Yugoslavia?

jkbrackens11

Anyone know what it was that actually destroyed the former Yugoslavia? I know there was a lot of Regional Nationalism in the 6 different states.

Was it this? Or was it the conflict over Kosovo?

jonniebgood1

jkbrackens11 wrote: »

Anyone know what it was that actually destroyed the former Yugoslavia? I know there was a lot of Regional Nationalism in the 6 different states.

Was it this? Or was it the conflict over Kosovo?

The 6 states were largely united behind Marshall Tito until he died in 1980. After this tensions began with the more economically prosperous parts of the country seeking greater autonomy from the largest population, Serbia. This was blocked by Serbia (under Milosevic) and this escalated through many different stages of conflict. The main army under serbian control occupied areas in Slovenia and Croatia and the main hostilities started between the serbian minority in Croatian army. The Serb minority was then reinforced by the Serbian army which then clashed with the Croatian army.
There is an excellent BBC series of documentaries on this matter. The Kosovo conflict was one of many parts to the wars in the area that followed in later years.

ValJester

You also have the rise of a militant nationalist bloc in Serbia and Croatia under the leadership of Milosevic and Tudjman, who played on the factors above, leading to a sort of nationalist-extremist sentiment coming to the fore in both countries, with the idea of Serb dominance, as seen by the infamous "This Land Is Your Land" speech, in which the idea was expressed that Serbs should dominate any territories they lived in.

ciarriaithuaidh

All is answered here. Riveting and hard-hitting documentary called the Death of Yugoslavia...most of the politicians involved interviewed for it aswell...

InTheTrees

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The 6 states were largely united behind Marshall Tito until he died in 1980.

Yes, I thought it was after Tito died that things started to unravel. He was the big personality/dictator that held the place together.

Morlar

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes, I thought it was after Tito died that things started to unravel. He was the big personality/dictator that held the place together.

He also comprehensively shafted the Serbs who fought against the German army :

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/after-ww2/Chetnik-betrayal.html

PatsytheNazi

ciarriaithuaidh wrote: »

All is answered here. Riveting and hard-hitting documentary called the Death of Yugoslavia...most of the politicians involved interviewed for it aswell...

From watching the documentary it seems that the catalyst for the war was in Kosovoa. On the video you hear of ethnic Serbs complaining of " nothing been done for them ". My query is :

A) Was there genuine discrimination/abuses against the Serbs in Kosovo by the ethnic ( and Muslim ) Albanians amd if so is there any proof of it ?

Or was there a sort of oppurtunist movement who wanted to stir up ethnic hatred in Kosovo in the hope of political gain ?

ciarriaithuaidh

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

From watching the documentary it seems that the catalyst for the war was in Kosovoa. On the video you hear of ethnic Serbs complaining of " nothing been done for them ". My query is :

A) Was there genuine discrimination/abuses against the Serbs in Kosovo by the ethnic ( and Muslim ) Albanians amd if so is there any proof of it ?

Or was there a sort of oppurtunist movement who wanted to stir up ethnic hatred in Kosovo in the hope of political gain ?

From my knowledge on the area its definitely more B. There may have been a few isolated incidents which Serbs could call racist attacks, but if that was the excuse it was a gross over reaction. Croatia, and the ethnic Serbs in the border regions with Bosnia and Serbia there were actually more of a root cause of the crisis in my view. However as with most modern conflicts the roots of this war lay way back in the mists of time..more specifically, the muslim "enclave" in the former Yugoslavia is the last remnants of a settlement going back to the old Ottoman empire.
To put it plainly, Serbs had long held extreme views towards the Bosniaks (muslims) owing to some harsh treatment they received under the Ottomans (there were some massacres of Serbs during ottoman rule) and a belief that they were seen as unequal to the Muslims who were "blow-ins"...having spoke to some Historians, it seems that Bosnia (its muslims particularly) was highly prized in the Ottoman empire and the orthodox christian Slavs did not like having this rubbed in their face...it was all long built up tensions and hatred that festered and ultimately exploded, leading to a war that frankly doesnt register on the European conscience as much as it should given the horror and genocide that took place. Of course friendly Uncle Sam stood idly by for most of this, stepping in at the end to play the "peacemaker"..but thats another story..

Morlar

The USA/Israel/Nato sided with the bosnians/muslims against the serbs. As does hollywood (generally speaking). Some people have argued that this worked as a 'pressure valve' for islamic aspirations, routing them into europe and away from the middle east.

