Rad je pokušaj analize gazimestanskog govora Miloševića i Tuđmanovog govora na prvom općem saboru HDZ-a. Intencija je pokazati da što se tiče samog govora Miloševića, on nije imao za primarni cilj nasilno razbijanje Jugoslavije, kao ni međurepubličke ratove. S druge strane, rad bi trebao pokazati da Tuđmanov govor, gledajući u cjelini, nije bio proustaški. U tom kontekstu, period koji se analizira završava neposredno uoči prvih višestranačkih parlamentarnih izbora u Hrvatskoj, dakle ne obrađuje dolazak HDZ-a na vlast. Također, apstrahira se od drugih društvenih aktera, bilo u Srbiji, bilo u Hrvatskoj, posebno Srba u Hrvatskoj. Provedena analiza političkih govora nema ni na koji način za cilj relativizaciju uloge dvaju protagonista niti ih abolira od političke odgovornosti za raspad Jugoslavije i nastale ratove. Sagledavanje i analiza njihovih govora izvršena je u kontekstu vremena u kome su održani i svijesno je apstrahiran naknadni razvoj političkih događaja u Jugoslaviji. Naravno, iako govornici nisu mogli pretpostaviti koje će biti krajnje posljedice njihovih govora, sigurno je da su obojica, kao već iskusni političari, mogli pretpostaviti da će oni proizvesti snažni efekt i podignuti tenzije u javnom prostoru.; The paper is an attempt to analyze Gazemestan speech made by Milosevic as well as Tudjman's speech at the first general assembly of the Croatian Democratic Union (CDU). Intention is to demonstrate that, concerning Milosevic's speech, its primry aim was nost violent breakup of Yugoslavia neither inter-republican wars. On the other hand, the paper should also demonstrate that Tudjman's speech, in total, was not ustasha oriented. In this context, analyzed period ends just before the first multiparty elections in Croatia, therefore it does not address the CDU's coming to power. It also abstracts from other social actors, whether in Serbia or Croatia, especially Serbs in Croatia. The analysis of these two political speeches is not relativizing in any way the role of two protagonists, nor does it abolish them from their political responsibility for the breakup of Yugoslavia and the resulting wars. Review and analysis of their speeches were made in the context of the time in which they were held and they consciously abstract the subsequent development of political events in Yugoslavia. Of course, although the speakers couldn't know what the ultimate consequences of their speeches would be, it is certain that they both intended to produce a powerful effect and raise tensions in the public space.