Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 224 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #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..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,044 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,068 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,044 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,068 Posts
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.
Well, these types of nations, have plenty of pros and cons. I have family that hate the USSR and I have family that love the USSR (of course of the ones that lived during that time). When it comes to Yugoslavia, the same story, I've met and spoke with people that either hated it, loved it, or were simply satisfied (wasn't bad, wasn't great either, just satisfactory). So for people that are liberal and aggressive, these environments are certainly a threat. It limits their capabilities. But for those that are more simple minded, peaceful, hard working, and conservative, it's probably more ideal for them. They just want their basic needs met (family, food, home, school, work, basic survival).

As for Milosevic (in reference to the operator), I think some Serbs will probably admire him because of patriotic reasons, while others will despise him for being a dictator. But of course today since he's old news, I think some people probably won't care talking about him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,044 Posts
Well, these types of nations, have plenty of pros and cons. I have family that hate the USSR and I have family that love the USSR (of course of the ones that lived during that time). When it comes to Yugoslavia, the same story, I've met and spoke with people that either hated it, loved it, or were simply satisfied (wasn't bad, wasn't great either, just satisfactory). So for people that are liberal and aggressive, these environments are certainly a threat. It limits their capabilities. But for those that are more simple minded, peaceful, hard working, and conservative, it's probably more ideal for them. They just want their basic needs met (family, food, home, school, work, basic survival).

As for Milosevic (in reference to the operator), I think some Serbs will probably admire him because of patriotic reasons, while others will despise him for being a dictator. But of course today since he's old news, I think some people probably won't care talking about him.
I would agree with what you say in the first part. My grandfather was a communist and WWII resistance fighter. He was also a medical doctor. During the period when Tito's relations with Stalin were cooling, my grandfather stated privately to a colleague that it was not right that relations with the USSR (i.e. Russia) be suspended so easily, especially given the role the USSR had in setting up communist Yugoslavia and liberating the area from the Nazis. That was sufficient to end up in prison, I guess.

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. He was in many ways a relic of socialism after most of Eastern Europe had turned to capitalism and Eurointegrationist politics.

Milosevic started regaining some support until his death because his defense at The Hague was seen by many Serbs - including myself - as well as outsiders, as a refutation of the Western media/historical narrative. He didn't try to merely save his own skin by claiming ignorance, lack of control, or shifting the blame to a subordinate. He actively worked to present the other side of the story, to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecutors, and to undo a false picture. Whether he succeeded or not is not yet clear, but anybody who reads the transcripts of his ICTY trial will see that he was not the person he was portrayed as being and that the history of the destruction of Yugoslavia was very different from the pabulum fed to the masses by Western and Islamic media outlets.

I am sure that you, as an Iranian (I suppose), are well aware of the power of media demonization. Overlook facts, take up false and idle reports, inflate figures, cover up history, and outright lie, etc. It's yellow journalism. 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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,324 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,983 Posts
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.
could not be more wrong. truth is that there were extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian Greek lunatics (including Archbishop Serafeim) who supported Serb war criminals. also, extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian Greek lunatic volunteers participated in Srebrenica massacre. but, the vast majority of Greek population do feel ashamed, humiliated and guilty for what those extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian lunatic Greeks have done.

Greeks were truly objected and completely opposed to NATO bombardment of Serbia and the intervention of NATO in the Balkans. opinion polls conducted in the middle of April 1999 showed Greeks to be 98% against the bombing. meanwhile the Greek government supported the NATO action...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Verd

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,516 Posts
Campaign thread
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
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.
But I notice that most of Milosovic supporters are people who can't say neglecting minorities rights was part of the problem. Many of them have right wing religious ideas.
Do those people still like Milosovic and still think things went totally okay, and the problem was from outsiders like a conspiracy, or they are revising their ideas now?
Whom they think are responsible for the killings that happened?
I feel the problem is so complicated and I want to understand every party feelings before having a conclusion. I am currently reading history of Balkan and I want to understand people and not just read history books.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #13

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,582 Posts
But I notice that most of Milosovic supporters are people who can't say neglecting minorities rights was part of the problem. Many of them have right wing religious ideas.
Do those people still like Milosovic and still think things went totally okay, and the problem was from outsiders like a conspiracy, or they are revising their ideas now?
Whom they think are responsible for the killings that happened?
I feel the problem is so complicated and I want to understand every party feelings before having a conclusion. I am currently reading history of Balkan and I want to understand people and not just read history books.
this isnt quite true. for many years, sloba ruled with the support from leftists, mostly nostalgic communist pensioners who did nothing else but watch state propaganda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,044 Posts
could not be more wrong. truth is that there were extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian Greek lunatics (including Archbishop Serafeim) who supported Serb war criminals. also, extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian Greek lunatic volunteers participated in Srebrenica massacre. but, the vast majority of Greek population do feel ashamed, humiliated and guilty for what those extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian lunatic Greeks have done.