The bosnian/muslims during the war had well funded, slick & sophisticated washington based PR and Lobby firms on their side.

The serbs did not. The Russians generally speaking sided with the Serbs.

From a serbian perspective the underlying causes for the continuing conflict related to radical expansionist islam. Serbs are orthodox christians, there has been systematic persecution of serbs and even systematic destruction of serb churches in the interim. It would be my view that view radical islam is a factor in all of this, same as it is in chechnya, parts of asia and in a lot of other conflict zones around the world.

Both sides committed atrocities but in my view the western media generally tends to side with the non serbian side of this conflict.

*
I was in the imperial war museum in manchester a few weeks back and in their kosovo display are several reporters passes along with childrens drawings of UCK/KLA fighters. UCK or KLA are and were affiliated with mujahadeen and al qaida. There have been instances of isolated serbian communities where mass rapes and beheadings etc took place. So I thought those childrens 'shiney happy' drawings were odd to say the least.

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

From watching the documentary it seems that the catalyst for the war was in Kosovoa. On the video you hear of ethnic Serbs complaining of " nothing been done for them ". My query is :

A) Was there genuine discrimination/abuses against the Serbs in Kosovo by the ethnic ( and Muslim ) Albanians amd if so is there any proof of it ?

Or was there a sort of oppurtunist movement who wanted to stir up ethnic hatred in Kosovo in the hope of political gain ?

The conflicts in the Balkans were initially between Croatian and Serbian forces. This was due to Serbia trying to become more influential (which involved them taking control of Kosovo area- it had been an autonomous region in yugoslavia as far as i know). The war in Kosovo did not come until the late 1990's, years after the Balkans conflict had begun. An internal report by a Serbian group reported that abuses against serbs by albanians in Kosovo were widespread http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/674
Proof of these allegations is not so easy to get so draw your own conclusions.

Morlar

I think this is a very good introductory documentary on the background, context and causes of the breakup & war.

It has contributions from most leading neutral parties, journalists intelligence analysts and so on. It is english language (though the subtitles are not). It's over an hour - there is a part 2 but even pt1 will cover most of the issues up to the early days of the war.

PatsytheNazi

Morlar wrote: »

I think this is a very good introductory documentary on the background, context and causes of the breakup & war.

It has contributions from most leading neutral parties, journalists intelligence analysts and so on. It is english language (though the subtitles are not). It's over an hour - there is a part 2 but even pt1 will cover most of the issues up to the early days of the war.

Good link. Haven't the time to see it all but they seem to be like a bag of cats over there and with the various sides, Germany, Muslim countries of the middle east backing the different ethnic groups. If the super powers and the UN were to refuse to recognise or support any break away state then war could have been avoided. But alas it wasn't to happen.

geekychick

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

If the super powers and the UN were to refuse to recognise or support any break away state then war could have been avoided.

Yes, that's exactly the gist of this "documentary".

To recap, if the international community hadn't recognised any country that wanted independance, all the nationalities would have stayed quietly well put, only taking cue off the big brother with the big army. Therefore, no war. Sure.

P.S. Please research the origin of any film made on sensitive political subjects such as this, at least then you will know what it is you are watching. Morlar knows well that he has posted a link to a film directed by a pro-Serbian activist, financed by Serbian dollars. He also knows that, therefore, the film presents only one side to the story of the causes of war, yet he is disingenuously claiming that this one-sided affair is a good introductory(!) documentary on the causes of war.

Morlar

geekychick wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly the gist of this "documentary".

To recap, if the international community hadn't recognised any country that wanted independance, all the nationalities would have stayed quietly well put, only taking cue off the big brother with the big army. Therefore, no war. Sure.

P.S. Please research the origin of any film made on sensitive political subjects such as this, at least then you will know what it is you are watching. Morlar knows well that he has posted a link to a film directed by a pro-Serbian activist, financed by Serbian dollars. He also knows that, therefore, the film presents only one side to the story of the causes of war, yet he is disingenuously claiming that this one-sided affair is a good introductory(!) documentary on the causes of war.

Yes it is a documentary - so there is no need for the dismissive ironic quotation marks. I think it's clear that your own views on this conflict are far from neutral.

If there are any points made by any of the contributors to that documentary that you feel are incorrect or untruthful please point out which commentator/point.

