User talk:Hohage

Your comment regarding Srebrenica

Hello to you. I see you made an intersting remark about two million Germans killed on their way westward after World War II. If I am not mistaken, you are probably referring to those of Sudetenland in the present-day Czech Republic. I've read a number of reports which put that number between two and three million. The thing is, I don't think that this was carried out in the same style, nor over the same short period of time: I think that what happened with the Germans was that small numbers were taken away and executed over several months in various places by various factions, whilst Srebrenica is said to have been all over within days, and is seen as a single atrocity rather than a collective bundle. I recently introduced the Bleiburg massacre to the article but it didn't last long; I eventually agreed to its removal. That massacre was along the same grounds as the Sudetenland chapter and all for the same reasons, and it too was definitely a single atrocity, all planned and arranged by every party involved (ie. The then-Yugoslav and British governments in unison). The purpose for its removal was based on the technicality that World War II officially ended on September 2, 1945 where-as this happened during the spring: yes the war was over (or gradually ending) in Yugoslavia, but the war was already over for these thousands of fleeing citizens. The biggest arguments surrounding Srebrenica and the scale of the atrocity are based on question marks raised by certain individuals. You'll find that this is a political division (like anything else). For instance: Serbian president, Boris Tadić, ten years after the incident watched "tapes" seeing some of what was alleged to happen, shown to him by staff of governments who have since 1995 made light of the case. Tadić accepted it and went on record as being a modern-day Serbian statesman who admitted the massacre and that in turn boosted the propaganda campaigns of those governments/media/political bodies who held an anti-Serb position during the Yugoslav wars. But whilst he (Tadić) and his Democratic Party are viewed by some as CIA-agents doing the western bidding in Serbia, many observers note a split among the Serbian (and Montenegrin, for what it is worth) elite: that is to say that the old-school players, such as those currently in the Hague, and their former associates (eg. Momir Bulatović) as well as some present-day groups (eg. the Serbian Radical Party, the SPS formerly of Milošević) have never accepted and will never accept the western version of events and its sources because they have their own which they render differently. Others have listed concerns regarding the tapes Tadić is alleged to have seen and certain inconsistencies, whilst others have questioned the investigations and their alleged findings. Some on the other hand have accepted the possibility of it but recognise a conspiracy concerning the western governments who "wished for it to happen." All in all, there are hundreds of viewpoints, and all fit neatly into one of two categories: you're either with one side, or the other. That's why I don't personally get so involved with that side of it!!!! Also, there is the position of the governments of each country: the US, most pre-2004 EU countries, Turkey, the non-secular Islamic countries, and the present Serbian government all accept the atrocity on all counts of the widely held accusation; the former Serbian authorities, along with Serbia's natural allies (even with the current regime) including Greece, have totally dismissed the genocide and instead, present a totally different chapter as to what actually happened. That's not to say that they denied killings, but their number is not so high, and their scenario is different from the one presented more widely. Bodies such as the ICTY on the other hand, ran by the governments which fund it, have "evidence" which only serves to convince the already faithful and those who believe in the court. Those who don't, will always find flaws with the system and will forever publish reports denouncing the findings. Some days one is right, other days that one is wrong: you can't win in the ugly game of World Politics unless you make your opponents say "we were wrong, but now we see the light!", which they never will! Evlekis (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hohage (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Evlekis, Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Well, I find this Wikipedia article on the Srebrenica Massacre - which certainly took place - so appalling, because it is full of comments and opinions by self-righteous people who assume they 'know' the truth. It seems to me that war crimes have taken place in and around Srebrinca by the Serbian irregular troops which are inexcusable. Many Muslim families have lost loved ones, because the Serbian troops did not take hostages during the months of battle that take took place. But then, this one fellow argues that Srebrenica constitutes the biggest massacre or even genocide in Europe since WW II.; give me a break, shortly before and after may 1945 the Russian troops forced the German population of Eastern Europe to leave their settlements. It is estimated that during those tracks altogether 12 Million German 'disappeared' due to exhaustion, starvation, murder, shelling etc.. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want to the number count of dead bodies game and I am really sorry for those few thousand male Muslims from the Srebrenica area that died in battle or were executed, but in the larger picture of what has happened to in Europe to Russians, Jews, Gypsies, Poles. etc. the Srebrenica massacre is only a footnote in the book of history. I understand the grief of their families since my family still mourns a son who was killed by the SS, but the instrumentalisation of this massacre is out of proportion. The 21st century already mourns 3 million mostly civilian casualties of warfare. Now, that is shameful as a beginning for new and better future. Man, the hypocrisy ...

Honestly, don't worry about the late response. Any time is better than never, and after all, the Wikipedia database keeps everything on display so you can basicly submit a comment in response to something said by someone three years ago. In my time here (close to three years), I've changed a lot in my style of editing and I probably wouldn't subscribe to everything I believed in when I first discovered this site. It can be embarrassing looking back at old edits! Still, my comment to you was not a very long time ago, so it is still fresh in my mind. Firstly, you have my deepest condolences for the family member you lost to the SS; I fully appreciate where you are coming from in this scenario, and I am in no disagreement with you. Although in world affairs, one event leads to another (making it impossible to mark start and end dates to any chapters), people generally dismiss the acts committed against ethnic Germans in eastern Europe in the late 1940's as the final retributions of the second world war, that is to say, they are not related to things which happened after world war II. So you're right about Srebrenica, it being the biggest atrocity after 1945 is merely a "technicality" but those who like to mention the name on every occasion are those who dominate and defend the article. It's another reason that if you personally know better, somethimes it is best to keep it to yourself. Wikipedia is full of flaws and the controversy and negative feedback is endless, even by some of the famous names who are subjects of star articles. This doesn't stop me from using it, or consulting it. Nowadays I find it better for figures and statistics, regarding demographics, years when things took place etc. because these things are easier to prove (eg. an 18% or so population of Croats in Bosnia can be proved by providing census results). But then if you look at Holocaust denial, the page is nothing more than a fortified attack on a group of individuals who by their own definition don't call themselves deniers, merely revisionists. The article is contrary to everything Wikipedia was created to represent, its writing is bad and in parts, worse than a biased blog. I wouldn't dare alter an apostophe on that page! So if a few dozen editors wish to make light of a "technical issue" to present something wholly out of context as is the case with Srebrenica, there is nothing you and I can do to stop them. Best to let them have it, and concentrate on other articles. Evlekis (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)