PDA

View Full Version : What happened in Bosnia 1992~1994?


fantic
May 6th, 2011, 06:20 PM
My source is

Slaughterhouse: Bosnia and the Failure of the West (http://www.amazon.com/Slaughterhouse-Bosnia-Failure-David-Rieff/dp/0684819031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304705736&sr=8-1)

Major players; UN (Boutros Boutros-Ghali) , John Major, Mitterand, Bush, Clintons, Yeltsin..

It was the most infuriating book I ever read. These guys can be said to even 'abet' the genocide of Muslims.

Just like in Munchen 1938, France and Great Britain NEVER wanted to be involved...they made sure Bosnian should be massacred by putting an embargo on weapons through that area, while Serbia had ALL the weapons :o

Clintons were so alike FDR in the Spanish Civil War (Bosnia wasn't even a war, since at the initial stages Bosnians didn't even possess weapons :tape: ) and until the WW2, all words, nothing doing. (Bosnia was one of his major presidential campaign promises)

Now UN, they were practically like Chamberlain :tape:

Just Do It
May 6th, 2011, 07:17 PM
15 years later, a Western creation called Bosnia and Herzegovina is about to fall apart because Serbs and Bosniaks living in it can't agree on anything. B&H even got kicked out of Euro champ Q because they couldnt agree on who will be a president of football association :help:

azdaja
May 6th, 2011, 07:20 PM
i think you should post linkes to the individual posts that lead to the creation of this thread (yours, mine, brena's melange's and jr's), just so people understand the context.

i hope this discussion will be serious and respectful, though it's usually not the case.

i might post more about the abuse of memory of the appeasment policy in bosnia and elsewhere, but not tonight. it's friday, we so excited, fun fun fun fun :p

fantic
May 6th, 2011, 07:48 PM
^ you're right.

It all started from

HERE (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=433787&page=12) from my post #170, a reply to Brena's post. Reading a couple of pages from there should be helpful?

fantic
May 6th, 2011, 07:51 PM
The creation of B-H should be discussed of course, as JR said on the other thread. Germany was the first to recognize Bosnia, I think. Immediately after that Serbia commenced the 'operation'..

njnetswill
May 6th, 2011, 08:17 PM
Wait, are you posting information or asking a question?

There is a lot of well-researched, academic literature on this topic. I don't think a tennis forum is the right place to ask for the details of this very complicated historical event.

From my experience, Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims will all tell you different things. Some people are genuinely interested in reconciliation and reaching out to the other side, but a lot of people (especially young people) are very nationalistic in their outlook.

fantic
May 6th, 2011, 08:35 PM
well, one can recommend related literature I guess? Discussion of various motives and policies and facts might be useful, at least interesting :shrug:

*JR*
May 6th, 2011, 09:20 PM
^ you're right.

It all started from

HERE (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=433787&page=12) from my post #170, a reply to Brena's post. Reading a couple of pages from there should be helpful?

You might ask the generally diplomatic and well informed Joana, who I sometimes refer to as Ste. Joana of Beograd :angel: for her perspective. Anyhow, my post that you kindly referred to from that thread:

Probably, because the story of the former Yugoslavia was far more complicated than most ppl in the West thought. Sure Slobo did some bad things (and quasi-independent allies of his like Arkan worse ones) but the fact remains that even after seeing that the Croatian secession led to a war, George HW Bush forced the creation of a new state called Bosnia-Hercegovina that had never existed, had a large Serbian minority, and no real means to defend its newfound sovereignty. (He's ovarated as a foreign policy genius IMO, mainly because he wisely didn't try to conquer Iraq after Desert Storm).

Jarl_02
May 6th, 2011, 09:55 PM
I've always thought this is a very interesting topic maybe becuase I've never found any answers to really make me understand what happened.

I don't think anybody in Venezuela would have a clue or at least know what happened there, well maybe history teachers...

fantic
May 6th, 2011, 10:19 PM
You might ask the generally diplomatic and well informed Joana, who I sometimes refer to as Ste. Joana of Beograd :angel: for her perspective. Anyhow, my post that you kindly referred to from that thread:

Probably, because the story of the former Yugoslavia was far more complicated than most ppl in the West thought. Sure Slobo did some bad things (and quasi-independent allies of his like Arkan worse ones) but the fact remains that even after seeing that the Croatian secession led to a war, George HW Bush forced the creation of a new state called Bosnia-Hercegovina that had never existed, had a large Serbian minority, and no real means to defend its newfound sovereignty. (He's ovarated as a foreign policy genius IMO, mainly because he wisely didn't try to conquer Iraq after Desert Storm).

I was meaning to post your post directly here :lol:

THIS

After Germany recognized Bosnia, Serbs (former Yugoslavian Army) took control of the weapons in Bosnia..Bosnians were totally unprepared when the disaster struck. It was even worse than the Spanish Civil War, in that it was a veritable massacre, not a 'fighting'. Milosevic intended to get their Serbian share as MUCH as possible, so the means they employed was to force Bosnians to desert their home and move away..terror tactics were employed.

Later Bosnians in turn were 'radicalized' (so called 'thugs' were fighting)..and NATO FINALLY intervened from 1996 or something. But the damage was done by then.

This was the major cause for the Clinton administration to plot the removal of Boutros-Ghali from the Sec. General of UN. B-G was quite favorable to the Serbian 'cause'.. (Yeltsin's Russia -especially ultra right nationalists-of course too)

Was the creation of B-H a mistake? Was there an hidden agenda by the US or the West?
Was Serbia a 'victim' (as they are fond to say. Yugoslavia was actually not economically bad before the disaster struck) ?
What about the Bosnians? What were they exactly then?
What WAS Milosevic's intention and policy?
Was NATO intervention justified? Or was it too late?
(since there was no 'strategic interest' a.k.a. Oil? :lol: Richard Holbrooke in his BOOK (http://www.amazon.com/End-War-Modern-Library-Paperbacks/dp/0375753605/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304720588&sr=1-1) discusses this)

fantic
May 6th, 2011, 10:25 PM
I've always thought this is a very interesting topic maybe becuase I've never found any answers to really make me understand what happened.

I don't think anybody in Venezuela would have a clue or at least know what happened there, well maybe history teachers...

me too.

Jarl_02
May 7th, 2011, 12:23 AM
Was NATO intervention justified? Or was it too late?
(since there was no 'strategic interest' a.k.a. Oil? :lol: Richard Holbrooke in his BOOK (http://www.amazon.com/End-War-Modern-Library-Paperbacks/dp/0375753605/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304720588&sr=1-1) discusses this)

Well I saw a TV show and they said that something really curious was that some fights in Bosnia were done in places kinda rich in oil, I don't know if the serbs knew that but I think I remember that the host of the show said the serbs wanted to have those areas, so maybe Oil was a very hidden motive.

Stark
May 7th, 2011, 01:42 AM
Was the creation of B-G a mistake? Was there an hidden agenda by the US or the West?

I assume you meant B&H. Bosnia is a very small country with total size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined. There is no value for the west or the US to meddle in the affairs of such a small country with little strategic value. Serb and Serb-sympathizing conspiracy theorists like *JR* try to say that the break-up of Yugoslavia in general was some kind of a plot by west and the US but there is no factual component to it. Comments like this
George HW Bush forced the creation of a new state called Bosnia-Hercegovina
have no basis in reality and are blind conspiracy theories cooked up by Serbia sympathizers to justify Serbia's behavior .

Whether the creation of Bosnia was a mistake or not depends upon whether you believe that people have a right to self-determination or not. Even you disagree, it is clear that Serbia overreacted with the violence.

Was Serbia a 'victim' (as they are fond to say. Yugoslavia was actually not economically bad before the disaster struck) ?

I have to laugh anytime someone tries to paint the Serbs as the victims. Serbs are the common thread that ties all the yugoslav wars together, first against Slovenia, then against Croatia, then against Bosnia and then against Kosovo. Serbs are the common denominator in all these conflicts. Serbs are still incredibly bitter about everything, the party with the most seats in Serbia has the establishment of "Greater Serbia" as part of their platform. That party ran a war-criminal for president. I would say there are more Serb nationalists by proportion than nationalists of any other group from former Yugoslavia. They are still fighting the battles of the past and are holding back coutries like Bosnia, Montenegro & Kosovo. There was a time when I used to care about these issues and I got into fights with member of this forum but I could care less now. I just want Serbia to leave its neighbors alone and mind its own business. Serbia can have Republica Srpska for all I care. I congratulate Slovenia for escaping the wretched claws of Serbia. Slovenes are lucky that their country is far from Serbia.

fantic
May 7th, 2011, 02:23 AM
The book I read says that Slovenia had no problem when they seceeded because there were no Serbs living in that territory.
But Croatia and Bosnia were a different matter, it seems.

njnetswill
May 7th, 2011, 02:28 AM
well, one can recommend related literature I guess? Discussion of various motives and policies and facts might be useful, at least interesting :shrug:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-4eKmp_qu_QC&lpg=PR11&ots=kBcPb24ZyU&dq=bosnian%20war&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=bosnian%20war&f=false

This gives some great background and is considered pretty exhaustive.

fantic
May 7th, 2011, 02:34 AM
ah, it was more of an ethnic cleansing, rather than genocide..about the Bosnian Muslims.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing)

fantic
May 7th, 2011, 02:42 AM
http://books.google.com/books?id=-4eKmp_qu_QC&lpg=PR11&ots=kBcPb24ZyU&dq=bosnian%20war&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=bosnian%20war&f=false

This gives some great background and is considered pretty exhaustive.

huh, touches roughly the same topics as the Rieff book, it seems, yet much more exhaustive. Thx for the link!

delicatecutter
May 7th, 2011, 03:04 AM
I find it fascinating that there weren't uprisings prior to the 90s with Muslim communities such as Bosnia and Kosovo within Yugoslavia. Maybe there were, and I'm just ignorant.

fifty-fifty
May 7th, 2011, 03:17 AM
Wx-REROXvtg

Melange
May 7th, 2011, 03:35 AM
ah, it was more of an ethnic cleansing, rather than genocide..about the Bosnian Muslims.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing)

theres where it gets down to petty debates over the definition of words. thats what some people want, to distract from sheer horror of what happened.

fantic
May 7th, 2011, 03:48 AM
there were other threads before.

link (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=351099&page=4)

njnetswill
May 7th, 2011, 04:04 AM
I find it fascinating that there weren't uprisings prior to the 90s with Muslim communities such as Bosnia and Kosovo within Yugoslavia. Maybe there were, and I'm just ignorant.