Feel free to also point out inaccuracies of the Documentary pt 2

Morlar

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Good link. Haven't the time to see it all but they seem to be like a bag of cats over there and with the various sides, Germany, Muslim countries of the middle east backing the different ethnic groups. If the super powers and the UN were to refuse to recognise or support any break away state then war could have been avoided. But alas it wasn't to happen.

I think a lot of that bag of cats from over there ended up over here too

I would agree that it's a complex subject with a lot of disparate interested parties from those in the US/middle east/Russia & Europe. Not to mention all the local religious territorial and ethnic & nationalist interests. For one side to attempt to place all the blame on one party to it seems silly in my view. My perspective on it is that it is not entirely clear even now - there was a lot of propaganda and misinformation fed to the international media of the time which has remained unchallenged, also that the islamist aspect of this war does not get enough prominence in general.

geekychick

Morlar wrote: »

I think it's clear that your own views on this conflict are far from neutral.

Yes, you have already explained how my views are "far from neutral" for simply pointing out the origin of this piece of propagandistic material.

Love it!

Reading the other posts on this thread, though, they seem to know exactly what's what and where to go for their information, so I am certainly not going to enter into a point-by-point contention of Bogdanich's work - fortunately there is really no pressing need to do so (besides which, I'd be here all night!).

Morlar

geekychick wrote: »

Yes, you have already explained how my views are "far from neutral" for simply pointing out the origin of this piece of propagandistic material.

Love it!

I will leave you with these amazon reviews (of the book the documentary is based on - written by Guardian editor Nora Beloff & the subsequent documentary itself) which you might find useful :

http://www.amazon.com/Yugoslavia-Avoidable-War-Nora-Beloff/dp/1872410081


By A Customer
This review is from: Yugoslavia: An Avoidable War (Paperback)
I respect the opinion of the person who wrote the review before me, but I urge you to read the book. I understand why Edo would not like the book. It is much different than anything else you can find in USA. The book shows the other side of the war and clearly states that there were three waring parties there. The book is filled with facts that show the numbers of serbian refugees from Bosnia (40%) which has been hidden to the West. The book gives a good idea of what really happened and all the reasons why the three nations didn't want to live together anymore. In any case, I can say that I feel wiser for have read it. Thank you.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comment



4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars An Important Dissenting View of the Bosnian/Croatian War, October 13, 2007
By R. Schultz (Chicago) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Yugoslavia: An Avoidable War (Paperback)
I'm actually reviewing the 3-part videotape series that was made from this book. The videotapes were produced by Film Humanities, dedicated to producing educational/documentary films for TV and libraries. The author of the book is extensively interviewed on the tapes, as are many of her sources. I initially found the film to be a little dry - heavy as it is with these talking heads. But I soon became absorbed in the rather startling, upending argument it presents about the Bosnian/Serbian War.

The book/film's first diverging contention is that the War was triggered by Croatia's and Slovenia's separatist bids. It further contends that Germany's and America's misguided and mendacious backing of these aspirations made war virtually inevitable.

The film then goes on to take the controversial view that the Serbs, under their leader Slobodan Milosevic, were more victims than perpetrators in the ensuing War. The author of this work attributes our false perceptions to the fact that the Serbs didn't practice the skillful PR that the other factions in the War did. They weren't as good at staging events and at massaging casualty statistics. The power structure encouraged the others' spin-doctoring in order to justify our support of the Muslim factions and to keep oil interests on our side.

This view is so contrary to the general picture the media painted - that I at first suspected this book/film must have been financed by some Serbian coalition, and was in fact just the work of apologists for Serbia. However, I again began to change my mind as I listened further.

One of the Balkan experts giving testimony is John Peter Maher, and his presence on the tapes made a difference for me. I recognized him as someone I knew. He had been my linguistics professor in college, and now was appearing as a knowledgeable witness who had served in counter-intelligence in Yugoslavia. As my teacher, I'd found him to be a perceptive, reliable guide through the warring factions of linguistic study. He didn't seem given to unfounded partisanships of any kind in this perennially contentious field. So Maher definitely added credibility to this film's premise that the Serbs were not the instigators of the War, or the perpetrators of its worst atrocities.

I can't say that "Yugoslavia, the Avoidable War" completely convinced me of its case. But it gives me pause. Made in 2001, it was certainly prescient in its criticisms of US tendencies to dismiss diplomacy in favor of the use of immediate military might.

