Talk:History of Croatia since 1995
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(moved Talk from Talk:History of Croatia)
Contents |
[edit] Anti-Serbian
"Rebelled Serbs blocked the roads to the tourist destinations in Dalmatia in the event known as the "Log revolution". The Croatian government sent special police forces to intervene, but helicopters carrying them were forced to land by fighter jets of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA), openly siding with terrorists."
How does blocking roads equal terrorism? It doesn't. This passage is quite anti-Serbian for no reason. -Blackhand
- I don't think that this statement necessarily equates Serb rebels with terrorists.
Previous statement is overly defensive. Look at this perspective. Imagine you are a 10 year old child driving in a car with your parents just before easter weekend in 1990 through Plitivce lakes area. You look outside window and see a car full of men with ammo belts around their shoulders and automatic rifles in their hands. No uniform on them. Then a few minutes later after they passed around your parents car in such a manner to almost cause your car to slid off the road, you see the same men on the side of the road ( in front of some local building) SHOOTING with their weapons for 20 seconds into the Croatian flag on the mast and later burning the flag on the ground. All this was not done on the war front - it was done while civilian traffic was going on just 10 meters away from it. This happened at equal times as road blockings I believe. So how should we call these people - 'peaceful protesters for Free Krajina'? I doubt it. When seeing this incidents I felt fear and shooting at the Croatian flag made me felt terrorised and scared for my life.
Armed civilians shooting out of illegaly owned automatic weapons into a country flag publicly diplaying hatret against this country are terorrists beacuse they are seeding fear and terror at anybody who is not sharing their belief.
Point taken. However, the above passage makes no mention of these events; if we are going to label the Serb rebels as terrorists, some mention should be made to their terrorist activities. --Mihovil 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Serbs in Krajina
Some mention of the fate of Serbs in Krajina must be made.
- Go ahead and add such information, so long as you keep the information neutral point of view. -- Zoe
-
- I've added some up to date information on the refugees. --Shallot 09:02, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Mrkonjic Grad in 1995
"Serbian decisive stand at Mrkonjic Grad" .....bwaahahah. Dont make me laugh: http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1996/09/F.RU.960911172457.html
Bosnia: Bosnian Serb Town Rebuilds With British Help By Jolyon Naegele
Mrkonjic Grad, Bosnia; 11 September 1996 (RFE/RL) - The largely Serbian town of Mrkonjic Grad in central Bosnia emerged from more than three years of war and eight months of Bosnian Croat military occupation depopulated and heavily damaged.
But since the Croat withdrawal seven months ago, most of the town's about 8,000 prewar residents have returned and started reconstruction ...................... blah blah blah
M H
[edit] Air raid on Banski Dvori
What proof is there that the air raid on Zagreb on October 7th, 1991 was staged? I couldn't find anything specific by googling, only conflicting statements by various politicians (Stipe Suvar, Slobodan Milosevic, Ante Markovic). Maybe the ICTY court documents have the exact testimonies? Did the Croatian army even have the capacity to perform such a thing at the time? --Shallot 22:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I remember very well that the event was denounced as staged by JNA experts and by common sense. It was done by explosive charge in the inner yard (where was the center of the explosion, and which is an unlikely target for an air raid anyway). Footage took after only confirms that. Chandeliers in the conference room "swung" so much that they "fell" from the "impact" but chairs in the same room were neatly stacked around the desk. Heavy inner courtyard door was "blasted off" and "landed" on the outside - during which it flew over expensive car without scratching it. Nikola 05:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- Nikola is again inserting his Serb extremist POV. This kind of total-denial attitude was why NATO bombed Milosevic in 1999. You really cannot reason with a Serb radical. Nikola probably believes the Markale shelling in Sarajevo was also staged.--GeneralPatton 07:11, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- I don't know where you saw that, but the pictures I saw showed a clear path from an airplane to the building and people also witnessed projectiles hitting other places in Zagreb before and after. If general Tus testified in court that he knew that JNA had people who could do it, and I didn't see anything in the cross-examination news reports that conflicted it, I'm not sure why we shouldn't believe it. I read also that the intelligence agencies got the name of the pilot and the navigator[1]. Besides, there's the issue of motive: why would the .hr gov't bomb the place when it was moratorium expiriation the same day anyway? How do they profit from that? Milan Martić's troops were marauding areas around Kostajnica the same day, and elsewhere before and after, surely Tuđman didn't need to plan an unsuccessful assassination against himself, Mesić and Marković in order to alienate everyone from the Krajina guys, when it was already apparent to just about anyone in .hr what was going on? --Shallot 11:41, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Are you saying that there are actually pictures (film) showing a missile being fired from an airplane and hitting the building? I can testify in court as well that JNA had people who could do it; that proves nothing. There was a possible motive, a few points to gain in Western anti-Serb media hype but if you question motives, what was the motive for JNA? None.
