Talk:Vuk Drašković

Untitled
'70.50.104.69' has completely and falsely revised this page in favour of Draskovic. The page now glorifies Draskovic for fighting oppression or some other such nonsense. The fact that he urged the creation of a Serbian army and organised paramilitary forces, out of his alliances with criminals and ex-criminals, and attempted to use these thugs to overthrow the government, has been removed. And the fact that he called on the Serbian government - which insisted on non-involvement - to declare war on the entire Croatian nation (not just the Croatian state even) has been changed to saying he urged the opposite, which is pure fiction! These are facts, that can be read about in reputable books in the history of Serbia and the former Yugoslavia, and their removal, and replacement with propaganda, is unjustifiable.

The references to Chetniks are also biased - they should be referred to as Serb nationalist forces, as that is what they were. It should also be noted that according to Yugoslav official line they were genocidal fascists, and that they did undoubtedly committ massacres of non-Serbs, which places in the proper context his attempts to rehabilitate and glorify them.

I will edit this page shortly to correct this - Wikipedia should be a useful source of information and a factual account, not propaganda, which can be found anywhere.

Latest POV additions
Regarding changes by 65.93.94.239

Your latest change sounds very un-encyclopedic. You’re not supposed to editorialize here – there are blogs for that kind of writing. Some of the concrete info (Vuk’s supposed call to Franjo Tudjman after March 9) possibly deserve a mention, but have to be worded in an encyclopedic way. We strive for NPOV here, both in tone and facts presented.

Also, please don’t take out concrete facts like the existence of Serbian Guard. I’ve incorporated some of your latest additions into the article. See how you like it now. Zvonko 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edition is (somewhat) acceptable
I concur with your rewording of the Novi Pazar speech, although to a neutral reader it could still leave doubt as to Vuk's level of perceived war-mongering. I think that very speech is the biggest symbol of the democratic and tolerant Serbia, that, had it prevailed in 1990, would have prevented the outbreak of the war and the break-up of Yugoslavia.

I am a bit puzzeled as to the insistence on the "Serbian Guard" issue. Vuk called for the formation of the Serbian Army in June 2001 when it became clear that then JNA leadership was highly corrupt and incompetent, and bent on maintaining Milosevic's communist influence after their quick Slovenian retreat. This new Army was to be a legal force of new Serbia, led by younger proffesional personel loyal to the people and constitution. The concept of a Serbian Guard was to provide an inducement to the state to create such a force. That later certain other paramilitary Serbian units were associated with horrific crimes and aided by Milosevic regime in Croatia and Bosnia, should not put a stain on the effort of the 10, maybe 20 men from the Serbian Guard. The very issue of Serbian Word, 14 oktober 1991, indicates they participated in the defense of a Serbian village in Croatia and had done absolutely nothing to tarnish the Serbian name or tradition.

Other ethnic groups had their own units, or Guards of various sorts so I don't know why you got stuck on "Serbian Guard". Does the Guard bother you, or the word Serbian ?

Your quote number 4 is heavily taken out of context and would have never been uttered by Vuk Draskovic.

As far as quote number 2, about the borders, that is correct. SPO was the first one to question the borders of Serbia but only, and only, if Yugoslavia was irreperably broken ( Slovenia, Croatia still spoke of a confederacy with a weak central government back then). The program of SPO and Vuk supported the existing borders as long as Yugoslavia in any form was preserved. However, you had failed to quote part of the speech where Mr. Draskovic says that democracy in Serbia is the BIGGEST condition for any discussion on borders or future in Yugoslavia. Only a democratic Serbia was able to defend Serbian interests. I would suggest you follow debate in Canada over the issue of Quebec with the many federal politicians publicly stating that should Quebec separate its borders remain an open question.

So whether I "sound" encyclopedic is not an issue. The issue is that encyclopedic talk should be simultaneous with the truth and not with misconstructions and malicious intention as done by you (Zvonko). Your edits were far from the truth and expressed animosity towards a very unique politician whose legacy will forever remain as the only force that could have saved Yugoslavia and brought democracy to Serbia. The book with his speeches is publicly available for download ("Podsecanja"; www.spo.org.yu) and you should review it before making any other edits.