And this work once again brought into serious question the reliability of our news coverage. A good follow-up movie to obtain on this issue would be "Live From Baghdad" starring Michael Keaton. This movie was praised by many as a depiction of the heroic coverage provided by CNN field reporters during the Desert Storm War. However, I saw the movie as a rather sad commentary on how often foreign correspondents operate on an adrenaline rush, going after news bites and "scoops" that have little substance and that leave the viewing public with skewed versions of what really happened. It seems this sort of aggressive push/shove culture of headline grabbing might have left the public similarly misinformed about what was really going on in the Bosnian/Serbian War.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comment



8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars An expert view on Yugoslav Wars, December 23, 2005
By Velimir Novakovic (Zagreb) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Yugoslavia: An Avoidable War (Paperback)
Nora Beloff was one of the greatest experts on Balkan affairs in UK (and Europe). She was editor of "THE GUARDIAN" papers and she was actively writting until her tragic death. Unlike many of her colleagues in Britain (and West in general), she actually knows very well what is she writting about! Her expertise on Balkans is unsurpassed and she has written several books on this matter. She states the facts, destroys propaganda and explains clearly who is who in Balkans and what was West's part in break up of Yugoslavia. If you are interested in Balkans, or you want to know how todays governments and media operate, function and create propaganda- this book is for you

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

If there are any points made by any of the contributors to that documentary that you feel are incorrect or untruthful please point out which commentator/point.

I'll give my view on this if thats OK.
This documentary is interesting as it gives a lesser heard side of the argument from the side that would ultimately lose out in that its control over the region is greatly reduced. The points made in the film are by valid contributors who clearly believe in their opinion and I find alot of it may well be valid.
However the film lets itself down in between the interviews where the maker tries to fill in with background information. For example at the 20 minute mark the documentarytries to link Croatian separatists with WWII Nazi's and does not substatiate this theory. This is followed by clips, facts and explanations about Nazi atrocities in the region. The atrocities are not in doubt but to link them to a whole separatist movement like that is not credible. Indeed I think that Tudjman (the separatist leader) actually fought against the Nazis in WWII.
Later in the film to much emphasis is put on Germany buying off Britain with a deal on Maastrict, France with a deal on currency, whilst the USA convinced to take its view based on elections. This ignores the not insignificant public opinion in these powerful nations that the people in Croatia or Slovenia should have rights to self govern.

Like I said at beginning there are also valid points made with 1 in particular which should be noted when taking in information about this subject-
the separatists aimed propaganda at the western world, The Serbs aimed their propaganda at Serbia. A whole new thread could be filled with why this was the case! It is difficult to be 100% neutral on this but an alternative view is always welcome.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This documentary is interesting as it gives a lesser heard side of the argument from the side that would ultimately lose out in that its control over the region is greatly reduced. The points made in the film are by valid contributors who clearly believe in their opinion and I find alot of it may well be valid.

By saying the contributors 'clearly believe in their opinion' - does that not imply that they are giving an opinion rather than what is in fact very often their testimony of events ? For example Lord Owen relating the story of the muslim croat mortar team arriving at the hospital to mortar serb positions then retreating before the intl media arrive to witness the serb retalliatory shelling. It would be inaccurate to dismiss this as an opinion he believes' in my view. This is his testimony based on either direct or credible high level witness testimony (in that case I believe official intl observers reported back to him).

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

However the film lets itself down in between the interviews where the maker tries to fill in with background information. For example at the 20 minute mark the documentarytries to link Croatian separatists with WWII Nazi's and does not substatiate this theory. This is followed by clips, facts and explanations about Nazi atrocities in the region. The atrocities are not in doubt but to link them to a whole separatist movement like that is not credible. Indeed I think that Tudjman (the separatist leader) actually fought against the Nazis in WWII.

I would actually agree that this is an area of weakness taking up several minutes in a 3 hr documentary. However the point of that section was to portray the WW2 landscape and the 20 minute segment does not fall down if it does not adequately make that connection. That segment in my view was to give a viewer an accurate overview of the region throughout WW2. Also I would factor in that it is a video documentary based on a book and so bound to not be a seamless transition. The other part you took exception to was as much an afterthought rather than the central contention in my view.