-
-
-
-
- I remember seeing footage of the incident where the airplanes were seen/heard, but I guess it could have been inconclusive. Had someone with a camera actually seen and filmed planes fire the projectiles, I'd expect anti-air defence would have seen them too. As far as motives are concerned, I suppose there's a few points to be gained in evading assassination, but also no less motive for the JNA who would remove top three Croatians and basically nip the whole independence momentum in the bud... I suppose one could say that the dead leaders would be martyred, but by the time that happened and someone else took their place, JNA could have established more control over the country. --Shallot 11:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- And of course, Markale in Sarajevo was also staged. Nikola 04:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
[edit] Removed text
I removed some text which belonged on the talk page. [2] "(<- the preceeding information, provided by a user with dubious sympathies, is false. Brendan O'Shea estimates Serbian losses in the battle for Vukovar to be ~2,000, with a similar number of Croatian dead. The AFV/air craft losses reported here are, simply speaking, ludicrous. Please be so kind as to provide your sources for the Serbian estimates of casualties, which have never been made official, but were never over 1,750 dead in military circles. Nationalist propaganda has no place on Wikipedia. Shame on you, whoever you are.)" kmccoy (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nonsense
This report of 204th Vukovar brigade is ridiculuos. Croatian nationalism is well known for boasting, but these lies are just too far out. This must be corrected, if you mean to keep Wikipedia respectable, and not turn it into some banana state propaganda tool, since this information clearly isn't true.
[edit] POV
This article has some extremely POV parts. I give you the pan-Serbian rampage across Yugoslavia as an example. If I get a chance, I'll come in here and try to clean some of it up.--Deville (Talk) 00:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there was a pan-Serbian rampage across Yugoslavia. Before you change anything, please obtain information about the topic. --Zmaj 00:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not only that they are extremly POV in that sentence , but on many parts. Look again at that passus:
"The role of the international community in the war would become a matter of much controversy. The general UN policy of imposing a weapons trade embargo for all former Yugoslav republics was not neutral, placing the seceding republics in an inferior position because they had no control over the existing Yugoslav weapons, which were by and large controlled by the Serbs. Such a silent encouragement of the pan-Serbian rampage across Yugoslavia was recognized as untenable by the Western nations, but only after it was already too late." 1.UN policy always to impose weapon trade embargo in all conflict regions. 2. Serbia got overall trade sanctions So we easily see that part biased.--Medule 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Medule, stop vandalizing this page. --
Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article needs a name change!
History of modern Croatia makes very little sense as a title for this article. The "modern" history of Croatia would probably include most of the country's 20th century history (and probably even extend into the 19th century) and certainly not just be limited to the 1990s, at least according to most uses of the term "modern history". And the term "modern Croatia" does not make much sense either to be honest - when exactly did Croatia become "modern". I would suggest either "Recent history of Croatia" or "History of Croatia (post-Yugoslavia) or (post-1990). --84.153.60.142 23:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is an article called History of Germany since 1945, it looks like a good idea to me. I suggest to call this one "History of Croatia since 1990". What do you think? --Zmaj 07:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it seems totally neutral to me, so I'll change it. We'll see how it works. --Zmaj 10:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