There was fairly high intermarriage rates in B&H before the outbreak of ethnic conflict. The majority of Bosnian residents identified as "Yugoslavian" before ethnicity became so politicized as a result of the rhetoric of ethno-nationalist elites. The Muslim community wasn't isolated or ostracized like you see today in many European countries.

fantic
May 7th, 2011, 04:29 AM
There was fairly high intermarriage rates in B&H before the outbreak of ethnic conflict. The majority of Bosnian residents identified as "Yugoslavian" before ethnicity became so politicized as a result of the rhetoric of ethno-nationalist elites. The Muslim community wasn't isolated or ostracized like you see today in many European countries.

totally true.

Who is to blame? Who started this? :sad:

fantic
May 7th, 2011, 05:06 AM
totally true.

Who is to blame? Who started this? :sad:

another related THREAD (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=332689&page=14)

Safe-From-Harm
May 7th, 2011, 09:56 AM
As I see, I am the only from Bosnia who post in this thread. I haven`t read the similar threads before...
still don`t know why I get into this one.
But It makes me feel SICK, I just want to forget all the things happened.
So, I don`t want to give my opinion cause it will ,,wake up" memories.
Just please don`t blame the whole nation, blame the individuals.
Don`t celebrate some war action that happened, which produces victims- on EVERY SIDE.
Who is guilty? Search for them in every of mentioned countries.

azdaja
May 7th, 2011, 11:16 AM
theres where it gets down to petty debates over the definition of words. thats what some people want, to distract from sheer horror of what happened.
don't be stupid. there are very real legal implications if there is a genocide happening and on a human level it still makes a difference if people are out to kill you and your family or if they put a gun to your head and tell you to leave (and shoot a couple of your neighbours in order for you to understand that they are dead serious). not to mention that if you want to solve a conflict you need to understand those "petty definitions of words" which describe what's going on. moralising is useless when it gets to understanding politics and history.

i don't see how this distracts from the horror of what happened :shrug: on the other hand i am not convinced that considering every mass murder genocide helps people understand the sheer horror of the holocaust, for example. it doesn't take away anything from the very real suffering and victimhood of the bosnian people.

btw, those "petty" details, such as the term genocide and inflated numbers of victims are regularly used by the nationalists who don't want reconciliation. in fact, you should inform yourself about the abuse of the memory of genocide serbs suffered during the ww2 at the hands of croatian fascists (who were supported by muslim fascist units) by serbian nationalists before and during the break up of yugoslavia. former victimhood can be used as a justification for future attrocities, unfortunately.

rada
May 7th, 2011, 11:37 AM
As I see, I am the only from Bosnia who post in this thread. I haven`t read the similar threads before...
still don`t know why I get into this one.
But It makes me feel SICK, I just want to forget all the things happened.
So, I don`t want to give my opinion cause it will ,,wake up" memories.
Just please don`t blame the whole nation, blame the individuals.
Don`t celebrate some war action that happened, which produces victims- on EVERY SIDE.
Who is guilty? Search for them in every of mentioned countries.


I agree/

azdaja
May 7th, 2011, 11:42 AM
My source is

Slaughterhouse: Bosnia and the Failure of the West (http://www.amazon.com/Slaughterhouse-Bosnia-Failure-David-Rieff/dp/0684819031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304705736&sr=8-1)

Major players; UN (Boutros Boutros-Ghali) , John Major, Mitterand, Bush, Clintons, Yeltsin..

It was the most infuriating book I ever read. These guys can be said to even 'abet' the genocide of Muslims.

Just like in Munchen 1938, France and Great Britain NEVER wanted to be involved...they made sure Bosnian should be massacred by putting an embargo on weapons through that area, while Serbia had ALL the weapons :o

Clintons were so alike FDR in the Spanish Civil War (Bosnia wasn't even a war, since at the initial stages Bosnians didn't even possess weapons :tape: ) and until the WW2, all words, nothing doing. (Bosnia was one of his major presidential campaign promises)

Now UN, they were practically like Chamberlain :tape:
i believe the book you read is outdated.

comparisons to the munich conference are completely out of place since the situation was the exact opposite in bosnia. in munich big powers decided to give germany a part of the territory of an independent country and germany invaded the whole country and the big powers for a number of reasons didn't do anything. and genocide played no role in the decision making. bosnia on the other hand was a part of yugoslavia and the yugoslav troops were there because it was their territory. bosnia was recognised precisely in order to make the yugoslav army leave, which is what they did. ever since then they were not directly involed in the conflict. they left their weapons back and they gave them to bosnian serbs. from that moment on it was the bosnian people who were fighting against each other based on their ethnicity while outsiders were supporting each side according to their interests and sympathies. how that compares to the situation at the munich conference is beyond me. and don't get me even started on the spanish civil war. you need to study those events in detail before comparing other events to them.

another thing is, i don't know what happened to the website of the research and documantation senter in sarajevo, the english version is simply not there and i don't know if they still have the detailed study of deaths throughout the war. however, after radovan karadzic was arrested i took the trouble to look at that study and i remember that it showed that most victims died either in the first year or in the last year of the conflict when major combat operations took place. in years 1993 and 1994 the number of victims per day was actually in single digits, so anyone who says that the un was overlooking genocide is trying to discredit the un. the arrival of peace keepers did have an impact, it just didn't resolve the conflict, but that was not their job anyway.

finally, about serbian victimhood during the breakup of yugoslavia. i think most people are overlooking one very simple thing, serbs supported survival of yugoslavia more than any other ehtnic group there. the plan b for them was that if other ethnic groups want to secede then the territories populated by serbs should be able to stay. this is why most of the fighting happened in the territories populated by serbs. and you know, when fighting happens where you live it does affect you and make you a victim. plenty of serbs were forced to leave and serbia ended up having by far the biggest refugee population in europe, about 700,000 people at the end of the 1990's. plus serbs were affected by economic sanctions. people, including babies, were dying because of the lack of medicine. they are not counted as vicitms of war, but in reality they are. all this, plus loss of the country they wanted to have (yugoslavia) does make them victims, even though serbian leadership is the most responsible for this situation.

fantic
May 7th, 2011, 04:23 PM
thx for your input. About the similarities I mentioned;


1. Munich (appeasement policy);

the West (including UN) againt Karadzic and Serbs leadership;

they tried to 'accomodate' K and Co.'s demands, and K and Co. in turn
had no problem violating the agreements time and again. Still UN et al put up with it like Chamberlain and Daladier and etc. Some guy even praised K as 'the man of peace' Chamberlain was really impatient against Czech, like UN against Bosnia Muslims, blaming them for ruining the peace prospect (peace at all cost)
No wonder journalists and the UN commander quoted Munchen, they're not stupid.

2. Spanish Civil War

like Munchen and Spanish war, the West (especially England and France didn't want anything to do with those incidents. So, weapons embargo. And it was advantageous to Spanish fascist force of course, as well as (former) JNA in Bosnia. FDR = Clinton ; all words, no action, though FDR was sympathizing with Spain Republic (Clinton for Bosnia)

like the Spanish Civil War, Bosnia was a total failure of the West.

:shrug:

*JR*
May 7th, 2011, 05:45 PM
Serb and Serb-sympathizing conspiracy theorists like *JR* try to say that the break-up of Yugoslavia in general was some kind of a plot by west and the US but there is no factual component to it. Comments like this (Quote: George HW Bush forced the creation of a new state called Bosnia-Hercegovina)

I'm neither a Serb nor a conspiracy theorist. I presume that Bush Sr. thought he was doing the right thing; I was quite open to the idea of Yugoslavian republics like BH and Macedonia negotiating autonomy or even full independence. I just thought that the timing was reckless, as a Slobo who controlled the Federal military and was using it to fight the breakaway Croatia would surely do the same if a Bosnian state was created without serious negotiation. BTW, I "shed no tears" when whoever killed Serb enforcer "Arkan" in 1998.

azdaja
May 7th, 2011, 06:36 PM
thx for your input. About the similarities I mentioned;


1. Munich (appeasement policy);

the West (including UN) againt Karadzic and Serbs leadership;

they tried to 'accomodate' K and Co.'s demands, and K and Co. in turn
had no problem violating the agreements time and again. Still UN et al put up with it like Chamberlain and Daladier and etc. Some guy even praised K as 'the man of peace' Chamberlain was really impatient against Czech, like UN against Bosnia Muslims, blaming them for ruining the peace prospect (peace at all cost)
No wonder journalists and the UN commander quoted Munchen, they're not stupid.
i think they are. it is by now clear that the arms embargo against bosnia was not enforced and that bosnian muslims were able to arm themselves and eventually get some sort of balance of the military power which made the eventual peace agreement possible. other than that they recognised bosnian independence which forced the yugoslav army out. that's hardly appeasing the serbian side. bosnian serbs would have preferred the yugoslav army to stay. it was a complicated situation, you don't jump into a civil war just like that. and let's not forget that croats were also trying to get their piece of bosnia and that there was an independent bosnian muslim entity as well. plus all sides shared a similar nationalist ideology. it was not a clear-cut situation like in the case of german wars of conquest where an early reaction could have prevented the ww2. and that is also a big difference that plenty of people overlook. serbia was not about to become a superpower that would try to conquer the world. they were actually losing territory they had previsously controlled all of the time.

2. Spanish Civil War

like Munchen and Spanish war, the West (especially England and France didn't want anything to do with those incidents. So, weapons embargo. And it was advantageous to Spanish fascist force of course, as well as (former) JNA in Bosnia. FDR = Clinton ; all words, no action, though FDR was sympathizing with Spain Republic (Clinton for Bosnia)

like the Spanish Civil War, Bosnia was a total failure of the West.