 * Including Serbian Guard in the article is not “insistence” but a mere mention of a significant fact that relates to Vuk Draskovic. Surely you’re not denying Serbian Guard existed. The article has all of one sentence on the Serbian Guard. What exactly do you find problematic with that sentence?


 * Vuk called for the formation of the Serbian Army in June 2001 when it became clear that then JNA leadership was highly corrupt and incompetent, and bent on maintaining Milosevic's communist influence after their quick Slovenian retreat. This new Army was to be a legal force of new Serbia, led by younger proffesional personel loyal to the people and constitution.


 * Without getting into a debate over how legitimate is it for an opposition leader to start an armed force because he/she is, for whatever reason, not satisfied with the existing one, I’m just going to say that what you wrote above is a very bold and sweeping opinion. And that’s fine and legitimate but really has no place in a Wikipedia article as such. Could you provide a link or two (hopefully other than Serbian Word, ten years after the fact) that would corroborate that what you wrote there was in fact an official SPO position and motivation for creating Serbian Guard at the time – perhaps then we can work it in as a biographical fact.


 * As for the quote #4, just for your information I contributed none of them, someone else did that, but I’m not sure what the problem is, regardless. Are you suggesting the quote is false? It was properly cited and admitted as evidence in the Hague tribunal. Zvonko 06:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

However, I urge you to remove quote #4 and post this one
you have missed something with quote #4, "anti fascist struggle for national liberation" is out of place there. The quote is inaccurate.

Here is a part of Vuk's speech on Feb.3, 1991 long before any armed conflicts.Speech was made to regional chapter representatives of SPO, in Belgrade. It can show you Vuk's opinion on how a Serbian Army ( as opposed to then JNA) would defend Serbia's interests :

"Never would a Serbian Army allow a 50 year Golgotha ( meant since partisan liberation of 1945 that slowly pressured Serbs to abandon some long inhabbited territories ) of its people in Kosovo, Bosnia, Raska or Krajina (part of Croatia with a Serb majority). And it would not allow arming to the tooth of those whose ethnic and religious ideal is for Serbs to vanish. However it is not, and it can never be a Serbian Army that which aspires to bring back with its tanks, a political system to Croatia, Slovenia or Macedonia that its people have rejected "(and as JNA hinted it would do).

My friend in the complexity of what Yugoslavia was in early 1991, I'd say Vuk espoused some pretty common sensical views.


 * I don't think it's inaccurate. I agree the translation is pretty clumsy, though. Vuk obviously meant “Croatia as defined by AVNOJ” or “avnojevska Hrvatska” in Serbian, but I'm not sure that's so obvious to a non-Serbian speaker. I don't know how would one even translate that without sounding clumsy or cluttering everything up with a bunch of descriptive stuff.


 * As for the quote you provided I'm not exactly sure it's evidence of as you said Serbian Guard being a legal force of new Serbia, led by younger proffesional personel loyal to the people and constitution. the concept of which was to provide an inducement to the state to create such a force but that's my POV so I'm fine with that quote being included Zvonko 06:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Zvonko on "Serbian Guard" and other things
In no order of preference I will adress a few points and will enumarate them for easier tracking. It is my assumption that you are either a Croat or a guilt-ridden Serb filled with a touch of self loathing. While there is nothing wrong with any group it significantly changes your frame of reference and put things into perspective for me.

But lets start:


 * 1) 1- I resent your arrogant labels of my writing as un-encyclopedic. I believe "encyclopedic" should be synonymous with the truth, and your insinuations are in some cases quite shallow and rely on stereotypes or one sided sources. So if you are encyclopedic and you in one of your former writings wrote that Chetniks were genocidal fascists in WW2, because all "respectable official Yugoslav sources say so".....you are doing severe dis-service to the truth. Wikipedia deserves better. That line of thinking equals you telling me that a Soviet book from 1922 says Czar Romanow was a crook, or that Spanish books in late 1980s claim Generalisimus Franko was a crook,......So much for your official "Yugoslav sources"


