• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there's arguments for both sides.
One could say this for just about anything. In this case, one of the sides has an argument which does not involve supporting someone who practiced massive political repression and ethnic cleansing.
 
He put people in death camps...
 
His nationalist grandstanding accelerated the dissolution of Yugoslavia and in a violent way. I don't see how that can be argued.
 
Ten years on from what?
 
Suggesting a leader made a nation better through genocide is a very dangerous game.
 
I'll give him one thing, and one thing only. He as right that if the croats in Bosnia deserve self-determination and their own state/annexation by the mother country, then so did the bosnian Serbs. Naturally, being a nationalist hypocrite, he did not extend this to the Vojvodinan Hungarians, or the Kosovar Albanians. Scumbag.

That is to say nothing of the methods of the war crimes of the serbs.
 
He is directly responsible for the nightmare of Yugo Wars and eventually the misery of Serbia. I think even Danub despises him.
 
If being so much of a problem that the backlash results in legislation to prevent something like that from ever happening again is "making things better", then he made improvements. Other than that, I can't see much good in what he did, but a lot of blatant evil.
 
While the trial against him for numerous crimes against humanity never finished, We're sorry, but this is not a subject that we will allow to continue on the forum.
 
Also, please review the ofrum rules and OT rules re: genocide which apply to the history forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.