:shrug:
you are assuming that the western leaders really sympathised with spanish republicans, but back in the day plenty of people thought fascism is a better option than communism. communists and anarchists were a part of the republican coalition. franco was allowed to stay in power even after the ww2. of course the fascist victory in that war helped fascism in general, but in this case situation isn't comparable even to the munich conference, let alone bosnia.

and btw, germany was a part of "the west" at every point in history including during the fascist times.

bottom line, however, is that contrary to the popular perception the west wasn't passive during the breakup of yugoslavia. people who think that it would have been possible to launch a military intervention just like that are comparable to george bush who didn't understand what the invasion of iraq would bring :shrug: and the west took sides not out of humanitarian concerns, but because serbia had a communist in power while all other countries in the region were moving in the other direction. that was the main reason.

fantic
May 7th, 2011, 07:08 PM
i think they are. it is by now clear that the arms embargo against bosnia was not enforced and that bosnian muslims were able to arm themselves and eventually get some sort of balance of the military power which made the eventual peace agreement possible. other than that they recognised bosnian independence which forced the yugoslav army out. that's hardly appeasing the serbian side. bosnian serbs would have preferred the yugoslav army to stay. it was a complicated situation, you don't jump into a civil war just like that. and let's not forget that croats were also trying to get their piece of bosnia and that there was an independent bosnian muslim entity as well. plus all sides shared a similar nationalist ideology. it was not a clear-cut situation like in the case of german wars of conquest where an early reaction could have prevented the ww2. and that is also a big difference that plenty of people overlook. serbia was not about to become a superpower that would try to conquer the world. they were actually losing territory they had previsously controlled all of the time.

one of your objection about the comparison is that Yugo was not a super power like Germany, who tried to conquer the world (and when did Germany try to conquer the world? Hitler did NOT want a war with the West, he ALWAYS emphasized the friendship with England and he also acknowledged Britain's status. He was very astute) That's obvious, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison. You didn't deny what I contended, I see. (UN's appeasement against Karadzic and Co. They appeased, even though Karadzic violated their agreement TIME AND AGAIN. That's a fact. They even 'tolerated' K's action even though they KNEW there was going to be violence. Just too comparable to Munich et al. UN envoy even declared K a 'man of peace', all too similar to Chamberlain. If that's not comparable, what is?)



you are assuming that the western leaders really sympathised with spanish republicans, but back in the day plenty of people thought fascism is a better option than communism. communists and anarchists were a part of the republican coalition. franco was allowed to stay in power even after the ww2. of course the fascist victory in that war helped fascism in general, but in this case situation isn't comparable even to the munich conference, let alone bosnia.

and btw, germany was a part of "the west" at every point in history including during the fascist times.


When did I assume that western leaders 'really' sympathised with Spanish republicans? England and France didn't really care about Spain, otherwise they would've intervened. Same case with Bosnia. (Hell Mitterand blatantly stated that he didn't wish a Muslim country in Europe)
FDR 'sympathised', Clinton too, but they didn't do anything either.
And I know that many conservatives thought that Fascist Germany was the barrier to the Soviet, like Churchill. :)
A lot of people at UN were quite favourable to Serb leaders too. That's why they were SO accommodating to them.



bottom line, however, is that contrary to the popular perception the west wasn't passive during the breakup of yugoslavia. people who think that it would have been possible to launch a military intervention just like that are comparable to george bush who didn't understand what the invasion of iraq would bring :shrug: and the west took sides not out of humanitarian concerns, but because serbia had a communist in power while all other countries in the region were moving in the other direction. that was the main reason.

that's an interesting perspective. yeah maybe not out of humanitarian concerns, because they intervened too late for that :lol: but was being a communist regime the MAIN reason for the intervention? dunno..

azdaja
May 7th, 2011, 07:33 PM
one of your objection about the comparison is that Yugo was not a super power like Germany, who tried to conquer the world (and when did Germany try to conquer the world? Hitler did NOT want a war with the West, he ALWAYS emphasized the friendship with England and he also acknowledged Britain's status. He was very astute) That's obvious, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison. You didn't deny what I contended, I see. (UN's appeasement against Karadzic and Co. They appeased, even though Karadzic violated their agreement TIME AND AGAIN. That's a fact. They even 'tolerated' K's action even though they KNEW there was going to be violence. Just too comparable to Munich et al. UN envoy even declared K a 'man of peace', all too similar to Chamberlain. If that's not comparable, what is?)
did you read all of what i wrote? parts about recognising bosnia in order to get the yugoslav army out, about the chaoting situation, my previous observation that there was not that much violence for the duration of 2 years. the west was not appeasing the serbian side, they were constantly making decisions against them. it's only that the military action came only after an agreement between croats and bosniaks was made. in case of hitler they were really appeasing him and that came to bite them in the arse in the end.

When did I assume that western leaders 'really' sympathised with Spanish republicans? England and France didn't really care about Spain, otherwise they would've intervened. Same case with Bosnia. (Hell Mitterand blatantly stated that he didn't wish a Muslim country in Europe)
FDR 'sympathised', Clinton too, but they didn't do anything either.
And I know that many conservatives thought that Fascist Germany was the barrier to the Soviet, like Churchill. :)
A lot of people at UN were quite favourable to Serb leaders too. That's why they were SO accommodating to them.
who was favourable to serbs? serbia was one of the most isolated countries in the world at that point in time. the sanctions were not as devastating like against iraq, but they were bad enough.

that's an interesting perspective. yeah maybe not out of humanitarian concerns, because they intervened too late for that :lol: but was being a communist regime the MAIN reason for the intervention? dunno..
it makes perfect sense because the west has been consistently against communism for ages (often making deals with the devil for that reason often with total disregard for humanitarian concerns) and western officials often say as much when they are addressing the serbian public.

fifty-fifty
May 7th, 2011, 09:48 PM
Injustice for All

Croatia and The Hague Inquisition
by Nebojsa Malic, April 23, 2011


Something unusual took place at the Hague Inquisition (ICTY) last week. The quasi-court, claiming nonexistent authority from the UN Security Council to prosecute war crimes during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, convicted two Croatian generals of war crimes. This was strange for two reasons. First, because so far the Inquisition has indicted only a few non-Serbs, and only a few of those were sentenced to anything beyond symbolic terms. Second, because while non-Serb defendants were tried for individual atrocities, only Serb defendants were prosecuted under the doctrine of “joint criminal enterprise,” specifically developed for them. Until now.

The prosecutors claimed, and the judges agreed, that Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac were both part of the "joint criminal enterprise" to forcibly displace the Serb population from Croatia in the summer of 1995. According to the Inquisition, the JCE was headed by none other than Croatian president Franjo Tudjman, who died in 1999. The third general on trial, Ivan Cermak, was acquitted of all charges.

Shock and Anger

Croatian officials, as well as a sizeable part of the public, greeted the verdict with shock and anger. There have been riots throughout the country. Soccer teams have played wearing General Gotovina’s picture on their jerseys. One man even cut himself up with broken glass in protest.

Croatians are fiercely protective of the narrative of what they call the "Homeland War"; in this official history, the peace-loving Croatian state was brutally attacked by the aggressive, expansionist Serbia and the Yugoslav Army, who proceeded to slaughter Croats and "occupy a third of Croatian territory" for years, until the heroic "defenders" forced them out and secured the country’s independence. It is an article of faith in Croatia, challenged only by a few (and at great peril) that, since all their actions were supposedly in righteous self-defense, nothing any Croatian soldier has done could have possibly been illegal or immoral.

This does not apply only to generals and wartime politicians; when a common soldier, Tihomir Purda, was arrested on a Serbian warrant in February this year, crowds of protesters turned out to demand his release.

There are obvious problems with this narrative. First, neither the crumbling Yugoslav government nor that of Serbia ever contested Croatia’s declaration of independence per se. They were, however, concerned with Tudjman’s disenfranchisement of the country’s half a million Serbs, who had good reasons to feel uncomfortable in an independent Croatia. The territory that ended up under Serb control consisted largely of areas inhabited by Serbs, not "invaded" from Serbia — a distinction most Western journalists never bothered to make. Finally, the notion that atrocities are by definition impossible in a just war is nonsensical, being the extreme expression of the belief that the end justifies the means.

Junkyard Dogs

Unable to make that argument before the ICTY, Croatia’s lawyers defending the generals argued that the August 1995 operation that saw the murder and expulsion of Serbs and the widespread destruction of their property was a legitimate military action supported by the U.S. government.

It is true that Washington was behind "Operation Storm", having trained and equipped the Croatian military through the "private contractor" MPRI. There are numerous testimonies about this, including one in Richard Holbrooke’s memoir of his colleague Robert Frasure referring to the Croats as America’s "junkyard dogs," about whose methods one ought not get "squeamish."

At the time, Washington’s Ambassador to Zagreb, Peter Galbraith, even denied that the exodus of Serbs could be qualified as "ethnic cleansing," since ethnic cleansing was something only the Serbs would do! He repeated that qualification following the verdict, arguing that the Serbs left of their own volition.

Yet the Inquisition has repeatedly asserted that it had no authority over anyone but the nationals of the former Yugoslavia — other participants in the conflict, such as U.S. and NATO troops, could never face indictment. It is unclear whether Croatia’s defense attorneys thought that by bringing up U.S. support they would have the indictment withdrawn or get their American sponsors indicted; either way, the Empire did what it usually does, and threw its "junkyard dogs" under the proverbial bus once they’d served their purpose.

The Tudjman Tapes

The crucial evidence the Inquisition used were the transcripts of taped meetings of President Tudjman, which leave little doubt as to his plans to eliminate Croatia’s Serb population, and even meddle in Bosnia. While Croatia’s current president, Ivo Josipovic, walked the tightrope between acknowledging the tapes’ authenticity and continuing to assert that Croatia’s war effort (and the persecution of Serbs it entailed) was nonetheless legitimate, the Croatian public has gone on a witch hunt for whoever leaked the tapes to the ICTY. Yet for all we know, it might have been the Empire that did it.

Questions of Legitimacy

The doctrine of "joint criminal enterprise" was developed for the Inquisition by a Croat-American law professor, as a sort of catch-all concept that enabled the prosecution of people not for what they did, but for who they were at the time. In a nutshell, simply being in a position of authority was enough to convict someone on grounds that they "should have known" what their subordinates were doing. Best yet, according to the ICTY, one could belong to the JCE without even knowing it! This has enabled the Inquisition to accuse the entire Serb political and military leadership — in today’s Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia — of being parts of a grand conspiracy to establish a "Greater Serbia"; it was a charge the Inquisition itself didn’t take seriously, but it made good headlines.

