PK(F),

According to an extensive obituary in yesterday's Independent newspaper (13th March 2006) Milosevic first came to power, in Yugoslavia, in 1987. To quote the obituary, by Marcus Tanner, Milosevic "[based] his appeal on narrow Serbian chauvinism, rather than broader Yugoslav nationalism".
Now, I'm sure that there were plenty of other nationalists and chauvinists, in Yugoslavia, in the years after Tito's death but it would appear to be Milosevic who first used such dubious sentiments to consolidate a political power base. And I would have thought that there was little doubt that it was Milosevic who primed and detonated the (potential) bomb (that was Yugoslavia), hoping to benefit from the resulting devastation, rather than working to defuse it.
What concerns me is that the Serbs always seem to have had apologists from R.D.G. Laffan after the First World War, through Rebecca West between the Wars, to the British Left in the 90s who seemed to suggest that because Milosevic called himself a Socialist, and was broadly anti-American, we could forgive him anything. Another view might be that there is a powerful streak of romantic nationalism, coupled with a profound persecution complex, in the Serbian psyche and this has often had devastating consequences for the Serb's neighbours.
Having said all that I don't doubt that the Serbs and Serbian Nation suffered terribly, during the Second World War, at the hands of the Nazis and the Croation Ustashe. Such real persecution undoubtedly leaves scars that persist for generations, but a responsible leader should work to heal such wounds - not break them open and seek to re-infect them.