lol: Anyway, I think the argument "they were Serbs 700 years ago" is kinda lame. They don't think they are Serbs now, and who cares what someone's grandfather 700 years ago was? Going along that line, Italy could claim the whole Balkan on account they were ruling it before the Slavs and Muslims :p
 
#68 ·
I agree all three should be entitled to live in that land. The only problem is "Republika Srpska" is kind of no different than the Kosovo situation. It prevents Bosnia from functioning as a normal nation.

I think they should get rid of this entity, and allow the country to be united. Obviously it's too little too late for the original inhabitants to return, but I think if the entity was removed, people of all backgrounds would feel more united.

But as long as this entity continues to exist, it would promote separatism and the Bosnia dilemma would never be resolved.
 
#69 ·
That is incorrect. Republika Srpska is the guarantee to one of the communities that it will not again be the subject of genocide (as in WWII) or apartheid rule (as under the Ottomans) or Islamic machinations as envisioned by Izetbegovic.

The Muslims only recently (the 1960s) became a plurality, but in 1992 they acted as if they were a 80% majority. They are not, nor have they ever been that.

The Croat community deserves a similar entity.

There was a chance to make a unitary Bosnia, but that was lost in 1991 or 1992 when the Muslims decided that they were entitled to a nation state of their own and that Serbs and Croats who were unhappy about that could leave and "go home" (i.e. to Serbia or Croatia). The Muslims made a lot of statements and speeches about how they were going to be multiethnic, etc. but the history speaks otherwise. They engaged in ethnic cleansing just like the other two communities (of about 150,000 Croats and 400,000 Serbs).

Neither the Serbs nor the Croats were happy with Muslim intentions. The Serbs took up arms against the Muslims immediately. The Croats waited a year (they needed the Muslim vote to rip away from Yugoslavia), and then basically did the same as the Serbs in 1993.
 
#71 ·
History doesn't show that though. It shows Croatia and Serbia invading Bosnia to take it over completely. Not just after 1991 but even back during the days of monarchs (Hungary and Byzantine even fought for these lands and people).

The ethnic cleansing in Bosnia did not come before the wars. I believe they were a result of invasions on Bosnia which forced all 3 ethnic groups to scatter. Otherwise today there would be hundreds of thousands of Serbs remaining in Croatia, an additional hundreds of thousands of Serbs and Croatians remaining in Bosnia, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims remaining in Serbia.

There doesn't seem to be suggestive evidence that prior to 1991 that the 55-60% Bosnian population wanted to boot out the 40-45% total population of Croats and Serbs. This would be very suicidal and they would have never attempted such a thing.

Remember, there were considerable amounts of Orthodox Bosnians/Bosnian Serbs, and other none Bosniak minorities that fought against the Serbian invasion. You can read about them in news articles and documentaries.
 
#74 ·
It actually does show that to be the case. Serbs were the majority of the population on approximately 2/3 of Bosnia's territory. That's because they were agricultural pastoralists or farmers while Muslims had privileges to live in cities as landlords or artisans. Croats were somewhere in between in terms of their urbanization. So that fact that the Serbs held 70% of Bosnia at one point doesn't imply that they conquered most of that territory from people who were previously the majority on it (some they did, most they did not).

The ethnic cleansing was a spontaneous result and strategy of a conflict where nobody could trust their own neighbor. To preemptively prevent them from waging guerrila war, they expelled most and killed some.

The ethnic cleansing by Serbs and Croats was more *visible* than by Muslims because they did it over larger tracts of territory (e.g. villages or towns that were mixed or heavily Muslim surrounded by predominantly Serb or Croat villages). Muslims engaged in silent ethnic cleansing of towns and cities, whereby 15% or 20% (or 40% in the odd case) of Croats or Serbs or both were simply driven to flee due to the reign of terror Muslim warlords conducted from within.

Serbia hasn't expelled Muslims - as a state policy - since the 1800s. In the 1990s there were no expulsions of Muslims out of Serbia. There were two incidents of massacre perpetrated by a Bosnian Serb warlord against Serbian Muslims (Sjeverin and Strpci), and in one case he invaded Serbia and seized passengers off a bus and in the other he attacked a train going between Belgrade and Montenegro (passing through Bosnia) and took off more passengers.