In this light, it is understandable that a verdict based on this doctrine would make the Croatians nervous. After all, its principal function over the years has been to de-legitimize the Serb war efforts. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Inquisition’s ministrations seem far less pleasant.

The Oric Scenario

However, there is little indication that the Inquisition is seriously interested in questioning the legitimacy of Tudjman’s war effort. As noted earlier, the Empire was a key participant in the conflict. Croatia joined NATO a few years ago, and seems on track to join the EU soon enough. And while mass refugee returns have been a major policy objective of Washington and Brussels in Bosnia, no such effort was made to ensure the return of the displaced Serbs. In fact, regardless of which party is in charge, Croatia continues to deny the property and civil rights to the returnees, and discourages any serious return by randomly accusing Serb men of war crimes.

Further suggesting the political calculation behind the convictions is the fact that the third defendant, Gen. Cermak, was acquitted on all counts. The very point of the JCE doctrine is that it is practically impossible to get acquitted, once charged: the defendant is guilty by the virtue of existing. Unless Cermak somehow managed to prove he did not exist at the time, his acquittal is as puzzling as Gotovina and Markac’s convictions.

It would not be out of the realm of possibility to posit that Gotovina and Markac might eventually be sentenced to time served, or even outright acquitted, following the appeals process. That’s precisely what happened to the Bosnian Muslim warlord Naser Oric. The reason the generals were indicted and convicted in the first place could well be to bolster the feeble fiction of impartiality and legitimacy of the ICTY, and the JCE doctrine itself. Either way, it is extremely unlikely that either the Inquisition or its sponsors in Europe and the U.S. have suddenly developed empathy for Serb suffering.

Fallout

None of this is helping the Croatians cope. For years, their governments had told them that their side was virtuous and pure, their cause just and unimpeachable. Now just one verdict before the Hague Inquisition seems to have thrown that perception into disarray. There has already been much anger aimed at the government, which is mired in corruption scandals and trying to cope with mounting debt and unemployment. The verdict has actually enabled the government to avoid dealing with its dubious record since the independence, and hide behind appeals to patriotism and a growing victimhood complex.

As for the Serbs, ICTY’s gesture of feigned even-handedness is too little, too late. Railroading someone else for once isn’t going to change the realization that the Inquisition’s basic mission is to rewrite recent Balkans history for Empire’s benefit. The Gotovina verdict merely shows that in that mission, they are now willing to trample over yesterday’s *******. Of actual justice for the Balkans, there is nary a trace.

fifty-fifty
May 7th, 2011, 09:57 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/16/us-croatia-protests-warcrimes-idUSTRE73F18A20110416?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&ca=moto

(Reuters) - Several thousand Croats protested on Saturday against The Hague convicting two former Croatian generals whose trial was a condition of Croatia's attempt to join the European Union.

Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac were jailed on Friday by the U.N. war crimes court for 24 and 18 years respectively for orchestrating a campaign of murder and plunder to drive some 200,000 Serbs from a rebel enclave of Croatia in 1995.

Gotovina's arrest in 2005 removed a serious obstacle to Croatia's start of talks to join the EU, which insists that all former Yugoslav republics arrest war crimes suspects from the 1990s conflict before joining the bloc.

Some analysts say a widespread perception that the rulings at the Hague tribunal do not properly reflect the events in the Yugoslav wars may raise an anti-EU sentiment among Croats at a time when Croatia hopes to wrap up the accession talks.

Croatia hopes to complete the talks in the coming months and hold a referendum on the EU entry soon afterwards.

Protesters in the main square in Zagreb carried Croatian flags and banners saying "I love Croatia, not in the European Union," as well as chanting "Treason" because of what organizers say is the failure of political leaders to protect the dignity of war veterans.

Similar protest rallies were also scheduled for this weekend in other bigger Croatian cities.

Croatia fought a four year independence war against rebel Serbs backed and armed by Belgrade during which many Croatian towns and villages suffered destruction and many non-Serbs were expelled from their homes.

For many Croats, Gotovina, 55, who denied the tribunal's charges, is a titan of Croatia's "Homeland War," in particular for his role in the four-day blitz by the U.S.-equipped Croatian army to wrest back the rebel Krajina region.

The generals' lawyers said they would appeal against the verdicts and the Croatian government said it would fight with all legal means against the ruling that said Croatia's action to liberate the occupied territory was a joint criminal enterprise.

(Reporting by Igor Ilic, edited by Alison Williams)

Joana
May 7th, 2011, 10:45 PM
I find it fascinating that there weren't uprisings prior to the 90s with Muslim communities such as Bosnia and Kosovo within Yugoslavia. Maybe there were, and I'm just ignorant.

There were uprisings in Kosovo prior to the 90's but they had very little to do with religion since Albanians are generally not too religious, Albanian nationalism was the driving force behind those. Also, since Yugoslavia was a communist country, the practicing of religion was actively discouraged.

fantic
May 7th, 2011, 10:58 PM
did you read all of what i wrote? parts about recognising bosnia in order to get the yugoslav army out, about the chaoting situation, my previous observation that there was not that much violence for the duration of 2 years. the west was not appeasing the serbian side, they were constantly making decisions against them. it's only that the military action came only after an agreement between croats and bosniaks was made. in case of hitler they were really appeasing him and that came to bite them in the arse in the end.


who was favourable to serbs? serbia was one of the most isolated countries in the world at that point in time. the sanctions were not as devastating like against iraq, but they were bad enough.


it makes perfect sense because the west has been consistently against communism for ages (often making deals with the devil for that reason often with total disregard for humanitarian concerns) and western officials often say as much when they are addressing the serbian public.

you're addressing a different matter from what I said and saying that it wasn't an appeasement. Now I'm talking about 1992~1994, BEFORE the West's decisive intervention (Rieff's book is on that period too. And how can a repo be outdated? It's not a history book. He was there, and he just wrote what he experienced)

Again you're saying sanctions and such, I'm talking about BEFORE that :help: You think UN was 'hostile' against Serbia at that time? You're sadly mistaken.
They were more impatient against Bosnia Muslims, JUST LIKE CHAMBERLAIN.

And about your comment, 'there was not that much violence for the duration of 2 years', you mean those 1st 2 years? Are you serious? Were all the reporters and officials duped or what? :lol: You said that you think they're stupid (who mentioned Munchen), but they should know about the WW2 as well as you :lol:
Also Russia was pretty blatantly favourable to Serbs, if you haven't noticed.

Joana
May 7th, 2011, 10:59 PM
bosnia was recognised precisely in order to make the yugoslav army leave, which is what they did.

And got massacred on their way out, like it happened in Tuzla and Sarajevo.

The comparison to Munich is absurd. The integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina was NEVER in question, which is completely opposite to partition of Czechoslovakia.

The question was on what premises would the future state of Bosnia and Herzegovina be built. Serbs (and Croats!) favoured a federalization or a weak centralized state with devolution of government to local municipalities based on the ethnic principle. Bosniaks were exclusively for a unitary state with strong central government.

The main problem, like in the war in Croatia the previous year, was the total overreaction on the Serbian side. Knowing they had the upper hand in terms of military strength, they showed little compassion for the lives of civilians and they didn't really bother that much with long term thinking. It came to bite them in the ass in the end.

Joana
May 7th, 2011, 11:00 PM
Again you're saying sanctions and such, I'm talking about BEFORE that :help: You think UN was 'hostile' against Serbia at that time? You're sadly mistaken.
They were more impatient against Bosnia Muslims, JUST LIKE CHAMBERLAIN.



The sanctions were imposed in 1992.
And Russia was hardly relevant at the time.

fantic
May 7th, 2011, 11:08 PM
The sanctions were imposed in 1992.
And Russia was hardly relevant at the time.

It doesn't dampen my main contention :shrug: UN was pretty like England and the French at that time (Munchen was the West's REACTION to the aggressor Hitler, not only about the Czch Republic. Again, those who mentioned Munchen couldn't be ignorant of WW2, you know? :tape: )
And how can Russia be hardly irrelevant? You should know what the Russian troops did there?

Joana
May 7th, 2011, 11:13 PM
It doesn't dampen my main contention :shrug: UN was pretty like England and the French at that time (Munchen was the West's REACTION to the aggressor Hitler, not only about the Czch Republic. Again, those who mentioned Munchen couldn't be ignorant of WW2, you know? :tape: )
And how can Russia be hardly irrelevant? You should know what the Russian troops did there?

It was at that time that the Russian people in Baltic states lost their civil rights while Russia stood about and did nothing about it. Yes, Russia was irrelevant.

Those sanctions (that were imposed in the very BEGINNING of war in Bosnia) completely devastated Serbian economy in a matter of months. To say that the UN was benevolent towards the Serbs is ridiculous.

The Munich agreement legitimized the partition of a sovereign state of Czechoslovakia. The partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina was never considered an option.

delicatecutter
May 8th, 2011, 12:04 AM
Thanks so much for the historical analysis and insight in this thread! :worship:

fantic
May 8th, 2011, 12:21 AM
It was at that time that the Russian people in Baltic states lost their civil rights while Russia stood about and did nothing about it. Yes, Russia was irrelevant.

Those sanctions (that were imposed in the very BEGINNING of war in Bosnia) completely devastated Serbian economy in a matter of months. To say that the UN was benevolent towards the Serbs is ridiculous.

The Munich agreement legitimized the partition of a sovereign state of Czechoslovakia. The partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina was never considered an option.

I don't want to go to the library again and dig the exact portion :tape: but Russian troops stationed there played not an unfavorable part for Serbs.

Again that sanction. I'm not talking about economic sanction, but the way UN negotiated with Karadzic et al. You know that K violated the agreements NUMEROUS times and UN pretty much did nothing about it like Chamberlain and Co. They were QUITE tolerating about it, in fact :tape:

Again, you're focusing solely on B-H and Czh, whereas I'm focusing about the West(and UN)'s reaction against the aggressor's infringements, 'so called' appeasement policy. :shrug:

fantic
May 8th, 2011, 12:27 AM
wonder about the following subjects then, about the Intervention;

was ideology, like azdaja says, the main reason they FINALLY intervened decisively? if not, what WAS the reason?

was intervention itself wrong? or was it too late?

was the economic sanction before that, wrong? how about the weapon embargo?

what was exactly Milosevic's policy? how should we evaluate
him and his policy?