 * 1) 2- With your logic established in #1 and how you gather info (that you so boldy label "encyclopedic") let me again adress Serbian Guard and Vuk's role. First, nationalist Croats and Serb communists to this day have Vuk Draskovic as a joint target. Second, there is a Srpska Rec ( Serbian Word) issue from June 1991, where Vuk clearly said in an interview. Serbian Guard will be an attempt to sign up people for a new Army, and pressure the state to back it up (effectively disband JNA)...whether as a petition, or a sign-up. Yes, it is not up to an opposition leader to do that, but "red" JNA was not to be trusted. You are very maliciously implying that it is some shady military group that Vuk formed to terrorize non-Serbs. You mixed that up with Seselj, or others who had the state backing for that "armed militia" thing . I repeat - this had nothing to do with arms, or any illegality. The men that went was a few honest people making an attempt to show to a corrupt Army how to help their brethren. Had the state backed them up it would have been a legal Serbian Army and I believe that such a format would preclude attrocities from the likes of Seselj and illegal groups that were there. Serbs simply never in their history until this war were known to kill innocent civilians ( revenege killings in the midst of a genocide against Serbs in WW2 is a different topic). That used to be a characteristic of the Croat mentality and state. Given that Guard wasnt supported ( and rumours have always circulated they were killed from behind) they went to fight on their own ( 20 of them at most, that's it). No I do not have quotes other than SPO sources, simply because any other sources would be too politically biased. You will have to trust me on this one.


 * 1) 3- Croats hate him because he reminded the world of Ustasha genocide in WW2, Serbian communists and extremists hate him because of his struggle to return the Monarchy, and put Serbia firmly along the path of Western democracies. Other Serbian (at that time) opposition leaders despised him, jealous of his ability to draw crowds. If you are so encyclopedic, find countless quotes where Vuk said we will not give our youth to fight the communist war. JNA is a parasyte that feeds on Serbian blood he said many times. Many young people (myself included) are alive today because of his opposition to the war.


 * 1) 4 - As far as quotes from the Hague tribunal. I really don't follow that. But I know that Vojislav Seselj, and other from the Milosevic communo-fascists alliance did mention Vuk and the Serbian guard. If a UN stenographer merely typed what they said and then you quote it in wikipedia, that still gives it zero legitimacy. Seselj is a thug, a shame and he thinks he can pull somebody elses name through the mud together with him.


 * 1) 5 - Please Zvonko, stop looking for quotes and pretending you are so intelectual. You are obviously very short on detail. The moral face of the Serbian nation is resoundingly saved from the shaddow of the events of the 1990s precisely because of Vuk Draskovic and his wife Danica.

Neither in WW2, nor in the 1990s did Croatian and Bosnian towns fill with protesters against massacres and expulsion of Serbian people. History will forever show that when for the first time in history, Serbian hands were bloodied (Vukovar, Sarajevo, Srebrenica....) it was Vuk Draskovic who stood to Serbs and called spade a spade.


 * First of all, there’s no reason to be snippy, petulant or cynical. I'm neither a Croat nor a "guilt-ridden Serb", nor am I "pretending to be so intellectual". I'm talking to you in good faith, and the same would be appreciated from your side.


 * Secondly, what you wrote under enumeration #1 simply isn’t true. For the second time the quotes you attributed to me are not mine at all. That was another user. I never said Chetniks were genocidal fascists nor did I say, “all reputable sources confirm so”.


 * As for your complaints about the Serbian Guard, I’m not sure whether you actually saw that I did incorporate the quote you provided into the article. Also, Vuk’s views on his motivation for forming such a force are also in the article. Judging by what you wrote I’m not sure you read those latest changes. If you did, please state exactly what it is that you still find contentious.


 * Now, Vuk’s personal opinions on what the Serbian Guard was supposed to be are legitimate and they’re included in the article. However, they don’t negate the facts regarding what the Serbian Guard essentially was - a paramilitary militia force with zero legitimacy (from constitutional viewpoint or also most other non-SPO viewpoints for that matter). Additionally, known criminals led it. Or are you trying to tell me Djordje Bozovic and Branislav Matic didn’t have long criminal pasts? Zvonko 03:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zvonko lets conclude this
yes, I was a bit petulant and I am sorry,...but I was discussing in good faith. I ackonowledge you included my view on the Serbian guard. What do I find contentious ? Why such a fuss. As we are debating this Serbian Radicals and Milosevic's Socialists in Belgrade are heavily promoting the idea that Vuk should end up in the Hague because of his links. Jealous that their tyranny has come to an end they are after the reputation of a man who has been haunting them for 15 years to end their bloody regime.