Bosnian Muslims were never 55% or 60%. It's the Bosnian Christians who are 55-60% (together). The Muslims are 45-50%. They are not a majority. Which makes their attempt to hijack control over all of Bosnia the more insane and unfeasible.

There were a few Serbs in Sarajevo primarily who fought for the Muslims. Most did not. There were also Muslims who fought with Serbs (e.g. Fikret Abdic was allied with them). It proves nothing. The vast majority of each community was engaged in war with the other community.
 
#75 ·
Just to clarify something. Serbs would be perfectly happy if left alone, to have this autonomy. But it's the Muslims who are not satisfied and want all of it for themselves. We simply won't accept to be democratically voted out of existence by a muslim majority.
 
#76 ·
Shiaben: I would also advise you to look a bit more into the events of early 1992 (if you are interested of course). The first acts of violence were not by Serbs, but by Muslims and Croats against Serbs.

March 1, there was the assassination of the Serb wedding guest in Sarajevo.

March 26, there was the massacre in Sijekovac (around Bosanski Brod), in which dozens (the number is very hard to get precisely because it is so sensitive) of Serb civilians and POWs were murdered by Croat-Muslim units crossing over from Croatia.

Only on March 31-April 1 did the Serbs begin organized violence at Bijeljina, and even in that case the violence was provoked by a Muslim on a horse trying to throw a bomb into a cafe (his name was Alija Gusalic).
 
#79 ·
Well.. after all these years, the serbians still support a war criminal and mass murderer in Mladic.. they fucking hid him and protected him for years! The only reason they gave him up now was because of their wish to join the EU. It's the same about gays.. the only reason they got that discrimination law was because EU demanded they protected their minorities if they wanted to join, obviously they hadn't done a good job in the past with that. Gays are still killed in Serbia today.. I read that 60 % of serbs condone homosexuality, and 1/3 thinks it's ok to interrupt LGBT events using violence.
 
#80 ·
Well.. after all these years, the serbians still support a war criminal and mass murderer in Mladic.. they fucking hid him and protected him for years! The only reason they gave him up now was because of their wish to join the EU. It's the same about gays.. the only reason they got that discrimination law was because EU demanded they protected their minorities if they wanted to join, obviously they hadn't done a good job in the past with that. Gays are still killed in Serbia today.. I read that 60 % of serbs condone homosexuality, and 1/3 thinks it's ok to interrupt LGBT events using violence.
condemn?
And support for joining the EU is bellow 50% in Serbia.
 
#87 ·
fortunately in Greece tolerance toward homosexuality has been increasing with time.

and, there aren't any Europeans more resistant to brainwashing by the media than Greeks.
 
#88 ·
I said "state of affairs in the West" of which Greece is only a part in the tangential, political, sense. I'm talking about the idiots in the British Isles, Scandinavia, France, Benelux, etc. who think that because it's printed in the Guardian, Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, or some other rag, it must be true and swallowed whole as such.

Doesn't surprise me that Greeks would be resistant to media brainwashing, either.

With Papandreou's bombshell I'll be interested in seeing what direction Greece takes.
 
#94 · (Edited)
Bump.

Found this thread because of a side discussion in General Messages. One of the Serbian posters couldn't understand why Croatian and Bosnian posters wouldn't support Djokovic. Obviously it was pointed out that it's because of the war and stuff like Srebrenica etc. meaning that most Balkan nations still are very hostile to Serbia.

Then (this was the bit that surprised me) one of the Serbian posters said that Srebrenica was "no big deal" and that UN/US figures saying that Serbs committed 90-95% of all atrocities during the war are "lies".

I was just wondering whether this is a common opinion amongst Serbians? If so it would explain why guys like Ratko Mladic still get treated like heroes. I presume that most Serbian posters here are pretty young - what do your parents tell you about the war? Do you think that genocide / ethnic cleansing is no big deal?
 
#95 ·
Where are you from?Obviously, you know nothing what was going on in former Yugoslavia and about history of that region.So, you better educate yourself before expressing stupid views.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top