Joana
May 8th, 2011, 12:36 AM
I don't want to go to the library again and dig the exact portion :tape: but Russian troops stationed there played not an unfavorable part for Serbs.

Again that sanction. I'm not talking about economic sanction, but the way UN negotiated with Karadzic et al. You know that K violated the agreements NUMEROUS times and UN pretty much did nothing about it like Chamberlain and Co. They were QUITE tolerating about it, in fact :tape:

Again, you're focusing solely on B-H and Czh, whereas I'm focusing about the West(and UN)'s reaction against the aggressor's infringements, 'so called' appeasement policy. :shrug:

The aggressor, which formally wasn't even in the war, was completely cut off from the rest of the world financially and economically since the start of the conflict in Bosnia. Unless the same happened to Germany in 1938, which we know it didn't, then no, the comparison doesn't hold true.

What you obviously don't understand is that prior to 1994 there was no mutual agreement between any of the three sides in the conflict on the status of the future state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In such situation, one had to negotiate with the leaders of the conflicting sides. Only after Croats and Bosniaks reached an agreement in 1994 could the West take more concrete measures and put more pressure on Karadzic.

fantic
May 8th, 2011, 12:55 AM
The Munich agreement legitimized the partition of a sovereign state of Czechoslovakia. The partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina was never considered an option.

But still the basic pattern wasn't that much different leading to Munich agreement.

Germans in Czech (Sudetenland) = Serbs in Bosnia

Both Germany and Serbia had nationalistic ambitions, to grab more territory and encouraged the secessionists.

The appeasement policy of the West I already mentioned.

There's a reason why the journalists and UN commander quoted Munich :shrug:
It was a pretty famous quote at that time, the commander retorting against the journalists' jabs;

'Munich was last year' (can't remember the exact phrase but it was like that) :tape:

Joana
May 8th, 2011, 01:06 AM
wonder about the following subjects then, about the Intervention;

was ideology, like azdaja says, the main reason they FINALLY intervened decisively? if not, what WAS the reason?


Like I said, the main reason they intervened decisively was that they finally had something solid to stand on and that was the Bosniak-Croat agreement that put an end to their mutual hostility.
As for his communist-like ideology, that certainly was a factor in how he was perceived by the West since the very beginning.


was intervention itself wrong? or was it too late?


It made the peace accord possible, but the main question remains if the West could have done more to prevent the war, not if it could have stopped earlier.


was the economic sanction before that, wrong? how about the weapon embargo?


I don't know if I can speak about the morality of the economic sanctions since I was directly influenced by those. As for the weapon embargo, it was never fully imposed since arms were being smuggled into Bosnia on a large scale.


what was exactly Milosevic's policy? how should we evaluate
him and his policy?

His ideology was hunger for power. He rose on the wave on Serbian nationalism that grew in the 80's as the Serbs got increasingly dissatisfied with their status in Yugoslavia (and especially in Kosovo), which intensified when the break-up of Yugoslavia became imminent, which meant that a large number of Serbs would be left outside the borders of Serbia. His hard-line stance in the beggining of the Yugoslav wars got him a huge support by the Serbian population, but he was not a nationalist in itself. At the same time he actively sought to strengthen his position with the West when it was too much endangered - for example. Serbia imposed embargo on the Bosnian Serbs in 1994 and didn't intervene in any way when in 1995 Croatia launched an offensive and recovered its territory that the rebel Serbs had previously taken over. It should not be forgotten that he was called "a factor of peace and stability in the Balkans" by the West itself for a period in the mid-90's.

Finally, even in 1999 when he got into an open conflict with the West, he was previously willing to settle for a de facto independence of Kosovo. But that time the West really took a hardline position.

Joana
May 8th, 2011, 01:21 AM
But still the basic pattern wasn't that much different leading to Munich agreement.

Germans in Czech (Sudetenland) = Serbs in Bosnia

Both Germany and Serbia had nationalistic ambitions, to grab more territory and encouraged the secessionists.

The appeasement policy of the West I already mentioned.

There's a reason why the journalists and UN commander quoted Munich :shrug:
It was a pretty famous quote at that time, the commander retorting against the journalists' jabs;

'Munich was last year' (can't remember the exact phrase but it was like that) :tape:

Perhaps they quoted it because they didn't really know what happened in Munich. While the circumstances leading to the Munich agreement may have been somewhat* similar, the outcome couldn't have been more different.

*Serbia never sought to formally annex parts of Bosnia and while the idea of a "greater Serbia" was obviously popular with the public, Milosevic never officially supported it. It is known that he considered the idea of partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina among Serbia and Croatia prior to the conflict, but once the West strongly denounced that possibility, he accepted it.

fantic
May 8th, 2011, 05:19 AM
Like I said, the main reason they intervened decisively was that they finally had something solid to stand on and that was the Bosniak-Croat agreement that put an end to their mutual hostility.
As for his communist-like ideology, that certainly was a factor in how he was perceived by the West since the very beginning.



It made the peace accord possible, but the main question remains if the West could have done more to prevent the war, not if it could have stopped earlier.



I don't know if I can speak about the morality of the economic sanctions since I was directly influenced by those. As for the weapon embargo, it was never fully imposed since arms were being smuggled into Bosnia on a large scale.



His ideology was hunger for power. He rose on the wave on Serbian nationalism that grew in the 80's as the Serbs got increasingly dissatisfied with their status in Yugoslavia (and especially in Kosovo), which intensified when the break-up of Yugoslavia became imminent, which meant that a large number of Serbs would be left outside the borders of Serbia. His hard-line stance in the beggining of the Yugoslav wars got him a huge support by the Serbian population, but he was not a nationalist in itself. At the same time he actively sought to strengthen his position with the West when it was too much endangered - for example. Serbia imposed embargo on the Bosnian Serbs in 1994 and didn't intervene in any way when in 1995 Croatia launched an offensive and recovered its territory that the rebel Serbs had previously taken over. It should not be forgotten that he was called "a factor of peace and stability in the Balkans" by the West itself for a period in the mid-90's.

Finally, even in 1999 when he got into an open conflict with the West, he was previously willing to settle for a de facto independence of Kosovo. But that time the West really took a hardline position.

thx.

Is there any other literature (books, preferably in English :lol: ) that you would recommend to newbies? There's quite? a lot out there, so.

Slutiana
May 8th, 2011, 07:33 AM
thx.

Is there any other literature (books, preferably in English :lol: ) that you would recommend to newbies? There's quite? a lot out there, so.
I would recommend 'love thy neighbour' by a journalist called Peter Maass. He was in Bosnia during that period and the book discusses life in Bosnia at that time, the atrocities and motives of the Serbs and the west's lies and failure to intervene.

fantic
May 8th, 2011, 07:45 AM
I would recommend 'love thy neighbour' by a journalist called Peter Maass. He was in Bosnia during that period and the book discusses life in Bosnia at that time, the atrocities and motives of the Serbs and the west's lies and failure to intervene.

Just looked it up on Amazon and it seems like Rieff's book, only more intense. AND it's at the library, will borrow straightaway tomorrow :lol: Thx ;)

azdaja
May 8th, 2011, 11:32 AM
you're addressing a different matter from what I said and saying that it wasn't an appeasement. Now I'm talking about 1992~1994, BEFORE the West's decisive intervention (Rieff's book is on that period too. And how can a repo be outdated? It's not a history book. He was there, and he just wrote what he experienced)

Again you're saying sanctions and such, I'm talking about BEFORE that :help: You think UN was 'hostile' against Serbia at that time? You're sadly mistaken.
They were more impatient against Bosnia Muslims, JUST LIKE CHAMBERLAIN.

And about your comment, 'there was not that much violence for the duration of 2 years', you mean those 1st 2 years? Are you serious? Were all the reporters and officials duped or what? :lol: You said that you think they're stupid (who mentioned Munchen), but they should know about the WW2 as well as you :lol:
Also Russia was pretty blatantly favourable to Serbs, if you haven't noticed.
yes, i do think that people who compare the situation in bosnia to munich agreement are stupid. i already explained why and joana noted some important differences as well.

now, you seem to believe that an "intervention" always implies a military action. all the diplomatic and economic measures taken against serbs don't count for you. if that is the case you can read even 10 more books that will get your blood boiling, but you are simply refusing to see the reality. and the reality was that the west got the yugoslav army out of bosnia and imposed sanctions on serbia and bosnian serbs, got peace keepers in which reduced the violence and continued arming the bosnian army. i also said that a military intervention was not a viable option because the situation was very complicated and could spiral out of control. if you actually followed the news you would have been informed that a few weeks ago croatian generals were convinced of war crimes against the serbs (expulsion of serbs from croatia). would a military intervention on the side of bosnian muslims turn them into perpetrators and bosnian serbs and croats into victims? ideologically there was hardly any difference between all 3 ethnic groups, so that would have been possible. so the west waited until an agreement between croats and bosnian muslims was made which made the situation more stable and the intervention possible. and then intervened immediately. in other words they were constantly working against the interests of serbs, it's just that some guilible people (including those journalists) seem to be so bloodthirsty that they would start a war that could kill more people than the conflict that was unfolding and all that for humanitarian reasons :help: come to think of it that's precisely what happened in kosovo a few years later :tape: having good intentions sometimes just isn't enough, you know.

and i was not talking about the first 2 years. go back to my post and you will see that i stated clearly that most people were killed in the first and the last years, so i was talking about the 2 years in the middle when the number of victims per day was in single digits. that was bad, but it would have been reckless to start a military intervention when the situation actually improved as compared to the first year. and it improved because the un intervened.

as for the role of russia, it played no role whatsoever. russia was so weak it couldn't even protect its most vital interests, such as preventing east european countries from joining nato, let alone protect its traditional ally in the distant (from their point of view) balkans. even during the cold war the global outreach of the soviet union was overrated. after its collapse russia got even weaker.

as for how a repo can get outdated, it's simple. if you read a book from old times you should read it differently. such books reflect the way people were thinking at the time and you should take a distance from it and put it in the historical contest. the author bases his opinions on information he had at the time and that information is outdated form today's point of view and thusly his opinions and his book are outdated.

fantic
May 8th, 2011, 04:01 PM
yes, i do think that people who compare the situation in bosnia to munich agreement are stupid. i already explained why and joana noted some important differences as well.

