Talk:Dubrovnik Republic (1991)

"Republic"

For all we know, it could all have been a prank by Apolonio, as the article offers no evidence:

• That actions of the Yugoslav Army, Šešelj, Karadžić or others had anything to do with Apolonio and his so-called Dubrovnik Republic.
• That anyone apart from Apolonio took part in this entity's government.
• That this government actually did or influenced anything.

Generally, that's why a merge would be in order, as proposed earlier. GregorB (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, bulk of the article's content (as well as sources) is about the Yugoslav Army, Karadžić and others, and not about the topic. GregorB (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the ICTY indictments against Milošević, as well as Strugar, Jokić, Kovačević... specifically mention the "Dubrovnik Republic" being designed as a means of formalization of a cross-broder land grab, where the territory was supposed to be a part of a "Serb-dominated state". (see paragraph breaking across pages 2 and 3 of this document, and this one as well). OTOH I agree that the article largely misses the mark and is WP:OFFTOPIC. The Siege of Dubrovnik article already contains everything of substance on this matter - proclamation of the republic itself - and there's not much more to report on the issue anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I lived in occupied Cavtat at the time. There was no official Dubrovnik Republic government. Territory was under military administration of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). The group around Apolonio together with some military officials had this idea, and they held one meeting, but it was not realized especially since Croatian population that remained in Cavtat did not want to do anything with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.81.35 (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The so-called "flag" posted in this article

The flag posted in this article (Serbian tricolor with Dubrovnik coat of arms on it) is a complete fabrication. There is neither a single media (or other) example of it ever being used, nor even a descriptive mention of it back in 1991. Unfortunately, this is a prime example of the type of thing that often makes Wikipedia an untrustworthy source of information. 137.82.108.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"A conflicting and biased paragraph"

I am referring to this paragraph "During the Siege of Dubrovnik, Serbian and Montenegrin irregular forces and JNA reservists went on a rampage in Dubrovnik; no one was spared in the violence: small villages and farms were plundered, homes and farms were set alight, fires were set to fields and orchards, and livestock was killed.[11] The largely Croat population of Dubrovnik fled in its entirety from the city amid the violence.[11]" It provides a pro-separatist view on the subject instead of remaining neutral. The whole book that the quote is sourced from is obviously biased as it mostly focuses on Serb "crimes" which again are poorly documented. I think that it would be best to not include this paragraph for these reasons. There also was some ethnic Croats in the JNA at that time, it makes no sense that these Croats would plunder and attack civilians of their ethnicity, the same civilians they pledged to protect on their compulsory military service, just months before the siege. Also what "irregular forces" are we talking about here? The only irregural forces here were ZNG and the Croatian MUP. The reason for this war is because ZNG separatist formations were trying to gain independence illegaly (as Croatia wasn't at the start even recognized by a single state) JNA (comprised of all ethnicities) intervened to try to liberate occupied areas. In these battles many innocent civilians were hurt but collaterally, in other words they weren't meant to be hurt and that wasn't the goal of neither ZNG nor Yugoslav forces. This book makes JNA look like barbaric chetnik greater Serbian hordes who burned everything on their way, while Croats seem like heroic fighters for freedom against foreign occupiers (Funny, because JNA operated on the only legal entity at the time with a government, called the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in which borders there is Dubrovnik territory. How they can be occupiers in their own country?) After attempting to remove this paragraph it got reverted by the user "Jingiby" since allegedly it isn't an improvement, and that it should be talked on the talk page, so I put my reasons here for removing the paragraph. Kosmar6314 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)