The overriding fact of that section was that serbs were systematically persecuted throughout Ww2 by largely muslim croats who were working for the nazis. Their atrocities even in ww2 terms were off the charts. Google ustasha (Ustaše) for more information. Serbs were systematically persecuted to the point where (and the figures vary) between 300,000 and 750,000 serbs were killed by them. The point of that information is to assert the notion that 45 years later serb civilians being placed under the wing of croat authorities when there had been no de-nazification process in that region post war - and how this idea may not have appealed to the serbs was the point I took from this segment. I believe it's a valid point - this fear on their part was well founded and understandable as a factor. Someone not having that information or level of background would simply not have considered it.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Later in the film to much emphasis is put on Germany buying off Britain with a deal on Maastrict, France with a deal on currency, whilst the USA convinced to take its view based on elections. This ignores the not insignificant public opinion in these powerful nations that the people in Croatia or Slovenia should have rights to self govern.

I didn't find those areas over emphasised personally. I think the point that the western media-reliant populations of said countries had been subject to washington based PR firms (Ruder Finn working for the croats) spin and propaganda had already been mentioned.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Like I said at beginning there are also valid points made with 1 in particular which should be noted when taking in information about this subject-
the separatists aimed propaganda at the western world, The Serbs aimed their propaganda at Serbia. A whole new thread could be filled with why this was the case! It is difficult to be 100% neutral on this but an alternative view is always welcome.

I would agree it should be.

Morlar

To clarify - I do not believe this documentary is the beginning and end of what you would need to know about that region.

Policital opponents of serbs are sure to eagerly dismiss it as propaganda however if there are factual inaccuracies by the contributors in their interviewed segments then I would be interested to read of them - until then my point is that it does contain a wealth of valid and relevant information. There is no such thing as a perfect documentary (or book about this region) for that matter.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

By saying the contributors 'clearly believe in their opinion' - does that not imply that they are giving an opinion rather than what is in fact very often their testimony of events ? For example Lord Owen relating the story of the muslim croat mortar team arriving at the hospital to mortar serb positions then retreating before the intl media arrive to witness the serb retalliatory shelling. It would be inaccurate to dismiss this as an opinion he believes' in my view. This is his testimony based on either direct or credible high level witness testimony (in that case I believe official intl observers reported back to him).

Not all the contributers are giving their 'testimony of events' so it is incorrect for you to link my generalised comment to 1 contributor and a specific case.
To clarify I would again say the contributors are giving honest opinion- the point being that rather than being biased and giving a one-sided part of the argument, they give their opinions (testimony in some cases, facts in some cases and views based on their experiences in some cases) in as balanced a way as is possible for people who have had involvement in the area.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Not all the contributers are giving their 'testimony of events' so it is incorrect for you to link my generalised comment to 1 contributor and a specific case.

On the contrary to say :

points made in the film are by valid contributors who clearly believe in their opinion

was incorrect.

I would agree that it was

"testimony in some cases, facts in some cases and views based on their experiences in some cases".

But those two things are not exactly equal which would be a minor point except here is an important distinction in summarising a 3hr documentary based on direct interviewee contributions.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

To clarify I would again say the contributors are giving honest opinion- the point being that rather than being biased and giving a one-sided part of the argument, they give their opinions (testimony in some cases, facts in some cases and views based on their experiences in some cases) in as balanced a way as is possible for people who have had involvement in the area.

Agreed.

Morlar

geekychick wrote: »

To claim that under 45 years of Communism in Yugoslavia there has been no de-nazification process is extremely dishonest and erroneous.

This is a side issue - encompassing one part of one segment of that documentary, but even so I disagree.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/neonazism1.html#Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

http://vukovar.50webs.com/ustashe.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

geekychick

As I have already said, and as that Wikipedia link on Neo-Nazism in Croatia that you provided clearly states, to quote it: "Parties like the Croatian Party of Rights which are most commonly associated with Ustašism generally aren't able to attract support from more than a few percent of the population." And haven't ever been able to since the Croatian independance. How that equals to a de-nazification process in Croatia allegedly never having taken place under 45 years of Communism, I don't know. Even the first president of Croatia, Tudjman, the separatist autocrat that he was, actually was a convinced anti-fascist who faught Nazis during the WW 2.

These links you posted and what you seem to be claiming through them, would be absolutely analogous to myself posting a link to a website with information about the the NPD and DVU of Germany and then claiming that Germany has never been de-nazified, as Jewish, Muslim and other immigrant population are in immediate danger of this marginal coalition of right-wing parties leading some kind of genocide against them. Or posting a link to BNP websites and saying that the UK needs to be de-nazified for the above reasons. Or posting links to any far right or white supremacist parties in any of the democratic countries in the West.