now, you seem to believe that an "intervention" always implies a military action. all the diplomatic and economic measures taken against serbs don't count for you. if that is the case you can read even 10 more books that will get your blood boiling, but you are simply refusing to see the reality. and the reality was that the west got the yugoslav army out of bosnia and imposed sanctions on serbia and bosnian serbs, got peace keepers in which reduced the violence and continued arming the bosnian army. i also said that a military intervention was not a viable option because the situation was very complicated and could spiral out of control. if you actually followed the news you would have been informed that a few weeks ago croatian generals were convinced of war crimes against the serbs (expulsion of serbs from croatia). would a military intervention on the side of bosnian muslims turn them into perpetrators and bosnian serbs and croats into victims? ideologically there was hardly any difference between all 3 ethnic groups, so that would have been possible. so the west waited until an agreement between croats and bosnian muslims was made which made the situation more stable and the intervention possible. and then intervened immediately. in other words they were constantly working against the interests of serbs, it's just that some guilible people (including those journalists) seem to be so bloodthirsty that they would start a war that could kill more people than the conflict that was unfolding and all that for humanitarian reasons :help: come to think of it that's precisely what happened in kosovo a few years later :tape: having good intentions sometimes just isn't enough, you know.

and i was not talking about the first 2 years. go back to my post and you will see that i stated clearly that most people were killed in the first and the last years, so i was talking about the 2 years in the middle when the number of victims per day was in single digits. that was bad, but it would have been reckless to start a military intervention when the situation actually improved as compared to the first year. and it improved because the un intervened.

as for the role of russia, it played no role whatsoever. russia was so weak it couldn't even protect its most vital interests, such as preventing east european countries from joining nato, let alone protect its traditional ally in the distant (from their point of view) balkans. even during the cold war the global outreach of the soviet union was overrated. after its collapse russia got even weaker.

as for how a repo can get outdated, it's simple. if you read a book from old times you should read it differently. such books reflect the way people were thinking at the time and you should take a distance from it and put it in the historical contest. the author bases his opinions on information he had at the time and that information is outdated form today's point of view and thusly his opinions and his book are outdated.

I don't agree (especially about the Peace Keepers thing, it did reduce somewhat, but it wasn't THAT effective in those years. It's of course complicated, and Rieff tells about it quite plausibly. And are you saying they shouldn't have intervened, either militarily or economically at all? I'm confused. If they did not, Bosnia Muslims would've been slaughtered..and about CONSTANTLY working against Serbian interest, you know that it wasn't all that black and white. The pattern was pretty similar to the road to Munich. And like then, it was a bit too late for the military intervention, after all those massacres and ethnic cleansing. The fairness and effectiveness of the intervention at the later stages are entirely different matter, of course. I'm sure it wasn't all that effective and fair, either :tape: But I do need to read literature on 'those' period, after the late 1995 ) :shrug: but you can enlighten me on those subjects by recommending some literature :angel:

Joana
May 8th, 2011, 04:25 PM
The pattern was pretty similar to the road to Munich.

:banghead:
If it was anything remotely similar to Munich, Serbs in Bosnia would have easily ran over 2/3 of the Bosnian territory like they intended to and would have then been annexed by Serbia. Or Serbia would have simply mobilized its forces and attacked Bosnia.
Instead, the West firmly denounced any possibility of partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina and even when the negotiations between the conflicting sides on the status of the new country failed, they went on to recognize its independence. All the while Serbia was put under economic sanctions that meant that its support to Bosnian Serbs would soon be exhausted.
Where the hell you see similarities between the two is beyond me.

But if by "doing nothing" you mean that Belgrade wasn't nuked in April 1992 already, then yes, they did nothing.

fantic
May 8th, 2011, 04:34 PM
I already told you about the similar pattern of Munich and Bosnia :help: especially regarding Karadzic's 'tactics' and the UN's response :help:
Didn't you read my post? :sigh: Some UN official even said that UN wouldn't have been effective against the Holocaust, and the UN commander admitted that "'they' knew how to 'handle' UN". It's just all too similar to the Czh problem at that time. They weren't that stupid when they quoted Munich, as you think. (Well they WERE stupid in that they were pretty 'lenient' to Karadzic's tactics-those Serbs were VERY astute. Very)

fantic
May 8th, 2011, 04:36 PM
well, the consensus seems that the West & UN fucked up, no matter what :lol:

Joana
May 8th, 2011, 04:40 PM
It is stupid because those two situations have little to do with each other, for the reasons explained in this thread. But references to Nazi Germany are sure to catch people's attention, so they are being repeated without thinking.

Whether you like it or not, Karadzic was a leader of a side involved in the conflict. Therefore, they had to negotiate with him, especially when the other two sides (Bosniaks and Croats) couldn't agree with each other.

azdaja
May 8th, 2011, 04:55 PM
I don't agree (especially about the Peace Keepers thing, it did reduce somewhat, but it wasn't THAT effective in those years. It's of course complicated, and Rieff tells about it quite plausibly. And are you saying they shouldn't have intervened, either militarily or economically at all? I'm confused. If they did not, Bosnia Muslims would've been slaughtered..and about CONSTANTLY working against Serbian interest, you know that it wasn't all that black and white. The pattern was pretty similar to the road to Munich. And like then, it was a bit too late for the military intervention, after all those massacres and ethnic cleansing. The fairness and effectiveness of the intervention at the later stages are entirely different matter, of course. I'm sure it wasn't all that effective and fair, either :tape: But I do need to read literature on 'those' period, after the late 1995 ) :shrug: but you can enlighten me on those subjects by recommending some literature :angel:
about the impact of the arrival of peacekeepers i would recommend you raw data rather than a book. i used this website a couple of years ago, but back then it used to have a version in english, so you need to ask someone who can be bothered to look for and translate the findings on the number of people killed over the time.

http://www.idc.org.ba/index.php

to be fair i don't remember if it was people killed overall or just civilians, but i remember that the number of people killed was something like 5 times fewer in 1993 than 1992 and something similar when you compate 1994 to 1993 and on average for those 2 years fewer than 10 people were killed on an average day. the number of civilian casualties wasn't reduced "somewhat", but significantly. it doesn't mean that this is perfect, but it's obvious that there was a significant impact. the book you read operates with numbers inflated severalfold so it can't argue plausibly anything. if you want to make a plausible argument you need correct facts.

and i'm not going to argue about the "fairness and effectivness" of the intervention at any stages, that's not my point at all. i just don't understand people who claim that there was no intervention until nato started throwing bombs and shooting missiles. like i said, the situation was complicated and anyone who even wanted to use the military power would have been stupid to do so until at least bosnian muslims and croats stopped killing each other. i mean, do people who produce this nonsense ever think that things could have gotten worse, that more people would have died in they entered the war right away? plus, are you even aware what happened to serbs after nato started to get more tough against them in croatia, bosnia and kosovo?

of course we can question if the war could have been avoided if some decisions were taken differently (i certainly do).

and i'm arguing that the situation was not black and white myself, in fact far more so than you do.

fantic
May 8th, 2011, 05:00 PM
It is stupid because those two situations have little to do with each other, for the reasons explained in this thread. But references to Nazi Germany are sure to catch people's attention, so they are being repeated without thinking.

Whether you like it or not, Karadzic was a leader of a side involved in the conflict. Therefore, they had to negotiate with him, especially when the other two sides (Bosniaks and Croats) couldn't agree with each other.

you're focusing on the dissimilarity, I on the similarity :shrug: No doubt that your contention is right, but when they say 'Munich', you know what it connotes. It's about the 'pattern' of negotiation ( I thought everybody knows this)

I'm not saying Karadzic was not a leader of the Bosnian Serbs. Of course he was, so they had to negotiate with him. I was just pointing out the 'pattern' of repeated violation of Karadzic and the 'ever-patient' response from the UN, and a LOT of UN officials' stance and attitude against the Bosnian Muslims.

Like in the Czh affair, like Chamberlain and Co., UN officials openly complained - quite frequently - about Bosnian Muslim leaders and even said that they were a stumbling block to peace negotiation. (Well of course at that time the Serbians were practically overunning the provinces so the Muslim leaders couldn't accept the 'fait accompli' :tape: )

UN officials hobnobbed with Serbs leaders A LOT, and the UN special envoy Yatsushi Akashi (he was a very competent and veteran diplomat, everybody hoped that he would defuse the situation. It turned out that he utterly failed :tape: he was pretty much favourable to the Serbian interest, you could say he was duped.) even told that he thought Karadzic 'a man of Peace' (one of the most fatuous comments in history, right up to Chamberlain's announcement :tape: ) If these can't remind you of Munich, well... :shrug:

azdaja
May 8th, 2011, 05:01 PM
But if by "doing nothing" you mean that Belgrade wasn't nuked in April 1992 already, then yes, they did nothing.
this seems to be the logic behind this way of thinking. the west should use bombs, it doesn't matter if their intentions are genuine or if the situation will improve or get worse, just don't stand around without using bombs.

that "first do no harm" thingy simply doesn't exist for them.

azdaja
May 8th, 2011, 05:05 PM
you're focusing on the dissimilarity, I on the similarity :shrug:
exactly. wanna bet that i can find similarties between you and hitler, hilary clinton, elvis presley and anyone else without much difficulty? :lol:

the difference between joana and myself and you and your dear journo is that we concentrate on essential things while you are chasing superficial similarities which undoubtedly do exist.

Joana
May 8th, 2011, 05:19 PM
about the impact of the arrival of peacekeepers i would recommend you raw data rather than a book. i used this website a couple of years ago, but back then it used to have a version in english, so you need to ask someone who can be bothered to look for and translate the findings on the number of people killed over the time.

http://www.idc.org.ba/index.php
a plausible argument you need correct facts.


I found it.

The total number of casualties during the war is estimated at around 97 000. Out of those, about 45 000 were killed in 1992, including 22 000 civilians. The peak was in the period May-July when almost 15 000 civilians were killed.
The number of casualties in 1993 is slightly under 20 000, as well as in 1995. In 1994 it was under 10 000.
In 1992, civilians made up slightly under 50% of all casualties, which is in stark contrast to 1993 (around 25%) and especially 1994 (around 15%). In 1995, however, there were more civilian than military casualties, but that's the year Srebrenica happened. In fact, Srebrenica makes for more than 90% of all civilian victims in 1995.
In total, civilians make up around 40% of all casulties in the war. Bosniaks make up about 65% of all victims and over 80% of civilian victims in the war.

azdaja
May 8th, 2011, 07:48 PM
I found it.