What I find so troublesome is that you got fixated on a very small, insignificant group that is not asssociated with anything terrible. They were 10-20 individuals. Were they legitimate ? No. But who has the authority to legitimize anything ? Milosevic ? Are we excesizing some philosophical views here ?

Also on Giska and Beli. Criminals ? I heard, they had done some time. But Beli was one of the donors to the party and believe me anyone who helped SPO, has cleansed themselves in the eyes of the Almighty. Giska,...hmm, I recall a rally in May 1991, in Belgrade when SPO gathered 50 thousand people to protest against the war. People like Giska carried US, EU, British and French flags to show that the new Serbia will be modeled after those contries.

You obviously don't know very many facts about those days so I conclude my involvement with this. Its leading to nowhere. Mr. Draskovic doesn't need me to defend him. His books do a pretty good job too.


 * I’m definitely not “fixated” on the Serbian Guard. There are about 2300 words in the article (46 paragraphs) at the moment and only ½ of a paragraph talks about the Serbian Guard. It is definitaly a significant note in Draskovic's political career and as such is certainly worthy of mention.Zvonko 07:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Vuk's Real Legacy
The person here who is defending Vuk Draskovic is a Serb nationalist, and nationalist defences of Draskovic have no place in Wikipedia. The Serbian Guard was a paramilitary organisation created by Vuk. It was headed by a former criminal, and had many criminals and thugs in it. Draskovic's criminal and former criminal associates provided, for example, guards for the SPO at their rallies. Its intention was to defend the Serbs in Croatia, and support the Serb military efforts there, and also to control and defend Serb lands in Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. Basically the army of a Greater Serbia. Draskovic wanted the Serbian government to disregard the only legal army in the country, the JNA, and follow the HDZ and the Slovenes in setting up its own illegal paramilitary army. As he was not in power, he set up his own army. I do not know whether it committed any atrocities in Croatia during the 1991 war, but its head then (the former criminal) has openly spoken about how he used to beat up Croats and Muslims when on holiday in Croatia in the 1980s.

Draskovic's "controversial" books, by the way, were very inflammatory, and generally anti-Muslim and pro-Chetnik. On the question of the Chetniks, the "official Yugoslav view" is very relevant. Chetniks were considered by the Communists, by Croats, Muslims, etc, and by the supporters of the Partisan legacy of multinational tolerance in Serbia, as genocidal extremists, equivilent to the Ustasha. Therefore attempts to rehabilitate them, and declare Mihailovic a great man, were extremely alarming to these people. They were not genocidal extremists as portrayed, but some of them were, including the man who authored their 1941 programme saying that a Greater Serbia should be formed from which non-Serbs should be expelled. They also committed many massacres of Muslims in eastern Bosnia, and collaborated with the Italian army in particular, especially as the war went on.

The quotes from the Hague transcripts are completely reliable. Seselj was reading out from the newspaper of Vuk's, which was tendered as evidence. If the newspaper had not said that, the Prosecution or the judges would have objected, and they did not.

Vuk Draskovic quote no. 1
The term "Arnaut" is described as being extremely derogatory in the brackets. I disagree with this it is a loan word from Turkish. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnauts. If anyone can provide documents stating otherwise, that it is in fact derogatory, do so - otherwise that bit will need to be removed or just changed to something like "[Albanians]".

Arnaut
The term "Arnaut" was used in the Turkish period. It is considered derogatory by Albanians. In Socialist Yugoslavia, the term was rejected in favour of "Shqiptar" (spelt wrong?), which is what the Albanians call themselves. After 1968 that too was rejected as derogatory, and Albanians were now called Albanacs, I believe. One could debate whether Shqiptar really is derogatory, or just the Serbo-Croat term for Albanians, but Arnaut, used in a modern context, is definately derogatory, and used in this way.


 * If anything, "Arnaut" is archaic (in line with Vuk's poetic rhetorics) rather than outright derrogatory; it's etymology is Turkish, see Arnavutlar. It is fairly obvious from the rest of the quote that it wasn't meant to be used in a friendly manner though, so I removed the "extremely derrogatory" as a original research. Duja ► 14:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)