Heck, as long as I have entered this debate, I might as well do it:

http://www.die-rechte.info/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party

Morlar

On the subject of de-nazification in croatia I'd welcome people to compare the links you posted with those I posted ;

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/neonazism1.html#Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

http://vukovar.50webs.com/ustashe.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

On the contrary to say :



was incorrect.

I would agree that it was



But those two things are not exactly equal which would be a minor point except here is an important distinction in summarising a 3hr documentary based on direct interviewee contributions.




Agreed.

Im afraid you are getting mixed up.

In this reply you say that first, my point was incorrect. Then, after I clarify my first point, you agree.

So bacically I am incorrect and you agree with me !!!

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Im afraid you are getting mixed up.

In this reply you say that first, my point was incorrect. Then, after I clarify my first point, you agree.

So bacically I am incorrect and you agree with me !!!

I am afraid the confusion does not lie with me. These 2 points you made are not identical :

points made in the film are by valid contributors who clearly believe in their opinion

"testimony in some cases, facts in some cases and views based on their experiences in some cases".

For me to say that the 2nd one is accurate and not the first - this does not signify confusion on my part.

As stated previously this is a minor point - except in this context where the validity of the interviewees collective contribution has been brought into question.

Morlar

I have re-read that post you responded to and I think it's now clear what you meant.

I recall making this and actually thought about clarifying it at the time but then didn't think it was necessary as it seemed clear to me.

This may clarify :

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
To clarify I would again say the contributors are giving honest opinion- the point being that rather than being biased and giving a one-sided part of the argument, they give their opinions (testimony in some cases, facts in some cases and views based on their experiences in some cases) in as balanced a way as is possible for people who have had involvement in the area.

Agreed.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I am afraid the confusion does not lie with me. These 2 points you made are not identical :

For me to say that the 2nd one is accurate and not the first - this does not signify confusion on my part.

As stated previously this is a minor point - except in this context where the validity of the interviewees collective contribution has been brought into question.

I will walk us both through my explanation to clarify:

Over the whole documentary the contributors opinions (contributions) are based on testimony, facts and experiences. It is pointless explaining this more as it is not important.

To move the discussion on a bit you should clarify your opinion on whether the Croatian separatists under Tudjman were linked in a significant way with the Ustasa?

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I will walk us both through my explanation to clarify:

Over the whole documentary the contributors opinions (contributions) are based on testimony, facts and experiences. It is pointless explaining this more as it is not important.

My response to that is that there is a difference between an 'opinion' and evidence, testimony and experience etc. As stated in the example provided earlier - which is relevant :

Morlar wrote: »

By saying the contributors 'clearly believe in their opinion' - does that not imply that they are giving an opinion rather than what is in fact very often their testimony of events ? For example Lord Owen relating the story of the muslim croat mortar team arriving at the hospital to mortar serb positions then retreating before the intl media arrive to witness the serb retalliatory shelling. It would be inaccurate to dismiss this as an opinion he believes' in my view. This is his testimony based on either direct or credible high level witness testimony (in that case I believe official intl observers reported back to him).

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

To move the discussion on a bit you should clarify your opinion on whether the Croatian separatists under Tudjman were linked in a significant way with the Ustasa?

To reply in the language previously used I'd say it's extremely dishonest to claim that there are no issues with de-nazification in croatia (as illustrated in the links I provided). The fact at the heart of the matter and which is being disputed is this - the serbs were right to be concerned about their safety and the safety of their children - there were legitimate concerns about their safety in such a climate. This is the central point being made.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

This is a side issue - encompassing one part of one segment of that documentary, but even so I disagree.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/neonazism1.html#Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

http://vukovar.50webs.com/ustashe.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

link 1- This link has nothing to back up your opinion.

link 2- This link is extreme views and delves into issues with the ustasa that are not in question. As per post 26, we can all post links to irrelevent info but it is pointless. If it helps you I will identify for you that you are missing the proof of a link between the Ustasa and the 1990's Croatian separatists.
link 3- This link has nothing to back up your opinion.

I understand that Ustasa committed crimes against Serbs in WWII. If your over- emphasis on this was correct it would follow that people of Jewish origin would be afraid of their neighbours in France as the French collaborated with the Nazi deportations in France.