The total number of casualties during the war is estimated at around 97 000. Out of those, about 45 000 were killed in 1992, including 22 000 civilians. The peak was in the period May-July when almost 15 000 civilians were killed.
The number of casualties in 1993 is slightly under 20 000, as well as in 1995. In 1994 it was under 10 000.
In 1992, civilians made up slightly under 50% of all casualties, which is in stark contrast to 1993 (around 25%) and especially 1994 (around 15%). In 1995, however, there were more civilian than military casualties, but that's the year Srebrenica happened. In fact, Srebrenica makes for more than 90% of all civilian victims in 1995.
In total, civilians make up around 40% of all casulties in the war. Bosniaks make up about 65% of all victims and over 80% of civilian victims in the war.
thanks a lot for the effort :worship:

it goes to show that the improvement was not negligible like some people and outdated writers claim :rolleyes:

fantic
May 8th, 2011, 09:41 PM
exactly. wanna bet that i can find similarties between you and hitler, hilary clinton, elvis presley and anyone else without much difficulty? :lol:

the difference between joana and myself and you and your dear journo is that we concentrate on essential things while you are chasing superficial similarities which undoubtedly do exist.

okay, if you say so :shrug:
maybe comparing Karadzic & co's tactic with Hitler's would be more exact :devil: (and of course UN et al. to Chamberlain)

and when did I say intervention was purely at the later military stages? and bombing should've been commenced earlier? :confused: Rieff's contention is basically that UN's intervention (especially the Peacekeeping Corps) in those early years WAS A FAILURE, however good their intention was. I don't think that essential message is outdated. :shrug:

fantic
May 9th, 2011, 12:17 AM
about the later bombing, France advocated sending Ground Troops.

It was BRITAIN that wanted aerial bombing (pretty reminiscent of Churchill in WW1 & 2. No wonder some say Anglo-Saxons are ruthless...)

Danči Dementia
May 9th, 2011, 10:31 AM
Perhaps they quoted it because they didn't really know what happened in Munich. While the circumstances leading to the Munich agreement may have been somewhat* similar, the outcome couldn't have been more different.

*Serbia never sought to formally annex parts of Bosnia and while the idea of a "greater Serbia" was obviously popular with the public, Milosevic never officially supported it. It is known that he considered the idea of partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina among Serbia and Croatia prior to the conflict, but once the West strongly denounced that possibility, he accepted it.


do you think think this considerations could have become reality?

:banghead:
If it was anything remotely similar to Munich, Serbs in Bosnia would have easily ran over 2/3 of the Bosnian territory like they intended to and would have then been annexed by Serbia. Or Serbia would have simply mobilized its forces and attacked Bosnia.
Instead, the West firmly denounced any possibility of partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina and even when the negotiations between the conflicting sides on the status of the new country failed, they went on to recognize its independence. All the while Serbia was put under economic sanctions that meant that its support to Bosnian Serbs would soon be exhausted.
Where the hell you see similarities between the two is beyond me.

But if by "doing nothing" you mean that Belgrade wasn't nuked in April 1992 already, then yes, they did nothing.

what´s nuked??

Danči Dementia
May 9th, 2011, 10:41 AM
thanks a lot for the effort :worship:

it goes to show that the improvement was not negligible like some people and outdated writers claim :rolleyes:

and that´s a big problem, that´s with what most people stays with.

during those times I remember watching lots of nasty news on TV (now I know that Mexican TV when it comes to international matters is as useless as Dementieva´s serve, but back then I believed in it :o)

always, always the Serbians were the criminals, really the image of Serbians portrayed by the media during this and Kosovo was awful.

many stayed with that idea, for example at my university, we were talking about war crimes on international law class and everyone responses was "the Serbians", they killed MILLIONS (yes they always said millions) in Croatia, more millions in Bosnia and others in Kosovo for almost a decade.
I tried to answer to my classmates statements, but basically I was the only one, not even a chance of debating at all (with Kosovo was diffrent though) which I found to be quite appaling and it kind of saddens me a little that the prejudice is there and they won´t even bother to do their own research and have their own conclusions, specially given the future degree we´ll get once we graduate :tape: :/

Melange
May 10th, 2011, 03:00 AM
and that´s a big problem, that´s with what most people stays with.

during those times I remember watching lots of nasty news on TV (now I know that Mexican TV when it comes to international matters is as useless as Dementieva´s serve, but back then I believed in it :o)

always, always the Serbians were the criminals, really the image of Serbians portrayed by the media during this and Kosovo was awful.

many stayed with that idea, for example at my university, we were talking about war crimes on international law class and everyone responses was "the Serbians", they killed MILLIONS (yes they always said millions) in Croatia, more millions in Bosnia and others in Kosovo for almost a decade.
I tried to answer to my classmates statements, but basically I was the only one, not even a chance of debating at all (with Kosovo was diffrent though) which I found to be quite appaling and it kind of saddens me a little that the prejudice is there and they won´t even bother to do their own research and have their own conclusions, specially given the future degree we´ll get once we graduate :tape: :/

:haha: just be thankful theres no fox news there or they would watch that too

Boschco
May 10th, 2011, 10:20 AM
@fanatic... you live in usa right?

*JR*
May 10th, 2011, 02:55 PM
about the later bombing, France advocated sending Ground Troops.

It was BRITAIN that wanted aerial bombing (pretty reminiscent of Churchill in WW1 & 2. No wonder some say Anglo-Saxons are ruthless...)

Churchill also wanted summary executions of the Nazi leadership after WW II, it was the Americans who forced there 2B the Nurnberg trials (where some were actually acquitted, or got more modest sentences). And Sir Winston had a lot to do with carving "Ulster Province" out of Ireland, as WW I convinced him that the Royal Navy needed a nearby refuge in the event of a new war.

Some leading Serbs said about the US, etc. re. the 1999 bombing: "You're willing to kill, but not to die". BTW (and this is mere speculation I heard, I have no evidence for it) there was talk that a reason Bush Sr. insisted on an independent Bosnia related to the Middle East: that whenever he'd cited Desert Storm as the US defending (Kuwaiti) Muslims, critics said that it was only to protect the oil supply.

Talita Kumi
May 10th, 2011, 02:57 PM
:sobbing: :hug:...NATO, UN :rolleyes:
z7FM0zuuwBM

Boschco
May 10th, 2011, 03:08 PM
:sobbing: :hug:...NATO, UN :rolleyes:
z7FM0zuuwBM

what a disscusting, ill minded attempt (succesfull i must ad), to gain political-media-economic benefits with the bosses...
boss- a higher ranking member of claptocratic establishment caled "IMF" or "World bank" or "JP Mrgans"...

Am i making myself clear here?

Brena
May 10th, 2011, 05:46 PM
Since I (unwittingly :facepalm:) started this topic, I might as well post something here.
First of all, contrary to what my flag claims, I'm a Serb from Serbia, so this topic upsets me a lot and I can't view it or discuss it with the calmness Joana and azdaja can. Also, their knowledge on the topic is vaster than mine, and if you forgive azdaja for being a bit rude occasionally (which I put down to his being a vicious JJ-hating ancitard :oh:), they present it all really well. :worship: And thanks to fantic for opening the thread, since it is very interesting and relevant indeed (even though our views clash). :worship:
I don't like to participate in this kind of discussions precisely because of what Safe-From-Harm has said - I wasn't directly involved in it so my preaching about the moral rights and wrongs of that war may insult someone whose life was turned upside down by it, who may have lost someone close in the war and so on. But I still can't help having a stance on it.
What bothers me the most is the Western mainstream media misinformation campaign that has seemingly forever turned Serbian nation into blood-thirsty monsters who have committed ''the worst crimes Europe has seen since the WWII'' ''in the name of the Greater Serbia''. Just like that. CNN, BBC and Fox have said it so it must be true. Have they offered any proofs or logical explanations for these (and many pother) claims?
To be able to understand the entire idiocy of ''the Greater Serbia'' claim, I suppose one should get acquainted with the history of the region and the peoples involved - for example, with the Nazi history of Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Albanians. I may have not lost any family members in teh Bosnian war, but I have lost family members in the WWII. They weren't killed by the Germans, but by Croats. Some of them for fighting against the Nazis, some of them just for being Serbs. Croatian Nazi concentration camps are world famous (or they used to be before the Serbs became the villains). And yet, after the war, Serbia reunited with both Croats and Bosnian Muslims in Yugoslavia. Helped them develop economies and infrustructures. Let the Albanians who killed them in both WWs and kept doing so ever after have schools in their language. When refugees flooded from Bosnia, those weren't just Serbs. Many Bosnian Muslims came with them as well and were accepted (I was 11-12 years old and went to school with those children). And today, while it's perefectly normal in Croatia (a EU membership candidate!) to publicly sing Nazi songs about lynching Serbs (look up ''Thompson''), in Serbia you're branded a nationalist and a Nazi even if you're just dressed as a skinhead.
Only people who really have no clue about Serbia and the region could believe in the existance of the ''Greater Serbia'' concept. Not to mention that even the Hague tribubnal has never managed to prove its existance at any of the trials (including Milosevic's). Incidentally, if someone is really really interested in all this (and idle), they could check out the transcripts of Milosevic's trial. It would take ages, but it would be interesting to note how few allegations against him (or rather, against Serbia) have been proved (not due to his sudden death, but rather to the lack of evidence).
The other favourite ''fact'' is Srebrenica, ''the Serbian genocide''. I have already posted links to articles, sites and books that have several times over disproved ridiculous claims about that event, the number and the identitites of the victims. It's obviously one of the best propaganda efforts in history.
Anyway, what I meant to say is that what bothers me is lies and propaganda that we keep seeing again and again. (that U2 video being a fabulous example - I mean, if Bono says it's true, how can in not be? Fuck that old fart Harold Pinter and his efforts to let the truth about Western lies on Yugoslavia be known, Bono knowz!!1) And I even think Serbia got off lightly. What has since be done to Iraq and what's now being done to Libya thanks to teh same media and spin-doctors is much worse. I can't even wrap up my mind around the tragedy of Iraqi people - their country flattened, half of them killed, the other half left to die a slower death in poverty and Shii-Suni clashes. But Saddam was very evil and he killed hundereds of people, so the West had to help, bring democracy and kill millions. He had a weapon of mass-destruction. Ok, he didn't really. The West finally admitted it, but was anyone prosecuted for unlawfully attacking a sovereign country on false grounds and causing a demise of so many people? Bush? Blair? Media? Has anyone said - ok, should we ever believe them again, or should we question their previous claims (about Serbs for example)? Now, Gaddafi's really evil, he has a lot of money in European banks which had to be confiscated and used for humanitarian purposes, and his people and grandchildren must be killed. I mean... REALLY? REALLY???? I sometimes think it's just a bad dream and that amount of lies, hypocricy, greed, callousness and plain BARBARISM that constitutes today's ''civilised'' Europe and the US just cannot be true, but not only is it real, it's like the ''Groundhog Day'' - it's happening again and again and we're all swallowing it.
Ok, this was quite a rambling, I wanted to write just a short post on why this topic upsets me and why I don't like to discuss it, but it's all so complicated it obviously wasn't possible. Sorry.