Greeks were truly objected and completely opposed to NATO bombardment of Serbia and the intervention of NATO in the Balkans. opinion polls conducted in the middle of April 1999 showed Greeks to be 98% against the bombing. meanwhile the Greek government supported the NATO action...
Your post is contradictory. If mainstream Greek views were in line with the first part of your post, they would hardly be 98% opposed to the bombing. The bombing campaign was constructed on a false image of the conflicts, in which there was a predatory invading genocidal aggressor on one side and innocent helpless victims on the other. That picture was misleading and false and I suspect that that was the perspective embraced by many, if not most, Greeks. From my experience with Greek Americans, admittedly limited, their views are also not generally in line with the first part of your post.

From wikipedia:

Several polls were conducted, of which revealed that 99.5% of the Greek population were completely opposed to the bombing, with 85% believing Nato's motives were strategic and not humanitarian.[25] 69% wanted Bill Clinton tried for war crimes, while 52% opposed the admittance of Kosovo Albanian refugees to Greece
Takis Michas is the main figure in the Greeks-as-Srebrenica-perpetrators story. While I understand that perspective a bit, 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. I am not one of those people who would elevate Srebrenica above any other atrocity of the war, because I realize full well that it has been thoroughly propagandized and abused as a political instrument, and am therefore suspect of much of what has been said on the matter. And frankly I am more scandalized by a number of other atrocities (perpetrated by Serbs, Croats, Muslims, and Albanians) that happened in those conflicts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
bad ones. mostly that he was a crazy fck.
Did all of your family have bad ideas about him? Was going against him hard? Like it was hard for you to admit it in all places cause most people supported him? Was there a definite opposition within Serbs that thought his ideas were dangerous?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
this isnt quite true. for many years, sloba ruled with the support from leftists, mostly nostalgic communist pensioners who did nothing else but watch state propaganda.
Did they support him when he wanted to change the constitution?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,582 Posts
Did all of your family have bad ideas about him? Was going against him hard? Like it was hard for you to admit it in all places cause most people supported him? Was there a definite opposition within Serbs that thought his ideas were dangerous?
me, my family and all my friends were against him as were all informed people. who supported him were blind pensioners, some peasants (also blind), and social rejects.

numerically, majority was against him (at least after 92, when it became clear what was going on with him), but he inherited the crocked system from the past and manipulated it very effectively that it was very difficult to overthrow him. it was finally done in 2000 after a massive demonstrations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,044 Posts
But I notice that most of Milosovic supporters are people who can't say neglecting minorities rights was part of the problem. Many of them have right wing religious ideas.
Do those people still like Milosovic and still think things went totally okay, and the problem was from outsiders like a conspiracy, or they are revising their ideas now?
Whom they think are responsible for the killings that happened?
I feel the problem is so complicated and I want to understand every party feelings before having a conclusion. I am currently reading history of Balkan and I want to understand people and not just read history books.
First, Milosevic was not supported by far right wing religious people. Those people had a monarchist orientation. Karadzic was more in line with them. Milosevic was a leftist, an atheist, and considered a traitor by many of those people.

Look at an ethnic map of Serbia and you will see that most if not all of the minorities are exactly where they were before 1991. Slovaks, Hungarians, Vlachs, Bulgarians, Muslims, Croats, and Albanians.

This map is from 1940 (just before WWII):



This is a map from 2002:

http://global-atlas.jrc.it/maps/PUBLIC/Serbia_Ethnic_Map_A4.jpg

As you can see, the only major change was the expulsion of Germans as punishment for WWII collaboration, which happened at the end of the war and was done by the Communists under Tito, not by Milosevic or any Serb leader before him.

As for who was responsible for most of the killings, I believe it was local police and captains, as well as paramilitaries, and their subordinates. When a conflict like this breaks out between former neighbors, especially those who may have had grudges from the past, the bloodshed can be awful. Most Westerners try to see this through the lens of WWII history, where German soldiers and SS under political command perpetrate crimes. That is completely the wrong way to look at this because the mentality of the people is very different, very individualistic, very tending towards factiousness and rebellion.
 
1 - 20 of 224 Posts
Top