Boschco
May 10th, 2011, 05:54 PM
Since I (unwittingly :facepalm:) started this topic, I might as well post something here.
First of all, contrary to what my flag claims, I'm a Serb from Serbia, so this topic upsets me a lot and I can't view it or discuss it with the calmness Joana and azdaja can. Also, their knowledge on the topic is vaster than mine, and if you forgive azdaja for being a bit rude occasionally (which I put down to his being a vicious JJ-hating ancitard :oh:), they present it all really well. :worship: And thanks to fantic for opening the thread, since it is very interesting and relevant indeed (even though our views clash). :worship:
I don't like to participate in this kind of discussions precisely because of what Safe-From-Harm has said - I wasn't directly involved in it so my preaching about the moral rights and wrongs of that war may insult someone whose life was turned upside down by it, who may have lost someone close in the war and so on. But I still can't help having a stance on it.
What bothers me the most is the Western mainstream media misinformation campaign that has seemingly forever turned Serbian nation into blood-thirsty monsters who have committed ''the worst crimes Europe has seen since the WWII'' ''in the name of the Greater Serbia''. Just like that. CNN, BBC and Fox have said it so it must be true. Have they offered any proofs or logical explanations for these (and many pother) claims?
To be able to understand the entire idiocy of ''the Greater Serbia'' claim, I suppose one should get acquainted with the history of the region and the peoples involved - for example, with the Nazi history of Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Albanians. I may have not lost any family members in teh Bosnian war, but I have lost family members in the WWII. They weren't killed by the Germans, but by Croats. Some of them for fighting against the Nazis, some of them just for being Serbs. Croatian Nazi concentration camps are world famous (or they used to be before the Serbs became the villains). And yet, after the war, Serbia reunited with both Croats and Bosnian Muslims in Yugoslavia. Helped them develop economies and infrustructures. Let the Albanians who killed them in both WWs and kept doing so ever after have schools in their language. When refugees flooded from Bosnia, those weren't just Serbs. Many Bosnian Muslims came with them as well and were accepted (I was 11-12 years old and went to school with those children). And today, while it's perefectly normal in Croatia (a EU membership candidate!) to publicly sing Nazi songs about lynching Serbs (look up ''Thompson''), in Serbia you're branded a nationalist and a Nazi even if you're just dressed as a skinhead.
Only people who really have no clue about Serbia and the region could believe in the existance of the ''Greater Serbia'' concept. Not to mention that even the Hague tribubnal has never managed to prove its existance at any of the trials (including Milosevic's). Incidentally, if someone is really really interested in all this (and idle), they could check out the transcripts of Milosevic's trial. It would take ages, but it would be interesting to note how few allegations against him (or rather, against Serbia) have been proved (not due to his sudden death, but rather to the lack of evidence).
The other favourite ''fact'' is Srebrenica, ''the Serbian genocide''. I have already posted links to articles, sites and books that have several times over disproved ridiculous claims about that event, the number and the identitites of the victims. It's obviously one of the best propaganda efforts in history.
Anyway, what I meant to say is that what bothers me is lies and propaganda that we keep seeing again and again. (that U2 video being a fabulous example - I mean, if Bono says it's true, how can in not be? Fuck that old fart Harold Pinter and his efforts to let the truth about Western lies on Yugoslavia be known, Bono knowz!!1) And I even think Serbia got off lightly. What has since be done to Iraq and what's now being done to Libya thanks to teh same media and spin-doctors is much worse. I can't even wrap up my mind around the tragedy of Iraqian people - their country flattened, half of them killed, the other half left to die a slower death in poverty and Shii-Suni clashes. But Saddam was very evil and he killed hundereds of people, so the West had to help, bring democracy and kill millions. Now, Gaddafi's really evil, he has a lot of money in European banks which had to be confiscated and used for humanitarian purposes, and his people and grandchildren must be killed. I mean... REALLY? REALLY???? I sometimes think it's just a bad dream and that amount of lies, hypocricy, greed, callousness and plain BARBARISM that constitutes today's ''civilised'' Europe and the US just cannot be true, but not only is it real, it's like the ''Groundhog Day'' - it's happening again and again and we're all swallowing it.
Ok, this was quite a rambling, I wanted to write just a short post on why this topic upsets me and why I don't like to discuss it, but it's all so complicated it obviously wasn't possible. Sorry.

E zato te volim...
By the way bono is having to explain a huge financial scandal with one of his charity funds...
Here you go:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314543/Bonos-ONE-foundation-giving-tiny-percentage-funds-charity.html#ixzz10TNqfRuo

And tax evasion... etc...

njnetswill
May 10th, 2011, 06:56 PM
The real tragedy is that today in Bosnia, families and students from different ethnic groups refuse to even coexist in the same room. That is the real tragedy. Bosnian Croats using textbooks from Zagreb in their schools, Bosnian Serbs using books from Belgrade. The town of Mostar, split in half. Muslims using the school buildings in the morning and then the Croats in the afternoon. These are the realities that we see today. These are the issues we need to be focusing on, not blame wars for events of the past.

Boschco
May 10th, 2011, 10:18 PM
The real tragedy is that today in Bosnia, families and students from different ethnic groups refuse to even coexist in the same room. That is the real tragedy. Bosnian Croats using textbooks from Zagreb in their schools, Bosnian Serbs using books from Belgrade. The town of Mostar, split in half. Muslims using the school buildings in the morning and then the Croats in the afternoon. These are the realities that we see today. These are the issues we need to be focusing on, not blame wars for events of the past.

again a question, do you live in USA?

fantic
May 11th, 2011, 01:04 AM
again a question, do you live in USA?

What's the point of this question?

I do, so? You're a Serb, so? :shrug:

fantic
May 11th, 2011, 01:20 AM
Just borrowed

Peter Maass' 'Love thy Neighbor' ,touching on the period between 1992 & 3,

and David Rohde's 'Endgame' ,a report about Srebrenica (Rohde is a Pulitzer prize winner on his reports on Bosnia)

fantic
May 11th, 2011, 01:26 AM
Noam Chomsky wrote about Kosovo;

The New Military Humanism: Lessons From Kosovo by Noam Chomsky (Jul 1, 2002)

njnetswill
May 11th, 2011, 01:33 AM
What's the point of this question?

I do, so? You're a Serb, so? :shrug:

He's one of those people that thinks that Americans are all idiots who are incapable of understanding this topic because we don't live there. He wants to know if we are American so when we say "yes", all he has to do is say "You are an American! You don't understand anything! You have been fooled by your government and your biased media!"

Basically, he wants to discount the validity of any thoughts or ideas from 300 million people simply because of their nationality. ;)

It's funny that in a thread about ethnic nationalism here is this person judging people simply because of their nationality. :lol:

fifty-fifty
May 11th, 2011, 03:02 AM
The real tragedy is that today in Bosnia, families and students from different ethnic groups refuse to even coexist in the same room. That is the real tragedy. Bosnian Croats using textbooks from Zagreb in their schools, Bosnian Serbs using books from Belgrade. The town of Mostar, split in half. Muslims using the school buildings in the morning and then the Croats in the afternoon. These are the realities that we see today. These are the issues we need to be focusing on, not blame wars for events of the past.


What else did you expected? At least they don't try kill each other.

delicatecutter
May 11th, 2011, 03:42 AM
A few years ago there was a piece on the radio about people who missed Yugoslavia. It's really not hard to see why now. Truth be told, these were people from Slovenia who got off easy, which makes it even more interesting.

rada
May 11th, 2011, 05:21 AM
hmmm how many of you lived IN Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia during the war?? most of you have no idea what you are talking about the war was horrible :(

A Magicman
May 11th, 2011, 06:26 AM
The real tragedy is that today in Bosnia, families and students from different ethnic groups refuse to even coexist in the same room. That is the real tragedy. Bosnian Croats using textbooks from Zagreb in their schools, Bosnian Serbs using books from Belgrade. The town of Mostar, split in half. Muslims using the school buildings in the morning and then the Croats in the afternoon. These are the realities that we see today. These are the issues we need to be focusing on, not blame wars for events of the past.

Sounds like a failed state. Not more, not less.

Boschco
May 11th, 2011, 09:08 AM
What's the point of this question?

I do, so? You're a Serb, so? :shrug:

you do, do you have all issues resolved there?

I am a Srb yes, thank God...

Boschco
May 11th, 2011, 09:14 AM
He's one of those people that thinks that Americans are all idiots who are incapable of understanding this topic because we don't live there. He wants to know if we are American so when we say "yes", all he has to do is say "You are an American! You don't understand anything! You have been fooled by your government and your biased media!"

Basically, he wants to discount the validity of any thoughts or ideas from 300 million people simply because of their nationality. ;)

It's funny that in a thread about ethnic nationalism here is this person judging people simply because of their nationality. :lol:

North american is a nationality? please explain...
And that would be you representing ideas of those 300.000.000 people?
And finaly: The present president of Usa, got a nobel peace prize with just 2 weeks in power, for peace i must say it again... And o boy does he deserve it... plenty of time before next election left to bring some more peace to some more countries and nations...
we will continue this pleasent chatting, later i gotta go and shave my face...